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

December 8, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Dec-08 (PDF)

L081 - Wed 8 Dec 2010 / Mer 8 déc 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 8 December 2010 Mercredi 8 décembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

INJURED WORKERS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

CHILD CARE

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

COMMUNITY SAFETY

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

DEFERRED VOTES

HELPING ONTARIO FAMILIES AND

MANAGING RESPONSIBLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AIDE

AUX FAMILLES ONTARIENNES

ET LA GESTION RESPONSABLE

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHICKEN FARMERS OF ONTARIO

FREDERICK HARRIS

CHICKEN FARMERS OF ONTARIO

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

EVENTS IN OTTAWA CENTRE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

EVENTS IN

LAMBTON–KENT–MIDDLESEX

PERIMETER INSTITUTE

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEERS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’ASSOCIATION

DES INGÉNIEURS DE L’ONTARIO

UKRAINIAN HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE UKRAINIEN

PETITIONS

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

SOLAR ENERGY PROJECTS

HYDRO RATES

CEMETERIES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HYDRO RATES

CEMETERIES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 7, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 140,

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

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 140, legislation dealing with Ontario’s long-term affordable housing strategy. I’m very happy to speak on this very important initiative of our government.

Let me give you a bit of background as to why this issue is an extremely important one for me and my riding of Ottawa Centre. As you know, I represent a downtown community in the heart of the city of Ottawa. I think—and I’ve done the math before—I can definitely say that in my riding of Ottawa Centre, within the boundaries of Ottawa, I have the largest number of affordable housing units that are available.

Obviously, because of that, I have a great amount of opportunity to work with various affordable housing providers to make sure that we are working on ensuring that there is ample, sustainable, good affordable housing available to members of my community, not only in Ottawa Centre but all across the city of Ottawa.

Just to mention a few of the housing providers that exist and operate within my riding—and that doesn’t exclude the others—the big ones that come to mind are, for example, Ottawa Community Housing, which is probably the largest landlord in the city of Ottawa. Jo-Anne Poirier is the chief executive officer, an extremely capable individual who is doing incredible work with Ottawa Community Housing in making sure that there’s good, safe, affordable housing available within the riding of Ottawa Centre. Also, I have CCOC—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Ottawa Centre, just a moment. Minister of Tourism and Culture?

Hon. Michael Chan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to clarify remarks I made on Thursday, December 2. I was referring to the contract the Niagara Parks Commission entered into for external auditors, Grant Thornton, which was competitively tendered in August. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That is a point of order. A member is allowed to correct his own record. It’s just a bit unusual to interrupt debate to do it.

The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. I don’t mind at all. Thank you, Minister, for taking the opportunity.

I was talking about various service providers that exist in my community of Ottawa Centre and do an excellent job in providing affordable housing. I mentioned Ottawa Community Housing. There is the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corp., CCOC, led by Ray Sullivan, another great organization which is providing rent-geared-to-income housing. The Multifaith Housing Initiative, led by Sue Evans, is another very important grassroots organization in my community, led by members of various faith groups who are doing incredible work.

Very recently, they held a dinner—I think the first one at the city hall—on National Housing Day, to highlight the importance of affordable housing in our communities and the need to have a national housing strategy in Canada; I will speak to that in a moment.

Another organization I really want to highlight because of the great work it does is Cornerstone. Cornerstone is geared towards providing housing for women, especially women who are escaping domestic violence. They have quite a few housing units in my riding of Ottawa Centre and are an incredible organization. They have a couple of really good projects on the go which I will speak of in a moment.

When I ran in 2007, affordable housing was a big issue in my riding. During the campaign and before, when I was involved with the Centretown Community Health Centre, I learned how important it was to have clean, safe, sustainable affordable housing in the community. This is people’s shelter. This is ensuring that people continue to build their lives in a constructive, positive fashion; and if they don’t have safe, clean housing available to them, there are just that many more barriers to having a sustainable, constructive, positive life.

We’ve had challenges in Ottawa, but I have to say that what I’ve noticed, definitely since 2007, since I’ve been very involved as the member for Ottawa Centre, is that we have seen some incredible, positive investments being made in Ottawa Centre. We’re talking about investments in terms of both maintaining existing housing stock, as the language goes, existing units that are available, to make sure that they are maintained and updated, and again, that they’re clean and safe, and to building new affordable housing units in the community so that we can take people off the waiting list.

That has been a big emphasis of my work. I wanted to share some of the accomplishments with you because I think they tie in really well with what this long-term affordable housing strategy is trying to accomplish.

Before I do that, I want to highlight that I’ve got a huge complement of various forms of affordable housing in my riding. I’ve got a lot of co-ops, and I want to recognize Karen Sexsmith, somebody who is very instrumental in a very important way in making sure that we allow ownership in our housing mechanism at a sustainable price. We’ve got affordable housing, rent-geared-to-income housing and supportive housing, which is also important and which I will speak to in a moment.

As you know, in June 2009 Ontario signed the Canada-Ontario affordable housing agreement and pledged to invest about $622 million in social and affordable housing, for a total federal-provincial two-year commitment of $1.2 billion. Under this agreement, Ontario will contribute the following: $153.9 million for new rental housing for low-income seniors, for, I believe, a total federal-provincial funding of about $307.8 million; $28.8 million for new rental housing for disabled persons, a total federal-provincial funding of $57.7 million; and $352.2 million for social housing repair and retrofit programs, a total federal-provincial contribution of $704.4 million.

This program in totality—and that’s about $1.2 billion, both federal and provincial—will build about 4,500 new affordable housing units, and approximately 50,000 social housing units will be repaired, generating about 23,000 jobs. These are quite impressive numbers. I think it’s important to remember that that’s a huge infusion of capital dollars, not only in building new affordable housing units, but also maintaining and repairing existing ones.

Now, what that means for Ottawa and particularly Ottawa Centre—the work that is going on—is something I’m proud of. We have invested $6 million for a 55-unit project sponsored by the Shepherds of Good Hope on Merivale Road in my riding of Ottawa Centre. This is a very important project, because these 55 units are geared toward chronically homeless men. The majority of these men, 52 of them, never had homes, never had a roof over their head, and this is the very first time they can call a place their home. This is where they now live permanently.

Here’s an interesting thing about these men as well: Besides being chronically homeless, a lot of them had addictions like alcohol and drugs. They have gone through a managed addiction program and are now quite ahead on the road to recovery. By giving them good housing, we’re really helping them.

This is a project which, as I mentioned, is part of the Shepherds of Good Hope but is also a part of the inner-city health initiative led by Dr. Jeffrey Turnbull, who I believe is president of the Canadian Medical Association and also chief of staff at the Ottawa Hospital. Dr. Turnbull was speaking at the Salvation Army Hope in the City Breakfast two weeks ago and was talking about this particular project and the kinds of incredible health benefits already coming out of it. The beauty of this project is that it is supportive housing, so what we’re seeing is health, social services and housing services provided in one location, an incredible project that I’m very proud of.

There are about six projects in Ottawa that are being sponsored by the city of Ottawa to the tune of about $720,000. Another very important project is the Beaver Barracks project, led by the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation, CCOC: $18.3 million to build 248 new units in Ottawa Centre. I had an opportunity earlier in the spring to visit these projects while under construction—just incredible.

I’m really looking forward to this brand new affordable housing: environmentally energy efficient, and great leadership in terms of the kind of new investment we need to make in terms of sustainable, affordable housing units. Another great project taking place; actually the ribbon cutting will be very soon, and I believe people are moving in as we speak.

Also, very important investments of about $21 million in 2009-10 and $25 million in 2010-11 for repairs under the social housing repair and retrofit program. And this is the important part: People who live in these affordable housing units want to make sure they continue to live in a clean and safe environment. It’s the small things like elevators not working—things that may be small for us—that impact quality of life and really drag that whole community down. We need to make sure that we’re investing dollars on those types of initiatives, those types of basic necessities of life, so that people continue to live with dignity. That is extremely important.

I often visit various affordable housing units in my riding, especially in the winter months, and I can see the difference. You go into buildings and they have new carpets, are freshly painted and the elevators are working. People are happy; people are smiling. The other day, I was in Gladstone Heights, on the corner of Gladstone and Preston in my riding. The building has gone through some significant investments. It’s a seniors’ building. I’ve been in the building before, and you always hear a dozen or so different complaints about the condition the building is in, and because of that, neighbours are somehow not getting along and there’s tension.

This time when I went into that building, seniors were smiling. I got only two complaints while I was knocking on doors. And what were those complaints? The lid on the garbage chute was brand new, so it was too hard for seniors to open. That was the biggest complaint I received. I was very happy to receive that complaint. It was legitimate, and I did check it. It was too hard to open and needed some WD-40 to make it easier. But you could just see the positive impact that the dollars that were invested in that particular community had created, where people were happy and comfortable and involved in their building. You could see the changes that were taking place.

I can go through a list of various retrofit and repair projects going on in my riding right now that are having an incredible impact, from fixing roofs to elevator repairs to foundation repairs to mould remediation, which is extremely important because it impacts people’s health. Roof and furnace replacement and changing windows and doors makes a lot of these units built in the 1960s and 1970s energy efficient. These are the kinds of investments we need to make that will create a positive, healthy environment for those who live in those communities and ensure that people continue to live with dignity. I’m very proud that we are seeing those kinds of things in Ottawa Centre.

When the whole affordable housing strategy consultation started, I had the privilege of hosting a community consultation in my riding on August 19, 2009. I have to say that I pretty much hold a community dialogue—a consultation—on a monthly basis in my riding. The one in August of last year was the most involved, engaged and well attended. It was incredible to see the number of people who came with their ideas, and we had a really healthy conversation and discussion as to what Ontario’s long-term affordable housing strategy should look like.

I’ll be very frank with you: Does the affordable housing strategy that the government has put forward through Bill 140 hit every single mark? No. Is it a great start, for the first time that we’ve got a positive long-term strategy in the province of Ontario? Absolutely, yes. So it’s a work in progress. We will continue to work together.

Here are a few of the things that were part of the consultation—we did put in a report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, at that time, of some recommendations that came out of Ottawa Centre’s consultation, which are part of this affordable housing strategy. For example, in Ottawa Centre’s consultation, participants recommended eliminating conflicting policies and regulations, and wanted more centralized organization of services, specifically between the three levels of government, but of course with the province to initiate.

We are seeing, in the long-term affordable housing strategy, that the government is taking action to consolidate and harmonize the patchwork of programs that allow municipalities to use funding in a more flexible manner to better meet people’s individual housing needs. So, there is a direct correlation as to what was recommended and what is being done here.

Another recommendation was on rent adjustments and calculations, specifically suggesting increasing the asset exemption and increasing income limits dealing with rent geared to income. Through this long-term affordable housing strategy, the government is simplifying the current RGI calculation process, reducing and eliminating more than 60 criteria now used to calculate income and reducing the administrative burden for tenants, housing providers and service managers, another positive step and recommendation that was made by the consultation that took place in Ottawa Centre.

Another recommendation was made with regard to the government providing better reporting and results data on many important affordable housing indicators. I believe we’re seeing, in the long-term housing strategy, that there will be multiple reporting requirements for housing programs with different reporting cycles and frequencies, another positive step.

I would say that there were two areas that were raised in Ottawa Centre’s consultation and are not included in this affordable housing strategy. One was the addition of inclusionary zoning. Unfortunately, that is not part of this long-term housing strategy. I understand the debate that surrounds that particular issue. From my point of view, from my community’s point of view, I would have preferred to see inclusionary zoning included in the long-term affordable housing strategy.

I understand that the Planning Act—I believe it’s

section 31 that allows for municipalities to be more flexible in terms of their own zoning and allows for those types of situations. So we will continue to work in our community with the city of Ottawa to find opportunities for some unique ways where we can bring all partners together—developers, affordable housing providers, housing advocates and the community—to maybe come up with those unique projects.

The other is having a sustainable track in terms of capital funding required for a lot of these projects. We are in dire fiscal times; I think we all know that. Government is making a significant contribution. I talked about a $1.2-billion federal-provincial contribution in the last two years, which is making very significant, positive impact on the community. But having a long-term affordable housing strategy is a first step. By getting the mechanisms, the regulations right, as the financial situation of the province improves, we can talk about the capital needs as well.

But I think what is very much needed—and I see I’ve got very little time—is that we need the federal government at the table as well. We need a national housing strategy. No government, municipal or provincial, can just work alone and deal with such a significant challenge like affordable housing.

I think Ontario has taken the right step in terms of having a long-term housing strategy. It is time that the federal government also comes to the table so that the kind of positive changes I was talking about that are being made in Ottawa Centre, in my community, can also be made across the province and across the country.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? The member for Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, this is the first time you’ve been in the chair since you announced that next year you’re going to go on to bigger and better things with your family, and I wanted to extend my best. I’ve always enjoyed you in the House in your capacity as Chair, but also as we spar sometimes across the way. I wish you much happiness in 2011 as it approaches.

I want to also thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre, who rose in defence of his community.

Having said that, the official opposition does have some concerns with this piece of legislation. As I spoke to this bill yesterday, my colleague from Burlington, who is our critic for municipal affairs and housing and who has an extensive background in municipal affairs, has raised some concerns, specifically—and I put this to the member—that the government, regardless of the rhetoric in here, has failed from time to time—most of the time—to meet their commitment to develop a 10-year affordable housing plan.

Instead, with this legislation they have placed this cumbersome and potentially costly task on the local service managers so that once again they are able to step back in the event of failure and blame somebody else.

Let’s talk about that for one moment, because that is one of the big concerns the official opposition, the Ontario PC caucus, has, is this blame game, whether it’s from time to time blaming Stephen Harper or blaming Mike Harris or Ernie Eves. This week, we actually heard them blame municipalities for something. The reality is that at some point in time after seven and a half years you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

That is, I think, the most critical criticism that the official opposition has with this legislation. If you’re going to put forward a substantive piece of legislation, make sure that you get it right. Make sure it’s available to the opposition members in time, which this bill wasn’t. And ensure as well that your stakeholders are part of the planning process.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I no doubt want to underline that the member who presented tries as much as he can in order to do what he can for his constituents, as we all do in this assembly, when it comes to not-for-profit housing or what it might be.

The issue to me, however, is, where are we at when it comes to not-for-profit housing in the province of Ontario today compared to what it was eight years ago or what it was even 20 years ago? Ontario is no longer in the not-for-profit housing business in the way that it used to be. We had a very proud history in the province dating back into the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, where massive investments were made in order to build not-for-profit housing projects across this province. Why? Because the private sector, as far as the market itself, did not provide the units necessary in order for many families to find a home.

In my own community—I’m sure it’s the same in other communities—I have people who are calling my constituency office on a regular basis, saying that they’re not able to find a place to live. I have a family that we’ve been dealing with in a constituency office, as a matter of fact, just this last week. They have been given notice to vacate their apartment because the owner of the building wants to move into the building himself or a family member wants to move in, which is that owner’s right. But there’s nowhere for this family to go. A family of eight, including the parents, have nowhere to go when it comes to finding an apartment in the city of Timmins.

Clearly, there is something that needs to be done when it comes to not-for-profit housing. We’re proud that we have a very strong not-for-profit housing stock in the city of Timmins, Kapuskasing, Hearst and other places, but we have not built on that stock for at least the past 15 years and I think it’s high time we do. I don’t see this bill achieving that in the end.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m pleased to rise and reply to the member from Nepean–Carleton. Certainly, when she speaks of a reality check, it’s true. There is a reality check here. The reality is, whether we like to accept it or not, the previous government put a moratorium on housing in this province and 17,000 units were cancelled and virtually very little was built.

There’s no question that there is a need that needs to happen across this province. Currently, our investment of $2.5 billion has resulted in 22,000 new homes and well over 150,000 repairs. That is a $2.5-billion investment. We’ve actually prevented more than 23,000 evictions to date through our rent control, so we have in fact put in place the beginning of where we need to go.

Ultimately, everybody has agreed in this House there is more that needs to be done, but we build on the foundation that we were given and the fact is that we were given a very shaky foundation, so we do what we can with the resources that we have. We put $430 million a year into our programs. It’s incumbent upon us as a government to ensure that those dollars are spent in the most cost-effective way possible, that they are providing the services for the folks who need them. It’s also incumbent upon us as a government to ensure those dollars are well spent.

Part of this housing strategy is to look at those 20 programs right across this province to see if we’re getting value for our money. Are we in fact providing the kinds of services—the service managers themselves have asked for this flexibility. Remember, during the 13 consultations across this province, it was the service managers who said, “We need more flexibility to do what we need to be able to do locally.”

This is the beginning of a long-term strategy that we’ve put forward in this bill. I look forward to the consultations as we move forward, but there is no question that we’re going in the right direction.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I want to comment on the member from Ottawa Centre. He comments frequently and always relates it directly to his riding. I think often he’d be better to perhaps look a little more objectively at what’s actually going on across the province, because you are the government.

I was listening to our member from Burlington yesterday, who I thought gave a very thorough review of where we’ve been and where we are, not just on this, as she’s our critic, but even this morning we had our member from Nepean–Carleton speak very effectively about how poorly the programs are working on many fronts, not just on the housing file but I would say certainly on the energy file, the jobs file and the tax file. You’d have to just ask a few questions and find out that there’s a bit of trouble in the economy right now, which affects families—in fact, these very families we’re talking about.

The rose-coloured-glasses statement that we heard from the member from Ottawa Centre needs to be reviewed. In fact, I’m going to take it on myself in the next round to speak on this topic and perhaps have a little more balance to my comments. I would hope at this time of year to just hold the government accountable without being personally critical. The people who are the most affected, whether it’s on the housing or the jobs side or just the quality of life side, are always the most vulnerable.

Our critic said yesterday, clearly, that shelter is probably the most important part of resolving the problems of poverty—to have a place that you call home. From there, you can build a life for yourself and your family. That’s kind of missing today. I’m finding out that there’s no support for the programs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Ottawa Centre, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My gratitude to the members from Nepean–Carleton, Timmins–James Bay, Etobicoke Centre and Durham for their feedback.

Let me make just one point very clear: I am paid to represent the good people of Ottawa Centre. So as long as I’m here elected, I will continue to talk about all the good things that are happening in Ottawa Centre and the kinds of initiatives and efforts I’m working on to make sure that the good people in Ottawa Centre have the quality of life they so very much enjoy. That is why I’m very proud. More needs to be done; no doubt about it.

But I’m very proud that since 2007, we have seen significant investment in both new affordable housing being built in Ottawa Centre—almost 400 new units as we speak—and also many, many units that are being repaired so that people can live quality, healthy lives. That is my mandate, that is why I’m here and I’m never going to shy away from that.

I’ll give you another example of an incredible project that is going on. Forty-two supportive housing units are being built for women through Cornerstone, an incredible organization in my riding. Of these 42 supportive units, about 22 are for senior women—a demographic in the population we need to really look after—and another 20 units are for chronically homeless women, again making sure that they for the first time have a roof over their heads.

Some $6.3 million is being invested, 50-50 from the federal and provincial governments, and the amazing thing, again, is this is really, truly supportive housing. We are providing health services, social services and housing services under one roof. The incredible amount of savings that we’re going to gain from all other areas by bringing these services together under one roof is tremendous. I’m really proud that that is taking place in my community of Ottawa Centre, and I’m grateful to the government for making that investment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. John O’Toole: This morning I’m pleased to participate in Bill 140,

An Act to enact the Housing Services Act, 2010, repeal the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 and make complementary and other amendments to other Acts.

I looked and listened yesterday to all sides of the House speak and, in reviewing Hansard, I have a pretty thorough understanding of the various positions. Our critic from Burlington, Ms. Savoline, having served as a mayor and a regional chair, is very familiar with that level, and as our critic brings a lot of insight to the file. I reviewed her remarks yesterday and would encourage people who may be interested to look up Hansard online and get a clearer definition of our position on this important file. I also listened to the NDP critic, Mr. Tabuns, and found his remarks to be very compassionate. I would say that they’re important; I’ll put it that way.

The background on this whole thing is really more important than the bill itself. When you look at the state of the economy today as sort of a starting point, the most vulnerable are the most and the first affected. I think that you can look further back. There was a commitment by the government in the last election called the poverty reduction task force. It sounds very good and quite genuine. I don’t think it’s unique to the Liberal Party any more than any party that we try to have a strong economy that appropriates balance and opportunity, but not leaving people behind.

I would put that on the record; it would be my position to stick to that general and broad theme of creating a strong economy so that we have a great quality of life. Without the strong quality of life—you look at some countries around the world today and look at their economy and the poor quality of life. They’re kind of related.

You ask yourself, what’s the genesis of good quality of life? Is it the economy, or do we just move to places around the world where it already exists? Well, in fact, around the world it’s falling apart, because the economy is driving a lot of it. I don’t blame any one government, but you have to respond to the infection that’s in the economy at the time, whether it’s in Ireland or Portugal or any other part of the world, without putting a disparaging comment on—I think it started in Greece and has percolated down, and I don’t think it’s finished. In fact, that same result is happening here.

When you go back to the laudable objective in 2007 of having a poverty reduction task force, which has reported to the minister, Ms. Broten, who received the report, one of the pillars of this recovery of building strength in the vulnerable community is shelter. I would say and put to you that shelter is probably first. How can you put down a resumé or a job application if you don’t have a home? If your home is a shelter somewhere, it’s pretty difficult and pretty desperate. Your life is probably in a lot of stress at that point, whether it’s your family, your children, your partner, your friends.

Your whole confidence is shaken—it’s destroyed, many times—and mental health manifests itself, so that when you go to talk to people about your life, your future, your job, you haven’t really got much confidence at the table.

That’s an important goal. I don’t know where the report is, but I would say that the “poverty reduction task force” is just an expression. If you look at the numbers—and I thought Ms. Savoline yesterday—I’m just going to quote her numbers in Hansard so that it’s consistent. The numbers are quite striking. In fact, we often hear a quarrelling about what the numbers are in terms of jobs and job creation. I think it’s important to put on the record that Ontario’s population has grown since 2005 by 500,000 people. That means the province’s economy must add at least 100,000 jobs per year just to keep up.

If you look at China, I think they have to create a million jobs a week to keep up with population growth. There’s a billion and a half people there; just do the math.

This is a serious economic problem, and I don’t know what the jobs are. If you look at the report just recently on the Second Career, in which they invested a considerable amount of money—some $36 million, I believe—how many actually got jobs? Yes, they trained. I read of one report last week where the person had a degree, had worked 12 years in the auto industry, lost the job through restructuring etc. and eventually went back, spent $26,000 on tuition and other costs, and did get some relief, I think, but now has got more debt and no job. The job he’s being offered is about one third of the income.

So when you look at statistics, what’s the household average income? It’s actually going down. What’s housing? It’s actually going up or stabilizing. So affordable housing itself is an oxymoron. Then you look at what the other solutions are for this permanent shelter threshold that I talk about, and it’s rent.

What some of the real structural problems—there are vacancies. There are 22,000 vacancies, as our critic has alluded to, and at 22,000 vacancies one must ask themselves, what’s with the landlords? First of all, there are a couple of reasons there. One of them would be the Landlord and Tenant Act. In fact, there’s a really good

article this morning in the paper on it. I would encourage people to have a look at this

article this morning. The

article talks about the Landlord and Tenant Act and how unbalanced it is. I thought I had it marked here. In it, it’s really saying how the landlords are portrayed as rich, greedy persons, which I don’t think—I know where I rent my office for the constituency, the landlord is a large landowner in the area of Durham—and finds out that he is not that; he’s very generous and quite compassionate. I will find that

section here a little later.

I’m just going to say, though, really the same thing is the other report that has recently been filed with the new minister, Mr. Bartolucci, who has done a respectable job there, I would say. This was dropped on him when he was moved out of his previous ministry position. I would say that the difficulty here is—Building Foundations: Building Futures. Again, sort of like the poverty reduction task force, a great title—and actually not a bad booklet; congratulations—Ontario’s Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy. But if you read through here, and if you look at the bill itself, there’s no money.

I’m going to relate it to the global thing again. IT wasn’t all caused by Premier McGuinty, but he’s got to stop spending money. Let’s be honest about it: You can’t spend your way out of poverty.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Exactly. Some of the members are saying you can’t have it both ways. The reality is that you’re sending signals out there—and that report I referred to precipitated itself into Bill 140. If you look at the bill and, again, refer to the work that’s done, I’m going to put a context around all of these, poverty and the housing issue. I’m looking at an

article that was in the Toronto Star yesterday. The Toronto Star is not my particular first choice to read in the morning, but nonetheless we do pay close attention to it. It’s widely read and often has good cartoons.

Here’s the Torstar

article by Carol Goar from December 6. It says, “A Flurry of Announcements but Little Content.” There’s pretty well another way of saying that the cover on the booklet looks good, the titles of the policy themes sound good, but when you take off the cover, it’s an empty box. It’s like a child pulling the stocking out at Christmas and finding a lump of coal.

Here’s what it says:

“Poverty reduction plans poured out of Queen’s Park so fast last week it was hard to keep up with the paper flow.

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

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

Ask yourself—yes, they’re spending lots of money—how’s it working? How’s it going? We’ve almost doubled the debt. Our budget is about $106 billion or $107 billion; of that, the deficit is about $20 billon. That’s the on-book debt part, not including the WSIB debt. That’s about 20 cents on every dollar that we’re borrowing. We’re borrowing it from the future. We’re borrowing it from our children, who are graduating and can’t find jobs. We’re borrowing it. Wake up.

I’ve been here 15 years, in fact, and before that in Durham, when I was chair of finance. I sat on the very same committees and I met Floyd Laughren, a nice person, and I met Bob Rae, now a Liberal. Before the social contract, the plan then was the expenditure reduction plan—that’s what they called it. They wanted all the municipalities to make cuts when some of members here were on council back then; I’m sure Ms. Savoline was. They wanted the municipalities to take the heat.

Then they couldn’t get the unions or anyone to agree with them, so Floyd Laughren and Bob Rae designed a plan which was called the social contract. What it did was open up every single public sector payroll contract and take out about eight or 10 days’ pay. The budget then was $48 billion and the deficit was $12 billion; that’s 25 cents on every dollar you’re spending. Plus, the budget today isn’t $48 billion—that was back in 1995—today the budget is over $100 billion, so it’s doubled.

Ask yourself, is it any better? Can you get into a bed in a hospital quicker? Do they release you from the hospital with any supports in the community? Is there any more long-term care? Is hydro cheaper? Is anything cheaper? No. They’ve increased taxes to the point where there’s not a cent left in your pocket. Seniors can barely stay in their homes and you’re talking about affordable housing. Start with making it affordable by keeping your hands out of their pockets.

I deal with constituents in my riding, as I’m sure all members do, and I don’t flaunt the politics at them. I say, “What’s the worst problem that you see?” “I can’t pay my hydro bill.” These are people who built the country and don’t normally complain and they’re finding that the municipal taxes—all part of this equation is the cost of providing services, and the wage infrastructure of that is incredible.

If fact, if you look—I just looked at the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act recently because there were things going on in my riding in the energy sector that I wanted to know more about. The salary of the person who was sending out the bill on the rate increase and explanation—there was like an accounting manager. I was a manager at General Motors for 31 years, and a personnel manager, I might say, as well.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, I had quite an interesting job.

Here is the issue: That person’s salary was $348,000. Now, who are they in competition with? It’s a monopoly. And it’s rampant throughout the entire range of services under the current government’s regime. Even their commitment in their budget spending—I’m going to put it in perspective here because it is related to this. Affordability should be led from the top, and quite honestly, I’m stressed and disappointed at the lack of ability to stop the spending.

In the last couple of days, we were dealing with a person with the Niagara Parks Commission spending $300,000 or $400,000 on somebody who is running a park. I don’t know. Where’s the value? It should be done by volunteers, technically.

The province is in a serious problem, and until you admit you have a problem, you can’t begin to deal with the problem. I don’t want to blame the people in those sectors who are making $100,000-plus. It was in the report in the paper there a few weeks ago. I’m critic of government services, and in that, there is a deputy minister who makes over $350,000, and there are four assistant deputies all making over a quarter of a million dollars.

What does government services do? It’s a large ministry that deals with contracts and deals with consultants. We’re spending about $1 million a day on consultants. We have 70,000-some public sector employees who are qualified people. Why have we got all these consultants? I think that’s off-book payroll; that’s what it is.

I look at some of the people who have been appointed. For instance, the head of the Ontario Power Authority is a good example or the IESO and all these electricity safety places; OPG, Ontario Power Generation; Hydro One; the OPA; the Ontario Energy Board—these are people making $500,000 and up.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes. So why is there no money in this bill for housing? I’m explaining it to the Minister of the Environment. You look after Earth Works up in Uxbridge, in my riding, and I’ll be happy.

My point is that I have deeper concerns that you have a plan that has no money, which means you have no plan. Let’s be straightforward with the people of Ontario. I’m going to say to myself that there are many members over there who I don’t think intentionally set out to make things worse; I think we all try to make things better. I wouldn’t blame any one individual or minister, but you have to deal with what’s going on.

There’s a good example just in the clippings this morning. This is how your sector is dealing with it: “Hydro Error Costs Retiree $12,000.” This is a retired teacher who has a property, which was his old family farm, I gather, and after the end of the year, he got a hydro bill where he was in arrears for $12,000, and they just took it out of his account and he didn’t have any money left. Now he’s fighting to get the money back. That’s a government agency. Don’t blame it on somebody else.

There’s a number here. It says, “Academic Rankings: How Canada is Becoming Outclassed.”

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: That’s what the

article says. I’m not making it up. Read it.

“Stacking the Deck Against Ontario Landlords” is the

article in the National Post. Here is the issue that I’m talking about. If you look at the Landlord and Tenant Act and you read this article—and you wonder why landlords would sooner take their apartment building and turn it into a condo where you have the money.

How do people even get into their first house or home, which might be a condo? That’s what is happening in Toronto, and landlords are saying that under this act—it says here, “The law appears to have been drafted on the assumption that all landlords are rich and greedy. Under the act, a tenant can allow anyone to move” in to be a tenant.

After they get it, they can move in, they can bring friends in and you can’t get them out. In fact, if the person who is the tenant brings up a record of maintenance deficiency, the landlord may have to award money to the tenant, even if they haven’t been advised.

The landlord must play the nice-and-careful role in case they might offend someone and be accused of harassment. Even by asking repeatedly for the rent, they can be accused of harassment. Bringing up random maintenance deficiencies—“the Landlord and Tenant Board, which appears to” have been “set up specifically to help tenants exploit their landlords,” for example. I’m reading the

article here, and we’re talking about affordable housing.

Just watch what’s going around in the community and in the province and pay attention. And you wonder why housing in Ontario—the term “affordable housing” is an oxymoron. There’s no such thing. I think the average price of a home in Toronto is $330,000, and unless you’re making $45,000 a year, there’s no possible way. Then you look at the length of mortgages and people carrying 50% of their income as a mortgage. Those are signs that the current system isn’t working, and we’re leaving more and more people behind. Do not put out these artificial papers that imply that you’ve got a plan and do the very opposite. They mislead people, in my opinion.

I’m concerned that if you look at—there are 142,000 people on the current waiting lists. That’s unacceptable, if you look at how much other jurisdictions and other provinces are putting into it.

On the report, I’m going to say one last thing: There is federal money at the moment. Right now, it’s about $900 million this year, last year and next year that goes into housing from the federal government. Yes, they are getting out of it.

Our plan is to have—not investing in capital; it’s investing in people. The rent subsidy provision in Bill 140 is something I’d accept. The rent-geared-to-income provision I accept. That is how you help people with the dignity of saying that they pay a fair share; that may be a very small amount, but at least they have the dignity of saying that they are paying, that it isn’t another handout that makes them feel even smaller and less confident in themselves and their family.

This bill is just one more thing. It’s disappointing. It’s too little, it’s too late and it’s completely—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Timmins–James Bay for questions and comments.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I always enjoy listening to my good friend from—

Mrs. Julia Munro: Durham.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Durham. Thank you. I always have to point to get the riding names. That’s why I will never run as a Speaker; otherwise I’d have to say, “Hey you, your turn.”

Anyway, I always enjoy listening to what he has to say and, quite frankly, I agree with him in the sense that this is sort of a late initiative at the end of a dying government’s term. They’ve now been the government of Ontario for seven-plus years.

They first ran, if you remember back early on, in the election that led to their first term, on building 13,000 housing units within—no, there were 20,000 housing units that were going to be built within the first three years. Here we are, seven years later. Around 10,000 units have now been built over a period of seven years, hardly anywhere near what they had called for in their own platform and certainly not anywhere near what the housing community is asking for, which is about 10,000 new units per year.

I understand there is a want on the part of this government to measure what the expectations are as far as the 10,000 units per year, but at least they should be able to meet their own targets that they had set when they ran back in the early election that led to their first mandate.

I look at this bill and I say, “What is this going to do? Is this going to do anything to rectify the deep housing shortage that exists in the province of Ontario when it comes to the not-for-profit sector?” I have to say no, because what we’re really dealing with is a bill that’s going to deal with some of the bureaucratic issues and about how not-for-profit housing is run, but it doesn’t deal with providing any funding, and it doesn’t deal with providing any initiatives, targets, goals or anything that deals with the issue of not for profit.

I’ll get a chance to talk about that a little bit later, but I wanted to agree with the premise the member had made.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened to the member from Durham, and he promised us, before he spoke, that he was going to be balanced in the spirit of the season. But he wasn’t. He started talking about different things, and he talked about the economy in Europe, in the United States. Do you know what? We are lucky we live in Ontario. We have a government that was able to produce more than 50,000 jobs for the people of Ontario. Also, the recovery was more than 87% of job losses in the province of Ontario. I think it’s a very important step, and I think the member from Durham should stand up in his place and praise the government and thank the government and thank our strategy—

Mr. Phil McNeely: It’s 10% in the States.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Yes, 10% in the States and 87% in Ontario. It’s a very important step.

We believe strongly in the people of Ontario. I think it’s our responsibility and duty to support the low-income people and the poor people among us in the province of Ontario by putting a strategy for affordable homes. I think that my colleague the member from Ottawa Centre outlined the government’s vision and how much we invested and how much we’re about to engage in the people of Ontario in our strategy, our vision, for affordable homes in the future.

He was talking about many different elements. He was talking about the mortgages. I was listening the other day to the Bank of Canada. Do you know what Mr. Flaherty said? Ontarians comfortably are able to pay more than $300 per month for a mortgage, which is good. Our mortgage is protected. If you don’t believe me, go back to the record, go back to Mr. Flaherty’s announcement.

I think it’s important to talk about those elements because in Ontario, in Canada, we are comfortably trying to recover from our downturn of the economy, unlike what happened in Europe and what happened in the United States, because we have a plan, we have a strategy. We believe in the people. We invest in the people of Ontario.

So, the member will hopefully join us and support the affordable homes not to be empty affordable homes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I guess this is where I say, now back to the regularly scheduled debate of a current issue. If you listen to my colleague across the way, you will hear one side of the story. It’s a very rosy, glossy fairy tale. But the reality is, as my colleague from Durham has pointed out, things in Ontario aren’t that great.

For example, and I’d like to say this to my colleague, we have the highest unemployment in Canada. We’re a have-not province for the first time since Confederation, thanks to them. They have doubled the debt. They have doubled the deficit. Ontarians aren’t working, and they have a high debt load.

The reality is, an affordable housing plan should make housing affordable for Ontarians. This legislation does not do that. Do you want to know why? Because it has been the economic and the fiscal policies of that government, who have time and again spent our children’s mortgages and mortgaged their futures. If you ask me to talk to the folks back home in Ottawa, particularly in Nepean–Carleton, they’re going to tell me that housing right now is not affordable because their hydro bills have doubled. They’re going to tell me that their savings have been depleted to pay for so many of their risky schemes, whether that is in energy or elsewhere.

Last week I had a round table with seniors, with John Yakabuski, the MPP for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Each of the seniors who sat there and told us their stories were concerned about housing, either staying in their own home or wondering what is next as they move through their retirement. They’re concerned about their families. This bill is not going to save that. In fact it’s their budget, hopefully, next year, that’s going to start putting things in place so that Ontarians are working again and that they’re paying for their bills.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Durham for his comments. He is often on his feet representing the interests of his party. As an old friend of mine used to say, they’re beating him like a rented mule over there. He’s carrying more than his fair share of the mail over there, once again standing up representing his party. I want to thank him for that.

A few facts: Since 2003, $2.5 billion was invested in this sector, helping us to build 22,000 new units, repair over 150,000 existing units and provide rent supplements to 35,000 different families.

There is something I’m not sure that’s been put on the record that I find very interesting when it comes to this particular issue. Under our government, since we’ve been in power since 2003, the average rental increase under the Liberals is 2.05%. Under the Tories, not bad: 2.9%—almost 3%—in their seven or eight years in power. Guess what? Under the NDP, those who like to proclaim that they’re the protectors of the most vulnerable people in the province, the average rental increase in their five years was almost 5%: 4.82% per year.

Out of his 20 minutes my friend from Durham spent a fair bit of time talking about energy. I’m not sure how he migrated over to that topic, but since he did, I’m sure you’ll allow me to respond. I need to remind people that when the Conservatives were in power in 1999, the debt retirement charge, for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario, came into being. It was put on your energy bill. What happened when they put the debt retirement charge on in 1999? Up until 2003, they collected anywhere from $1 billion, $2 billion to $4 billion; I’m not sure how much.

For the first time under them, $1 billion, $2 billion to $4 billion was collected, but the debt retirement charge went from $19.4 billion up to over $20 billion. It increased by $1 billion when they brought $2 billion to $4 billion in. I don’t know where the money went.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Durham, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O’Toole: I appreciate that opportunity. I just want to put a response on the record to the members from Timmins–James Bay, London–Fanshawe, Nepean–Carleton and Thunder Bay–Atikokan. I thank them for listening.

On the job front, I’m just going to report here, let’s not forget that this government had its hand in getting Ontario to where it is today, whether that’s good or bad; take your own medicine. The unemployment rate presently stands at 8.6%, higher than the national average of all of Canada, which is 7.9%. How are you doing? It’s higher than Korea; it’s higher than Mexico; it’s higher than Brazil. Let’s look at other provinces. Don’t blame Ontario’s situation on the global downturn.

If you’re looking at other jurisdictions, Ontario’s unemployment rate has surpassed Canada’s national average every single month since January 2007—almost two full years before we saw a financial crisis. Your policies are simply wrong. It’s unfortunate, but they’re wrong. I’m going back to first principles. You have to have a strong economy to make sure that we have a quality of life, whether it’s education, health care or social housing, as we’re talking about today. When I say “wrong,” it’s the wrong signal.

The last one, the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, was kind.

Adam Beck in 1906—the founder of electricity for Ontario, or hydro anyway—his policy was “power at cost.” He drove an economy in Ontario based on safe, reliable, affordable power. What is missing today? I believe our power system is safe; I believe it’s quite reliable; but it’s not affordable. Sixty per cent of all of the energy used is used by industry. The residential side is a very small part of the consumption ball, but it is non-discretionary consumption and it affects the poorest of the poor, and this is part of your plan that doesn’t work.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m glad to rise in this particular debate because it’s not often that we get to speak on the issue of not-for-profit housing here in the assembly. We haven’t seen a bill touching on that subject for some time. It gives us a chance to all weigh in and talk about what we think is good and what we think is bad and what needs to change within the not-for-profit sector.

I have to say I was elected here in 1990, and when I came to this assembly the province of Ontario at that time, under previous governments and under the NDP government of the day that I came in with, was very active in the not-for-profit housing scene. Across this province, co-op housing units, municipal not-for-profit housing units and others were being built across the province at a fairly good rate. In communities everywhere from Cornwall to Sarnia to Timmins to Moosonee, and even on some of our native reserves, we saw not-for-profit housing being built. Why?

Because governments of the day, dating back to the 1970s, understood that there is a housing crisis in the province of Ontario and that not everybody in this province can afford to buy a house. Therefore, if you’re in the rental market, there are limited options available to people when it comes to the ability, first of all, to find suitable rental accommodation, and number two, to be able to pay for it, as far as, how much is that unit going to cost you?

Governments of the day were very active on the housing file. You had on the one side governments dating back to the time of Bill Davis and up to the time of Bob Rae that were very active in making sure that we built not-for-profit housing in this province, and on the other side those governments from the time of Mr. Davis to the time of Mr. Rae were very active on rent control legislation and making sure that we were able to have rent control of some form that allowed the rents not to go through the roof so that people could afford to find a rental unit and pay for it.

Otherwise, because you’re in such a tight market when it comes to the availability of rental units, the rents were going through the roof, as they would say.

So governments, starting back in the time of the Conservatives, pushed then by the NDP and by the Liberals in opposition, and eventually even ourselves as the government from 1990 to 1995—there’s much that was done to deal with rent controls so that the private sector housing that was out there was available and was made affordable to people across this province.

Now, did everybody like that? No. I have landlords in my riding who came to see me from the time I was elected until the time we scrapped rent control under the Conservative government—one moment. Sorry about that. I have a lingering cold that I think just about everybody in this assembly has caught, and if they haven’t caught it, they’re about to get it; it’s been going around, as I see, the benches.

As I said, I’ve had people in my riding who are landlords who didn’t like rent control and saw that as a barrier to their ability to pay the bills, to maintain their own housing stock and make the kind of profit they thought was fair with the investment they were making in their housing stock. Nonetheless, government said, “Listen. We need to balance the need of a person to be able to make money with the need of a person to be able to afford to pay the rent in the first place.” So it was with much chagrin that, back in the Tory days under Mike Harris, I saw rent control scrapped in this province.

We’ve moved now to what we call vacancy decontrol. So now, if I’m in an apartment building, as long as I stay in that apartment, my landlord can’t raise my rent more than a certain percentage every year. But the moment that I leave the apartment and vacate it, the landlord then can reset the rent.

Say that he used to charge for a downtown Toronto apartment, one unit—I’m probably paying about $1,500 a month, which is quite cheap in downtown Toronto. As I looked at new members being elected to the Parliament three years ago, as they came down here to rent units, they’re paying upwards of $2,000 a month for a rental unit here in downtown Toronto. It goes to show you what’s happened with vacancy decontrol. We’ve gone from paying $1,400 or $1,500 a month for a one-bedroom apartment to—and the minute the person moves out the landlord is able to demand a higher price—as much as $2,000 or $2,100 a month for that same unit.

Clearly, there are a lot of people out there who can’t afford to pay that kind of money for a housing unit. Imagine being a young couple with a couple of children needing a three-bedroom apartment and how much that costs in the downtown core. I can tell you, if a one-bedroom unit on the corner of Bay and Wellesley Streets is going from $1,900 to $2,100 a month, imagine what you’re paying for a three-bedroom unit in that building or any building in and around the downtown of the city of Toronto.

If you move outside of the downtown core, if you move north of Eglinton or even farther north, to a place called Timmins or Moosonee, rents there can be pretty darned expensive too. You’re looking at rents for a one-bedroom apartment in a community like Timmins—a decent one—of about $700 to $800 a month. That is certainly not what you’re paying downtown in Toronto, but still, it’s a fair amount of money for people to pay.

So the question becomes, what has this government done in the seven years they’ve been here on a promise to deal in a progressive way with housing policy in this province? What have they done to address any of the issues on the private side, as far as rent control, and what have they done in order to deal with for not-for-profit housing? I would say very little. We are still under the Mike Harris rent control legislation; that has not been changed significantly. There have been smatterings—some dabblings, as they would say—of attempts to make it look as if something was done but we essentially do not have rent control in this province other than what we call vacancy decontrol.

That is causing a real hardship for people because rents are getting much more expensive with the tighter market. Unfortunately, it needs to be said that prices of rental units are going up to the point that a lot of people can’t afford to pay the kind of rents that are being asked, because there’s such a shortage of stock when it comes to rental units across this province.

Now, there are some places in the province, I’m sure, where rents are reasonable because there is a large vacancy component, but in many places across Ontario that is not the case. I can tell you in the city of Timmins, certainly, rentals are hard to come by, especially quality rentals, and if you do find one, you will pay quite the dollars. Many people can’t afford to pay the kinds of rents that are being asked for.

That brings us to the not-for-profit side. The reason the province of Ontario got into the not-for-profit business was very simple: It was to allow those people on pensions, such as seniors; people with disabilities; people who are on ODSP; or people with a lower income who are working minimum-wage jobs to be able to afford to find a one-, two- or three-bedroom apartment and pay rent geared to income. A percentage of the income would be calculated as the rent, and then the rest of it would be paid by the rents collected overall in the unit as well as the subsidy that you got when you initially built the building.

Typically it’s about 30% of your income, in a not-for-profit unit, that goes to rent. If you’re making $1,000 a month, 30% would be $300 a month that you would pay. It might be 35%, but the last time I looked it was 30%, so I may be a little bit off on the number, but the idea is that it’s rent geared to income. That says the price of your rental is based on a percentage of your income. We built these not-for-profit housing units in order to be able to do that.

Some would argue, and certainly the Conservative government argued this when they came to power in 1995, that they shouldn’t be in the housing business and that it was costing Ontario a lot of money. Really, it wasn’t costing us any money. Yes, at the beginning of the construction we were providing dollars to assist with engineering, the development of the project and the actual construction. We would secure the mortgages, and in some cases we would put in some money upfront, but the unit itself was paid for over time, because eventually the mortgage gets paid down; the rents that are collected on the rent-geared-to-income unit are enough in order to maintain the stock.

If you look at a lot of the housing stock in this province, and certainly, it’s the case in my riding, I would venture to guess that there are probably not too many units in my constituency that still have a mortgage on them. Pins Gris and Kaleidoscope and other various not-for-profit or co-op housing units that were built in my riding were built in the early 1990s. That would mean that they’ve been around for at least 15 years. The mortgages on these things were probably around 20 to 25 years max, so most of them have their mortgages completely paid off or they’re very close to being paid off.

This means to say the dollars to maintain these particular units, by and large, come from the rents that are being paid by the tenants. It’s a not-for-profit housing model, so the money that is paid by the individual that comes into the co-op or the not-for-profit housing agency goes towards maintaining that building. Do we need to change an elevator? Do we need to change windows? Do we need to reinsulate? Do we need to fix the roof? That’s where that money comes from.

Those not-for-profit housing agencies and co-ops have done quite well at managing that money so that, over the longer term, those units actually don’t cost the province anything. So yes, there’s an initial investment up front, but what we end up doing is dealing with a housing shortage in the province of Ontario by front-loading our costs as a province, and eventually the units themselves help to pay the overall cost of maintaining those buildings. A lot of our buildings now have been in the system for quite a long time.

If you look at Regent Park, which is one of the older and probably one of the most well-known housing projects—Moss Park and Regent Park have been around for the better part of 50 years. Certainly, they’re going to need redevelopment, but my point is that maybe at the time when we developed them we thought that was the perfect model, but we learned after that it was better to have mixed housing within the not-for-profit housing system.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Timmins–James Bay, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but the time is now 10:15, and according to standing order 8(

a) this House will recess until 10:30 of the clock.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: There are 90 grade 5 students from Middlebury Public School in my riding of Mississauga–Erindale visiting the Legislature today. I want to extend them a very warm welcome, along with the parents and the teacher.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I’d ask all members to join me in welcoming page Kyle Fitzgerald’s mother, Roxanne; father, Chad; and grandfather Charles Whiteman to the chamber.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to welcome the immigrant women’s leadership group to the members’ gallery. They represent a partnership between Regent Park Community Health Centre, Central Neighbourhood House and the Centre for Community Learning.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’d like to welcome to the House the family of today’s page captain, Emily Hryb. Her grandparents Don and Gail Mason are here; her mom, Jennifer; her dad, Brett; her aunt Megan; and her brother Mason. I went to school with her mom, her aunt and another aunt who isn’t here today. They’re a great family from North Bay and we’d like to welcome them here today.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome Elias Morales, Roberto Morales, Carolina Morales, Jorge Martinez, Maria Holman, Imelda Suarez, Carmen Garcia, Calixto Ortiz and Jose Linares here on a civics course.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It is my distinct pleasure to welcome newly elected councillors of the town of Richmond Hill: Carmine Perrelli, councillor of ward 2 and Castro Lio, councillor of ward 3. Please join me in welcoming the councillors to the House.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’m very pleased to introduce team Ontario today. Members in attendance: Adrian Rehorst, John Maaskant, Reg Cliché and Jack Vanderland. I want to remind everyone there’s a wonderful reception this evening. Come and eat lots of fresh chicken.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I would like to introduce to the House my husband and retired chicken farmer, René Van Bommel, who’s joining us today.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce visiting us today from New Brunswick, Karina LeBlanc from AutismPro, and a constituent of mine, Dean Hannaford, who’s director of business development for Essential Skills.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to introduce some folks that are making their way into this chamber as we speak: Mayor John Williams, a director of the Quinte Economic Development Commission; Ted Reid, a director from the Quite Economic Development Commission; Bruce Davis, executive director of Trenval Business Development Corp., Chris King, chief executive officer; Gerald Draaistra, a director and also my neighbour; and Linda Lisle, economic development of the city of Quite West.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I would like to introduce members from my riding from the Quinte Economic Development Commission. They are Mitch Panciuk, Tom Lafferty, Ross Rae, Peter McCann, Karen Poste and Mike Hewitt.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce a couple of friends of mine from Sarnia–Lambton that were down to partake in the Speaker’s Christmas party and enjoyed themselves very much: Les Armstrong and George Fortin from Sarnia–Lambton. Speaker, it was a good party.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Joining us this morning in the Speaker’s gallery is a former staff member and a good friend of mine, Erin Drushel. Welcome back to the Legislature. Welcome back to Canada as well.

Happy birthday to our colleague from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question to the Premier: Premier, a sign that a government has badly lost its way is when it exercises such extraordinary poor judgment as you did in passing what effectively were war measures powers and then conspired to keep them a secret from the impacted public. Premier, the Ombudsman called it “a premeditated, conscious decision not to announce the existence of the regulation or the reviving of this wartime act.”

Premier, please tell us why did you pass this illegal G20 law and why did you conspire to keep it a secret from the general public?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question, but first of all, I want to thank the Ombudsman for the work that he has done. As usual, he was very, very thorough. I appreciate all of his findings and the recommendations; we intend to move on each and every one of those. In particular, the minister is already moving and establishing a new protocol.

I also appreciate the finding of the Ombudsman that our government acted with the best of intentions. When we were approached by the police with a particular request, we acted on the basis of that request. We said clearly that we could have and should have done more with respect to adequately communicating this change to Ontarians. But again, I want to thank the Ombudsman for his recommendations and assure Ontarians that we intend to act on every one of those.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, quite frankly, the old hangdog look, your old promise to do better simply isn’t going to cut it anymore. This was not a simple error. It was not a simple mistake. The Ombudsman said that this was a premeditated plan to keep the general public in the dark.

Before the minister, there were cabinet meetings, including up to 14 ministers who could have put a stop to this extraordinary law and who could have said, “No, it is wrong to conspire to keep what’s equivalent to the War Measures Act secret from the general public.” Not one had the courage to stand up and say that this was wrong. In fact, the emails the Ombudsman has uncovered show you actually put your minds to work on how to keep these illegal war measures a secret. Premier, why do you think you can get away with this?

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: It was clearly a question to the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable members know that the Premier or any minister can refer a question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would first of all note that the Ombudsman has stated in his report that the regulation, as passed by the government, had a “laudable purpose.” The regulation had the purpose of “protecting participants … either from terrorist enemies or from protestors.” The Ombudsman also goes on to say, “There is no fair basis for suggesting that the ministry’s purpose in recommending the passage” of the regulation “was to infringe or deny freedom of expression.” Those are the words of the Ombudsman.

I’m pleased with the Ombudsman’s report. I had an opportunity to sit down and meet with the Ombudsman, to review each of his recommendations and to review his findings, and I gave him an undertaking that the government would implement each and every one of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman of the province of Ontario. And our government is going to—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Quite frankly, I cannot believe the contempt the Premier is showing by refusing to answer these questions: contempt for the members of the assembly, contempt for the—

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I want to see this Premier have the courage of his convictions and stand up and answer these very important questions on behalf of Ontario families.

As the Ombudsman’s plan demonstrates, then Community Safety Minister Bartolucci set in motion, once the regulation was passed through cabinet, a plan to keep it secret—a premeditated plan to cover up the secret law. The Ombudsman, in fact—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Withdraw.

In fact, the Ombudsman uncovered a June 7 email from the minister’s office which says, “Everyone was on board with drawing out the actual release of that knowledge to the public for as long as what is reasonable.... So long as we can stress as best we can that this should be kept under wraps....”

From the minister’s office, who authorized the law and keeping it secret from the general public?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The question was to the Premier, Speaker. The question was to the Premier.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Who authorized the cover-up?

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Withdraw, Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Davenport, it’s not helpful.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Once again, I use the very words of the Ombudsman, who said: “There is no fair basis for suggesting that the ministry’s purpose in recommending the passage of” the regulation “was to infringe or deny freedom of expression.” The Ombudsman has also stated in his report that the regulation, as passed by the government, had “laudable purpose.”

I am pleased to have the Ombudsman’s report. I have asked—as the opposition would know, we’ve hired Chief Justice McMurtry to review the Public Works Protection Act. I’m pleased that the Ombudsman shares our view, but Mr. McMurtry’s mandate covers the areas of the recommendations of the Ombudsman—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Leeds–Grenville will withdraw the comment, and if this language persists, I’m just going to start to name the members.

Mr. Steve Clark: Withdraw.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Justice McMurtry’s deliberations, of course, will benefit the Ombudsman’s report, and the recommendations of the Ombudsman will be very helpful to Mr. McMurtry.

Following Justice McMurtry’s advice, we’ll make any needed amendments to the Public Works Protection Act to ensure that it reflects the security concerns of the province and the values of our society—

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier of the province of Ontario concerning the Premier’s conduct and that of his office, and Premier, you can’t duck and hide from these important questions. Please stand up and respond.

According to the Ombudsman, your office, the Premier’s office of Ontario, also had its fingerprints on the illegal G20 regulation and the plot to keep it a secret. On page 57, the Ombudsman quotes from a Ministry of Community Safety email which states that the Premier’s office had also been consulted and “are fine with this moving forward.”

I want to know: Did the Premier of the province himself authorize this secret law and the premeditated plan to keep it secret from the general public?

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the Ombudsman pointed out—

Interjections.

Interjection: If it’s not so, say so.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, it is directly on the actions and the behaviour of the Premier—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member from Renfrew, speaking—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No. No.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I am going to name the member from Peterborough, Jeff—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need any help.

I’m going to name the member from Peterborough, Jeff Leal. I warned the House about the use of that word.

Sergeant-at-Arms?

Mr. Leal was escorted from the chamber.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Government House leader, I really don’t care if you believe it or not.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the Ombudsman pointed out, the regulation met the legal requirements for publicizing regulations, but I think, in fairness, as he also pointed out, technical compliance was not good enough and e-Laws posting is not good enough. We should have communicated properly, clearly and widely. I have said this and others in the government have said this.

My colleague needs to remember the potential security threat. We had 20 of the probably top targets for terrorists in the province of Ontario, in downtown Toronto, where the federal government decided to have this particular gathering of international people. Second, we had threats being made by the Black Bloc that there was going to be violence. Third, there was a bombing—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I will ask for the fourth time for the Premier of this province to stand up and be accountable for the decisions that he made and those of the ministers of his government.

Premier, the Minister of Community Safety demonstrated extraordinarily poor judgment, recommending an illegal regulation that invoked war measures powers and then put in place a premeditated plan to keep it secret from the general public. When he got caught he should have done the honourable thing and resigned, and if he didn’t and I were Premier, I would fire that minister on the spot.

Premier, will you do the right thing? Will you stand up and be accountable for the act you brought forward and the plan to keep it secret? Will you fire Minister Bartolucci from cabinet today?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I do not recall the Ombudsman, when I read his report, calling for the recommendation that the Leader of the Opposition has happened to make. I certainly am in compliance with that.

I know that as members of the opposition—and I hear a lot of noise out there—you continue to call, on any particular instance, for the resignation of ministers. That is what the opposition happens to do.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I will ask for the fifth time for the Premier of this province to stand up and be accountable for his government and his minister’s decisions. No doubt, this resembles a government on its last legs when it thinks it’s the right thing to do to bring in a war measures act and then invoke a premeditated plan to keep it secret from the general public. It is far too late to say you’re sorry and that you’re going to do better. Premier, with all due respect, you’re showing incredible contempt for the members of the assembly and Ontario families by refusing to answer these questions.

Here are the facts. You have revived war measures. You had a premeditated plan to keep it secret from the public, and you refused to fire the minister who showed such extraordinary bad judgment. Why is it—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I find it astounding that the Leader of the Opposition who, in order to gain the power of the leadership of his party, was prepared to make a deal with the member for Lanark, that deal being to abolish the Human Rights Commission of Ontario—I find it astounding that the same leader today would characterize himself as a defender of civil rights in the province of Ontario.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Cabinet ministers met in secret to pass a wartime regulations act under the Public Works Protection Act last June. My question is a simple one: Can the Premier tell us exactly who was at that meeting?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I don’t think it’s going to come as a great shock to the people of Ontario that cabinet meets in secret on a regular basis. That’s our responsibility. In fact, we take an oath. We are sworn to secrecy when it comes to discussing those kinds of matters.

I want to, once again, take this opportunity to thank the Ombudsman for his work, to assure Ontarians that we take responsibility for failing to properly communicate the change we had made. It was significant and deserved greater effort on our part. I also want to thank the Ombudsman for his finding that we acted with the best of intentions.

Our intention now is to act on those recommendations. It’s appropriate and prudent that we wait for the recommendations that are forthcoming from—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I name John Yakabuski, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. Yakabuski was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Ombudsman noted that individuals were consulted before the government passed their illegal and unconstitutional regulation that led to the loss of civil rights and mass arrests in this province. Did the Premier, in any way, consult with constitutional experts or legal experts of any kind, and if so, what concerns did they express?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community Safety.

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the member would know, the government receives its advice from government lawyers when crafting legislation. I’m not an appeals court judge, so I can’t make a judgment as to whether something is illegal or something is unconstitutional. That, of course, is why we have appointed former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry of Ontario, an eminent justice, a person who has had many responsibilities both in this House and outside this House, to look into the law and make a determination as to whether this law is appropriate in the year 2010. The law originally, as you know, was constructed in 1939, and this is a regulation from that law.

So I am looking forward with anticipation to the deliberations of Justice McMurtry, and I suspect the member is as well.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, eureka. Maybe they should have consulted before they passed the regulation.

I’m trying to figure out exactly what the Premier was thinking. He’s a lawyer, but he and his government have demonstrated appallingly poor legal judgment with their actions. Did the Premier not, at any time, have any concerns, or did he really think it was perfectly okay to secretly enact an illegal and unconstitutional wartime regulation?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Again, I say to the member, not being a lawyer, not being a constitutional lawyer, but particularly not being an appeals judge, that I’m unable to make that determination as to whether something is illegal or unconstitutional. That is exactly why we have engaged former Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry to take a very careful look at the law as it exists at the present time. This was a regulation that was passed as a result of that law. I think that Justice McMurtry will benefit immensely from the recommendations that have been made by the Ombudsman of Ontario and that he will take into account those recommendations.

I know that the member will be looking forward with anticipation, as well, to the deliberations of Mr. McMurtry and the recommendations that are forthcoming from those particular deliberations.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. If the Premier felt that there was nothing at all wrong with this regulation—and he still seems quite certain of that fact six months later—why didn’t he tell anybody when he passed it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to just quote again from the Ombudsman’s report, because I think it’s very helpful, and I think he speaks throughout to the public interest, which is, I think, what all of us are determined to uphold here.

He says, among other things, “The government has announced that the Public Works Protection Act will be reviewed.... This is a step in the right direction. I have recommended that in the context of this review, the ministry should take steps to revise or replace the act.” We are giving that very careful consideration. As I say, we look forward to the report of the Honourable Mr. Justice Roy McMurtry.

He also says, “On November 1, 2010, the minister confirmed on behalf of the government his unequivocal commitment to act on my recommendations in a timely manner. I am satisfied with the minister’s response to my recommendations and will monitor the ministry’s progress in implementing them.”

Again, we respect the findings. We endorse the recommendations. We look forward to acting on those in concert with Mr. Justice Roy McMurtry’s recommendations as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier released a media statement during the G20 summit. Why didn’t he use that opportunity to clarify the misinformation about the illegal and unconstitutional law that he passed?

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think it’s instructive to look at the recommendations that the Ombudsman has made, that I have given unequivocal assurance that the government will implement. He says, “The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should take steps to revise or replace the Public Works Protection Act.” The government will do that.

“The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should examine whether the range of police powers conferred by the Public Works Protection Act should be retained or imported into any revised statute.” We are prepared to do that.

He says, “The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should develop a protocol that would call for public information campaigns when police powers are modified by subordinate legislation, particularly in protest situations.” We are already doing that.

“The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should report back ... in six months....” I have given the assurance that we will give a full and detailed report to the Ombudsman on the progress which has been made—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There can be no doubt: What happened during the G20 showed a chilling disregard for people’s civil liberties and for democracy itself. The Premier passed an illegal and unconstitutional wartime law and not only didn’t debate it, but he bent over backwards to hide it from the public.

Ontarians are owed an apology. When will the Premier provide one for his shocking failure to uphold the trust that the people of this province should be able to have in him?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Oh, we’ll let the honourable member take that call.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think what’s important is that the government has indicated very clearly that it believes that better communication would have been very helpful in this particular case. But it has also indicated clearly that it’s prepared to take a variety of actions that the Ombudsman happens to have recommended to us.

I think I remember that in the Ombudsman’s report a reference made to the fact that, in 1990, the NDP government reviewed the Public Works Protection Act, had an opportunity to make changes to it and chose not to do so. Now, they may have had very good reasons for not changing it, but I do say that in 1990 the NDP government did have that opportunity, and chose on that occasion not to revise the act.

The act was in place, it was passed by the Legislature a number of years ago, and the regulation flowed from that particular act—

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. The former Minister of Community Safety signed off on the illegal G20 law that invoked war measures in Toronto. The war measures law then went to the legislation and regulations committee for approval on May 31. Eight ministers sit on that cabinet committee. On June 2, a five-member cabinet meeting approved the illegal law. In all, up to 14 ministers have their fingerprints on the illegal G20 law.

According to the Ombudsman, you say that the names of the ministers who agreed to invoke martial law are solicitor-client privilege. Well, Premier, you’re the client: You can waive the privilege. Which of your ministers should be held accountable for invoking the illegal war measures legislation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the minister.

Hon. James J.

Bradley: First of all, I should point out to the member that when you look at the number of people who are looking into this particular law, we have the Toronto Police Services Board, which is conducting an inquiry under Justice John Morden; we have the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, which is receiving complaints from the public and will be reporting back on those particular complaints; the RCMP, the federal police force, which is conducting an internal review; we have the Special Investigations Unit, which is conducting a review; and we have Justice McMurtry, who is reviewing the Public Works Protection Act.

So we have a number of different reviews that are going on at the present time, including the committee of the House of Commons, where these matters are being deliberated. Those, I think, will—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I did ask the Premier, but I would say to the minister that all of the things that you just mentioned don’t include a review of what this government did and don’t name names, and that’s what we’re asking about right now.

The plan for the illegal G20 law was vetted by Premier McGuinty and several of his ministers. The plan included a strategy to deflect any public criticism of the very war measures act you passed if your secret got out. Paragraph 210 of the Ombudsman’s report describes the emails that show the recommended plan was to blame and “an inattentive media” for the lack of public notice of a war measures law you deliberately buried. Keeping an illegal law a secret is bad enough, but the McGuinty Liberals’ propaganda plan is utterly disgraceful.

If he will not resign, Minister or Premier, why won’t you fire Minister Bartolucci?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, may I say to members of the Legislature something that I think they will know, and that is that the Ombudsman did not call for anybody to be fired. I am not calling for anyone—I’m complying with what the Ombudsman did not say in this particular case.

I go back to the fact that it is very difficult for many people in this province to understand that your party, if it were to be elected as the next government of Ontario, is committed to abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and that this same party in the province of Ontario would be that which wishes to stand now before the people of this province and say that they are going to save civil liberties.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier met with Toronto’s new mayor to discuss the future of Transit City. Earlier this year, the Premier and his government yanked $4 billion worth of Transit City funding. Following his meeting yesterday, has the Premier now completely abandoned Transit City, yes or no?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve been very clear that the funding that is going to the city of Toronto remains in the envelope to go to the city of Toronto. It’s the biggest investment in transit in a generation. There’s a plan in place to build all those projects—five projects over 10 years—and I think the member opposite knows that.

The Premier had a good meeting with Mayor Ford yesterday, as has been reported. As we’ve both said, we’ll continue to work with the city. The council has yet to meet. It’s important for the TTC and Metrolinx to work through the technical details. We’ll continue to work with them.

We want to build transit in the city of Toronto. That’s what this is all about.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Toronto families want their politicians to stop playing games, get the shovels in the ground and build Transit City. Along Eglinton Avenue, families have been waiting for decades for better public transit. Fifteen years ago, these families saw a previous provincial government kill a public transit plan; now it looks like the same thing is about to happen under the McGuinty government. Will this Premier take decisive action to make sure that the Eglinton LRT is built on schedule, or will he make the same mistake as Mike Harris?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite really needs to talk to the councillors in Toronto. She needs to talk to city council. She needs to encourage them to have that conversation with the mayor. But this is a member who has consistently voted against the air-rail link. She has not been in favour of transit in Toronto. In 2007, Howard Hampton, the then leader of the NDP—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member that we use riding names.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member for Kenora–Rainy River said, “We don’t need another subway mega-project ... extending the subway ... into a lightly populated York region.”

This party has consistently not been supportive of transit. We need them onside, supporting transit across the GTHA and across the province. They need to talk to city council. City council needs to work with the mayor. We want to build transit in the GTHA.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Health. In the Auditor General’s annual report, the auditor raised concerns about emergency room wait times. But he also recognized Ontario’s leadership in bringing down those wait times and the progress that has been made. He cited the adage, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

Oakville families want to know that high-quality emergency health care is there when they need it, and in order to make that real in Ontario we need to be able to measure that progress. My question this morning to the minister is, can you please speak to the work Ontario has done to address wait times in my community and throughout the province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Oakville for his question.

Ontario was the first province to start measuring wait times in our emergency departments, and we are already starting to see the results. Oakville is a good example of that. At the Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital, our investments in ERs mean that 96% of people are being seen within the target time, a 30% reduction in wait times since we started measuring in 2008. These are significant and meaningful results for the people in Oakville.

Across Ontario, our targeted investments mean that 85% of people going to emergency rooms are now being seen within our target—85%. We’ve seen a 9% reduction in time spent in emergency departments.

I’m proud to be part of a government that is making these investments, in contrast to the opposition, who have—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s clear that the investments in our wait time reduction plan are working and they’re starting to make a difference for families in my riding of Oakville, but emergency wait times are just one part of the challenge. Being able to get timely access to surgeries, MRIs, CT scans and ultrasounds are also critical components of a strong and healthy system.

A report that was released on Monday from the Fraser Institute said that unfortunately, wait times for surgeries are growing across Canada. Can the minister please inform the House whether or not this is the case for the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re not just making progress. Ontario is actually leading the country, according to the Fraser Institute, an organization not generally known for its enthusiastic support of the Liberal Party. Their most recent report shows that Ontario has the shortest wait times for CT scans, for MRIs, for ultrasounds, and we’ve got one of the shortest wait times for specialist consultants.

This report confirms what we’ve already heard from the Wait Time Alliance. Their 2010 report card gave Ontario straight As for reducing wait times for hips, knees, cancer, cataract and cardiac surgeries.

Within the Halton health care system, wait times for hip replacements are down 122 days. That’s a 50% reduction in wait times. Surgeries for knee replacements are down 28%, and 77% for CT scans.

I’m proud of the success that we’re having, and we look forward to doing more.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Premier. McGuinty Liberals would like to think Premier McGuinty and Pierre Trudeau have a shared respect for civil liberties and the charter in common. The Ombudsman, however, shows that the only thing they really have in common is declaring martial law. But even there, Premier McGuinty does not measure up, because at least Trudeau held a public debate when he invoked war measures.

What made you think you could get away with keeping your illegal war measures a secret from the people of the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the minister.

Interjections.

Hon. James J. Bradley: There’s considerable noise coming from the opposition.

I would first of all draw the context. I know it’s difficult for the Conservative Party, because on the one side, you want to be on the side of law and order, and on the other side, today, you want to be defending civil liberties. So it’s a difficult proposition for the party to be able to do both of those.

You will know the context of the situation. Your federal friends insisted that the G20 be in downtown Toronto, against the advice of the city of Toronto, against the advice of the Ontario government. As a result, 20 of the top terrorist targets in the world were assembled in downtown Toronto, with all kinds of threats being made to those individuals and to that conference.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, your answer had nothing to do with my question.

The Ombudsman put it best when he said about your illegal war measures law that “it may have been the best-kept secret in Ontario’s legislative history....” But even after you got caught, your office continued to say that your war measures didn’t provide police with new powers, and you’re still at it. This morning, you said that only two people were arrested under your war measures act, and the Ombudsman posted a message on Twitter to correct you even this morning. This is an embarrassment to this House. How can you expect the public of Ontario to have confidence in you and the former minister when you continue to exercise such outrageous judgment?

One thing is for sure: The Ombudsman’s report, Caught in the Act, will not be hidden on this side of the House. We will remind the people of the province of Ontario, right through to the evening of October 6, about the actions of this government.

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark has been constantly and consistently interjecting today. If he persists, I will have to warn him.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member probably didn’t have time to share this with the House, but he will know that the Ombudsman complimented the government of Ontario on its response to his report. He was very pleased with the degree of co-operation that he had from the government of Ontario, and he indicated that in his press conference and in his report. We are prepared to comply with all of the recommendations that he has in that particular report. I think he recognized as well the context in which the government was developing a law, with all of the threats that I have mentioned and the circumstances that were facing the government at the time.

Had something untoward happened to any one of those people who was in downtown Toronto, where the federal government insisted on having this, I suspect that the questions that would be coming to me today would be far different from those which are being asked now.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. For many weeks now, I’ve been raising the issue that is frustrating northerners more than a whole bunch of other issues that you’re frustrating them with as a government, and that is access to crown roads.

You keep on saying, at the end of the day, that nothing can be done and if people want to go hunting or fishing or blueberry picking, they’re going to have to walk into those roads that they’ve used for generations by way of motorized vehicles.

Further, it is alleged, and I’ve raised it in the House before, that there are cases where MNR staff have themselves bought outfitters’ camps and used their positions within the MNR to block some of those roads. You have said as recently as yesterday in this House that in fact no such case exists. I have one. The Ombudsman of Ontario actually investigated one. I’d like to send that over to you so you can reinvestigate it and try to do something about what is a travesty in northern Ontario.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m happy to answer this question. I’m pleased that the member is in the House today to hear the answer.

Yesterday, I was asked by the member from Algoma–Manitoulin about a question that had been raised by the member previously. It was with regard to Fushimi Lake Provincial Park and how it was subjected to an unauthorized motorized vehicle restriction. I’m really pleased that I have an opportunity to answer the question again. Had the member from Timmins–James Bay brought this particular case to my attention weeks ago, when I had originally asked, instead of waiting for question period, I would have been able to tell him that this restriction was a matter of public safety.

There were concerns with regard to snowmobilers entering the park through unauthorized access points, particularly over frozen creeks.

I’m certain that everybody in this House would agree that public safety and liability is what we should take with utmost seriousness.

Snowmobile access is allowed to continue through—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, you’re mixing up two issues. The issue of the Fushimi park, which you’re trying to refer to, I raised with you as far back as last year, and you promised at that time you were going to fix it. You then came into the House yesterday and said you’re not. The issue I’m raising today is the one that I’ve raised previously: MNR staff have been accused of having built outfitters’ camps, gotten land under the act, and have used that land to their own benefit while ministry employees.

I’ve sent over an investigation by the Ombudsman that points to one investigation that was whitewashed by your ministry. Will you look into that and get back to this House and clarify this issue once and for all?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: As I stated yesterday, the northern residents continue to enjoy unrestricted access to the vast majority of Ontario’s crown lands. We always work to balance the public’s access to recreational activities and opportunities with the need to protect, promote and preserve our wilderness and enhance remote areas.

To the allegations with regard to the MNR officials benefiting from planning decisions: I have had staff look into the matter, and we have yet to confirm a specific case of conflict-of-interest violation. But as I said, if anyone knows of a specific case, I would encourage them to bring it to my attention. My door is always open.

MNR staff do an outstanding job of protecting our natural resources. They’re often active members of our community, in which they work and live.

It’s important that access decisions are made through forest management and land use planning, both of which require public planning. I encourage anybody who has interest to participate in our public consultation process.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Ontario’s injured workers face huge difficulties in coping with the consequences of their injuries. In particular, mobility issues make it very difficult to travel to deposit their benefit cheques in the bank or to cash their cheque. I recently received a letter from the WSIB stating that it is now offering direct deposit of loss-of-earnings benefits for injured workers.

Minister, having heard complaints from my many constituents about this issue, I’m happy to see that WSIB has taken this step. Can you give us more details about how this change is going to work and what it means for Ontario’s injured workers?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I’m pleased that the member has raised this issue and the concerns surrounding this matter. I’m also pleased that the WSIB has heard the concerns of injured workers and has taken action.

Previously, direct deposit was only available on monthly benefits such as pension payments, but now, with these improvements that have been made, it’ll allow workers to receive their biweekly payments by direct deposit. So what will this do? This will help workers in terms of knowing that their cheques are secure, knowing that they’re going directly into their bank accounts. This will bring great relief to those injured workers.

As well, with that relief and that help to those injured workers, it would also help the WSIB’s administrative costs. So it helps on two fronts. This strives to respond to the needs of their customers, who are the injured workers. This is an excellent initiative by the WSIB, working very closely with injured workers and advocacy from members like the member from Willowdale.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Injured workers in Willowdale and, indeed, Ontario will welcome the convenience of having their benefits deposited directly into their accounts. But Minister, this is not the only concern that injured workers have here in Ontario. As we emerge from the global recession, and especially during the holiday season, many injured workers and their families are worried about their benefit levels.

Minister, what are you doing and what is our government doing about benefit levels for Ontario’s injured workers?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Unlike the parties opposite, this government has taken measures to help injured workers by increasing their benefits.

We all remember the 1990s, when the NDP brought forward the Friedland formula. Injured workers will tell you that is their “F” word. It was made even more regressive under a Conservative government. They exacerbated the situation and they virtually cut benefits to injured workers by 30%, unlike this government, which has increased benefits to the tune of 9% to injured workers.

We understand that injured workers, especially in these challenging times, need government’s help. So we are there working with injured worker groups, working with the WSIB and working with employers. We understand that we’re all in this together, unlike the parties opposite.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. In light of the fact that the Premier has refused to answer questions related to the conduct of Minister Bartolucci in passing and suppressing the G20 regulation, will the Premier agree to allow Minister Bartolucci personally to respond so that he can accept his ministerial responsibility and offer his resignation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community Safety.

Hon. James J. Bradley: As my friend—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): This will be the final warning for the member from Lanark, and he should be in his seat as well.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the member would know—he’s a member who has been in the Legislature for some period of time and he would be aware of the rules of the Legislature—all questions dealing with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services are to be directed to the minister who happens to have this position at this time.

I have indicated clearly that I’m prepared to answer any and all of the very legitimate questions that my friends on the opposite benches are prepared to direct to me. Therefore, I am here to answer those questions in any way that I guess I deem appropriate. I will try to be as lucid as possible in my answers to you, but I am here to answer those questions and I’m prepared to be here today and tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Actually, we’re well familiar with the standing orders. In fact, standing order 37(

e) states specifically that a minister would be able to refer to the subject matter that is involved. We’re talking about a subject matter that involved the actions of Minister Bartolucci. He is the minister who was responsible for the actions. We are now asking the Premier to allow that minister to stand in his place, explain his actions, take ministerial responsibility and do the right thing and offer his resignation for his actions.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m trying to recall, as no doubt my good friend and colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills is trying to recall today, any instance in the House where that has ever been undertaken. You may wish to consult with the esteemed member from Mississippi Mills, who some in your party are trying to dump from his position as the member for Mississippi Mills.

I think it would be instructive if, rather than consulting with the member beside you, who has been trying to undermine the member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills, in fact you consult with the member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills, who is a long-standing and esteemed member of this House, one who has gained the respect of the people of his constituency and one who has gained the respect of all of the people in this House. Rather than that happening, I think you should be worried about someone trying to dump the member—

Interjections.

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

New question.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Does the minister think it’s appropriate that Ontario parents are waiting more than a year for licensed child care for their infants?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I know that the Minister of Education will look forward to answering this question because, as the member opposite likely knows, the file of child care was transferred to the Ministry of Education.

We did that a number of months ago in order to recognize the fact that when children start in child care, it’s the beginning of their formal education. We want to ensure that the processes and the protections that are put in place and the education and learning that begin start at the earliest days, upon them being placed in child care—as I did with my own children; you talk to your kids about the first day of child care as their first day of school, and that is the reality for families. That is now the reality here in our government structures, and we’re very, very proud of that change.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister might not want to face it, but the reality is faced by a lot of parents in this province. They cannot get child care for their infants. In Kenora, there are only nine licensed child care spots—nine spots in Kenora. In a city of 15,000 people, families are waiting more than a year for child care, causing emotional and financial turmoil in those households.

Consider Erin, a new mom from Kenora, who writes, “As a mother, my greatest priority is the safety and well-being of my son. I should not have to rely on unregistered and unmonitored home daycare upon my return to work.”

When will this government start taking the concerns of new parents like Erin seriously?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: This is a very, very important issue, and I have to say that I’m delighted now that I have the responsibility of working with those in the child care sector as we continue to improve access to those services.

Since we’ve come to government, we have increased the number of spaces in the province by 67,000. Now, 22,000 of those are a result of our investments in Best Start.

But what I can say to the honourable member is that our commitment to full-day kindergarten will go a long way to expanding access to regulated child care spaces. For those families who are using regulated spaces for their four- and five-year-old children, those children will now move to the regular school system, thereby freeing up space in child care facilities for those families who are awaiting infant care in child care facilities.

Our investment in full-day kindergarten is going to have—

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

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, full-day kindergarten is clearly popular as we have seen a high level of demand for the program across the province. However, there are some areas where all the students who want to get into the program are not being accommodated.

In response to this, the Peel District School Board has offered 10 additional classes this year. However, this decision is costing approximately $1.3 million more than the board was funded for this first phase of implementation.

As a result, trustees voted to defer the launching of the program at five Peel schools until the 2012-13 school year.

Minister, what is our government doing to meet the ever-increasing demand for full-day kindergarten? And what is our plan to ensure—

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, we know that parents love full-day kindergarten and we are not surprised that families are very eager to participate in this program. We have, however, recognized that it is going to be a challenge. Moving forward there are many things that must be considered, and that is why we’re taking a staged approach. That is why, when we invited school boards to bring us their ideas on how to roll out in their boards, we made very clear the money that was going to be available for this and we said to them, “Now, you need to present your plan.”

I think it is regrettable. We’ve been very clear with what resources would be available. In the member’s case, the board has decided to, perhaps, accept beyond the funding that we said we would make available. I think it’s really unfortunate when commitments are made and then they’re withdrawn from the people in the jurisdiction.

We will continue. We are committed to full-day—

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Minister, as we work towards full implementation, my constituents are eager to have their children enrolled in this program. We know full-day kindergarten is the best way to ensure our society moves forward and produces a stronger Ontario for the future.

I also know that full-day kindergarten is just one of the many investments that the McGuinty government has made to strengthen public education in Peel, though I have been hearing from my constituents that the Peel board is underfunded.

For many constituents in Mississauga–Brampton South and for those of my colleagues in the Peel region, could you inform this House, are we doing enough to support our students? And is the Peel board underfunded?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: What I can say, and what I would hope all members in this House would say to their constituents, is that this government has increased funding in education by 40%.

The other thing we are committed to is full-day kindergarten, unlike the other party, who has not committed to it. They call it a frill. They are not committed to maintaining this program. The member can tell her constituents that in 2015 all families will have access to full-day kindergarten.

With respect to Peel, I can say as well that we have increased funding to the Peel board by $64 million. That is a 70% increase in funding from the time we took government for the Peel board, for the member’s constituents. There have been 50 new schools built in Peel.

We are committed