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

March 3, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Mar-03 (PDF)

L089 - Thu 3 Mar 2011 / Jeu 3 mar 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 3 March 2011 Jeudi 3 mars 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

POWER PLANT

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

SMALL BUSINESS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

RED TAPE REDUCTION

NORTHERN ECONOMY

ELDER ABUSE

RED TAPE REDUCTION

HEALTH CARE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

CURRICULUM

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

AJAX AND PICKERING HOSPITAL

RURAL ONTARIO

PHYLLIS MARSHALL

ONTARIO SENIOR GAMES–WINTERFEST 2011

CHINESE CANADIAN

NATIONAL COUNCIL

TORONTO AUTOMOBILE

DEALERS ASSOCIATION

COMMISSAIRE AUX SERVICES

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PETITIONS

PENSION PLANS

EPILEPSY

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS

BILL OF RIGHTS, 2011 /

CHARTE DES DROITS DES PETITES ENTREPRISES DE 2011

ONTARIO SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEERS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR L’ASSOCIATION

DES INGÉNIEURS DE L’ONTARIO

REGISTERED HUMAN RESOURCES

PROFESSIONALS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LES PROFESSIONNELS

EN RESSOURCES HUMAINES INSCRITS

SMALL BUSINESS

BILL OF RIGHTS, 2011 /

CHARTE DES DROITS DES PETITES ENTREPRISES DE 2011

ONTARIO SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEERS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR L’ASSOCIATION

DES INGÉNIEURS DE L’ONTARIO

REGISTERED HUMAN RESOURCES

PROFESSIONALS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LES PROFESSIONNELS

EN RESSOURCES HUMAINES INSCRITS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 2, 2011, on the motion for allocation of time of Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the resolution of labour disputes involving the Toronto Transit Commission / Projet de loi 150, Loi prévoyant le règlement des conflits de travail à la Commission de transport de Toronto.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t sure at this point who was supposed to be up, but if it is me—I see I have 10 minutes.

I spoke on the last occasion about the TTC workers, about taking away the right to strike, about arbitration, about the costs to the city of Toronto and also the cost to the unionized workers, who will, from this point on, although they’re likely to get more money through arbitration, find many of the key aspects of their job that were negotiated in the past will not be negotiated in the same kind of way.

Most of the breakthrough legislation around things, most importantly like health and safety, have not been arbitral awards, because an arbitrator is there to try to make sure that fairness is done in terms of wages, but they do not often rock the boat when it comes to new concepts, new ideas or new rights for workers. Those are hard won, and usually only through conciliation with the right to strike. So it was a sad day when the government imposed this closure.

I’ve been around here for nearly 10 years, and in those 10 years I’ve seen a lot of closure motions. I know why governments do them. Governments do them for a variety of reasons, but fundamentally they do them, first of all, because they’re tired of the debate and they don’t want to hear any more debate on the issue, or they think they’re getting beaten up in the debate and they simply want it to go away. The second reason they do it, on occasion, is because there is a timetable; there is an agenda that has to be met. In this particular case, I happen to think it’s both of them.

I think the government is starting to get beaten up by many people and groups who have served them in the past. I think some of the unions are starting to get pretty angry, looking at this.

I know that this Liberal government is feeding towards that Ford frenzy in Toronto; I know that. I think they’re afraid of the Ford nation. I listened to that last night, this whole thing about the Ford nation coming down on the Liberal government and on McGuinty if the government doesn’t do exactly his bidding. I don’t know whether people over there are afraid of that; I don’t know. I think they probably are. I think they’re afraid of a whole bunch of things around this new administration and what they’re asking for. I think, too, this is a government that very often just does things by polls.

They look at the polls—and my friend here from Brantford, the instant expert on Toronto, says, “Oh, wow, we read a poll that 70% of the people want to take away the rights.” So that makes him an expert on Toronto. I think that’s why the government is doing it, too.

I think this government is going to be beaten up over time on this issue—perhaps not today and perhaps not by the people of Toronto, but they are going to be beaten up by many of the people they like to stand here and say they represent and listen to. Because in fact this is not happening at all. Part of their whole rush here is that they don’t want to hear the other parts of the arguments; they don’t want to hear what—I think ordinary, rational people, given time to think about it, maybe would have second thoughts. So, “Let’s go headlong and do whatever Mayor Ford says. Let’s do whatever the media has trumped up. Let’s take away these rights. Let’s do it in a hurry and let’s do it now.”

That brings me to the second half of why they’re doing it: They have an arbitrary deadline; they’ve set it for themselves. They’ve decided, “We have to do this before the contract that the TTC workers have is up.” They have to do it right away because on April 1 they’ll be without a contract. Heaven knows what they’re going to do.

This government didn’t listen at all to what the union has said. The union is asking merely—they know the cards are probably already dealt. They know that the betting is taking place. They know that their hand is probably not the winning one. And they know that something is going to happen. But they also know that their membership wants an opportunity to be heard. They also know that in order for things to happen or for them to be listened to, they have to take away the right to strike, at least in this round of negotiation.

They put forward, I think, a very sensible proposition to this government which was totally ignored. They said, “In this round of bargaining we will not strike. We will not.”

Please take your time and do this right. Whatever you’re going to do, listen to all the parties involved and please do it right. This government isn’t interested in that. This government invoked closure even though the debate was almost wound down; it was almost gone. All of the New Democratic Party members, who obviously were not going to support the bill, had already spoken. I don’t know what you thought was going to happen. But you were so bound and determined to meet that artificial deadline that you’ve set for yourselves that you invoked closure on something that didn’t have to have closure at all.

So here we go: In a few minutes we’re going to be all finished and the government’s going to do what they want. There’s going to be a day or two of hearings and they’re going to be really done quickly. And then, some time before that magic April 1 date, the government will be back in this House with another closure motion shutting it down. Third reading will be half an hour or an hour. Whatever the debate’s going to be, it will be almost non-existent; the government’s going to do it.

Then I can see the Premier waving this around, inviting Mayor Ford, “Come on up to Queen’s Park. Have I got a treat for you. Please don’t unleash the Ford nation on me. I’ve done exactly what you said. I’ve bowed to your every wish. Not only have I bowed to your wish for subways when obviously Transit City makes much more sense; I have now bowed to your wish on the TTC. What else can I do, Mayor Ford? How else can I help you so that you don’t unleash your nation upon me? How about letting you sell off all the Ontario Housing, Toronto city housing to the highest bidder. Can I do that for you, Mayor Ford?

Please, can I do that for you?” Or how about, I don’t know, the hundred things that he’s asking for.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: He wants $150 million.

Mr. Michael Prue: Oh yeah, he wants $150 million. “Please, Mayor Ford, wait for the budget. We’ll see whether we can come up with that money.”

I don’t know; for all these years I thought the Ontario government stood for something. For all these years, I thought they stood for the people of the province of Ontario and, yes, for the people who live in Ontario’s and Canada’s largest city. But I see that much of what is done around here is done for political expediency. Much of what is done around here is so that this government can find itself, it hopes, on the right side of votes come election day.

There are, of course, going to be winners: those who want to change our society enormously; those who want us to go down the path of becoming Wisconsin. And then there are going to be losers: those workers, like the TTC workers, who are going to lose the rights they have and, I think, the rights they want for a safer and more decent place to work. This government is playing right into those hands and is doing it, I think, because there is a real, palpable fear out there of what the residents of Toronto are going to do with this government in the next election.

They are bowing to pressures they ought not to bow to. They are giving up on friends, or people who used to be their friends, in order to embrace people who are very strange bedfellows indeed.

In the minute or so I have left, I just say this is another sad day in this Legislature. I think that almost every time there has been a closure motion in the 10 years I have been here, we have spoken against closure because it is not in the democratic interests of the people we serve. To cut off debate when debate becomes uncomfortable, to cut off debate when you have a secret agenda or an agenda that obviously makes no sense, like this one, is a sad day for democracy.

For all those Liberals who cheer on closure motions because, I guess, they’re just tired of it, well, I think they will have other options come October 7 this year. They won’t have to listen to it anymore, because so many of them will not be here.

You know, that’s the way it is, and I guess it’s with a very heavy heart that I watch this take place. But I know full well that in the fullness of time, whether it takes a week or a month or a year, people and saner things will prevail, ideas will come back and those workers who are being done such a disservice here in Toronto will have their day too, perhaps all thanks to the Ford nation.

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

Seeing none, on March 2, Ms. Smith moved government notice of motion 54. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will defer this vote until deferred votes, after question period.

Vote deferred.

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 1, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé.

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

Seeing none, on December 8, 2010, Ms. Matthews moved second reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will defer this vote until deferred votes, after question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 22, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 140,

An Act to enact the Housing Services Act, 2011, repeal the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 and make complementary and other amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 140, Loi édictant la Loi de 2011 sur les services de logement, abrogeant la Loi de 2000 sur la réforme du logement social et apportant des modifications corrélatives et autres à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure for me to have just a few moments to speak about Bill 140,

An Act to enact the Housing Services Act, 2011, repeal the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 and make complementary and other amendments to other Acts. I only had a couple of minutes to speak to it on one of the hits during second reading debate, and I really wanted to put a few comments on the record this morning as it relates to my riding of Leeds–Grenville.

Our riding has had a lot of debate with housing over the last little bit, through the united counties of Leeds and Grenville. Most of our existing units are over 50 years old, and 30% of them—30%—were built before 1946. We’ve got a tremendously old housing stock, one that is in desperate need of repair, and the county has had very, very poor luck in getting funding from the McGuinty government. They’re very frustrated. I know that many of the county councillors have expressed dismay, both the ones who were elected last October and the county council prior to that. They’ve made a number of funding requests.

I believe in their last funding request they asked for in excess of 200 units, and basically, I think the first time they got nothing and the second time they received a handful.

There were two actual projects that the united counties of Leeds and Grenville did as part of their master plan. They looked at a number of applications that were in throughout the entire riding and they prioritized two projects: one in North Grenville that was on the site of the Kemptville District Hospital, and the other in downtown Brockville, from a corporation called Wall Street Village. Two very good projects that, when the ranking was finished, were equal—dead equal—in terms of points. The county opted not to prioritize them because they didn’t want to choose between the two.

Both were very significant projects that required a lot of funding from the province, and as a result, they didn’t get the money.

I can remember, because the anniversary of my election is tomorrow, that one of the first things that I did when I got here—I got sworn in on March 22. We convened a meeting with the people from the Kemptville District Hospital; the CEO, Colin Goodfellow; and a representative from the Ministry of Housing, because we realized then that the initial Canada-Ontario affordable housing agreement—sometimes units get turned back. Sometimes, for whatever reason, the funding allocation doesn’t get used and the numbers come back to the ministry.

We were trying to develop a strategy on being ready in case units became available, but we couldn’t get much assistance from the government. That’s why I feel so strongly about Bill 140 and the efforts that they’re putting on local service managers—in my case, the united counties of Leeds and Grenville. Obviously during question period you don’t have that opportunity to get detail, so I opted to use the tools that were available to me and I filed some order paper questions, very specific questions to help us develop our strategy in Leeds–Grenville to deal with the government.

I’ll just indulge the members, because I think it’s very pertinent to Bill 140’s discussion. Some of the order paper questions I did—I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to “provide the name of municipality and dollar allocation and number of units for the Canada-Ontario affordable housing program round 2 funding initial allocation.” And just again, indulge me, because once I read the five and tell you the answer it’ll become clear.

The second question: I asked the minister to “provide details of the Canada-Ontario affordable housing program round 2 funding initial allocation projects that have received an extension on their commitment.” I wanted to find out who had been given that extension.

Thirdly: the funding details for round 2 funding to give me an idea of funding reallocation for projects in round 2 that could not proceed; to provide reallocation details of round 1 funding; and finally, to provide the name of municipality and the dollar allocation and number of units for that initial round 1.

All I wanted to do was to find out, basically, the background; to provide the county with a strategy on how to proceed for these two top-ranked affordable housing projects; to find out what happened in round 1 and what happened in round 2. Very specific questions, very open questions; there weren’t any curveballs there and there wasn’t any trick that I was trying to play with the ministry. I was just trying to find cold, hard facts so that we could deal with our aging affordable housing stock in my riding and be able to tell some very progressive people who wanted to provide that housing mix how to proceed.

Here is the answer that I got to those very specific questions, and this is from Minister Bartolucci, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. His response: “On June 9, 2009, our government signed an affordable housing agreement with the federal government to deliver new housing to Ontarians. Through this agreement we are investing $622 million and the federal government is matching the sum, for a combined total of $1.2 billion for housing. This investment will create 4,500 new units of affordable housing and repair well over 50,000 units of social housing across the province. We are working with federal and municipal partners to announce these projects in the near future.”

Can you imagine what looks I got when I showed this response to those two housing groups? They couldn’t believe it. They couldn’t believe that the province of Ontario would answer an MPP’s questions—specific questions for them to develop a strategy on trying to get funding, trying to be open, trying to work with the government to make this work, and they get this from the minister? It’s disgraceful. It’s a joke. These people have worked for years to provide this in good faith, based on this federal-provincial partnership.

When I told them about the minister’s statement about his Bill 140 and when I sent them, through the county, details, I was just again—I think it was one of the members for the third party, the member for Parkdale–High Park, who, when she had her 10-minute address, talked about the fact that the clock is ticking on this term of the Legislative Assembly. We all know that we have an election in October, and I think if we’re going to do something on this file, we need to have a little co-operation.

When I table some order paper questions, the thing that frustrates me the most is the fact that when I get bonehead answers, like I got to those very specific questions, there’s no area of appeal. There’s no late show I can call. There’s no appeal board that I can go to to get those questions answered. Those are the answers I get and that’s it.

But I’ll tell you, when it comes to this file, when it comes to our housing stock in our riding of Leeds–Grenville, we need some help and we need some co-operation. We don’t need a pat, two-paragraph answer that tells me something that I already know. That doesn’t help county council. That doesn’t help those community groups that want to provide a project to deal with the affordable housing need in my riding of Leeds–Grenville. Again, 30% of the stock was built prior to 1946. Applying for units and getting no response, trying to develop a strategy to deal with the government, and getting stupid answers to some very specific questions, isn’t going to foster that co-operation.

Mr. Dave Levac: Calling them stupid is?

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, they are. They’re stupid answers.

All I remember is, we’ve got a strategy. We’ve already, in our community, done what was part of this bill, and that’s providing priorities, but we need some help.

So, in closing, I appreciated the fact that I asked for a couple of minutes today just to, again, express the frustration of our county members, of our service provider and of those two projects, one in North Grenville and one in Brockville, who find it extremely difficult when they don’t know how some of these projects were funded; when they know that there are units that are returned that could be put to use in other communities. How are they going to mount a message that’s going to get a response from this government?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for letting me provide a few local examples.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was very interesting to listen to the member from Leeds–Grenville as he shared some of the struggles that people in his riding are facing when it comes to affordable housing. Those are struggles that could be repeated, I would say, in most of the ridings across this province.

The bill does take a few good steps, but it is mainly what is not in the bill that is causing all of us problems. The need for affordable housing is present across every community in Ontario, and I will speak in more depth about my own communities and how the lack of affordable housing is causing some real hardship for a lot of people, a lot of families and entire communities. Yet we don’t see any of this in the bill, so there continues to be this huge need out there with no real plan to bring solutions to meet those needs. The member from Leeds–Grenville gave us examples of this.

This is a typical bill where there are some really good, small steps that will clear up some of the paperwork issues that have been a nightmare for a long time; they will probably get addressed with this bill. But the fundamental right of people to affordable housing is not being addressed, although during the huge consultation that was done on poverty, it came up as the number one issue throughout the province, that affordable housing had to be addressed. In every forum that you go to, you hear about affordable housing, yet we will let this opportunity go by with nothing done.

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to respond to the comments from the member opposite on Bill 140 and to lend my support to the bill, which, if passed, will provide Ontarians with access to a system that puts people first and will set a strong foundation for a more efficient, accessible system for those who need it.

I think we need to put this in the context that, since 2003, our government has invested more than $2.5 billion in non-profit housing, in addition to the $430 million which is provided annually for other forms of housing supports.

One of the things that I’m really excited about right now in my community is the St. Joseph’s foundation, adjacent to St. Joe’s hospital, is building affordable housing units for seniors. This is going to be a great development because a lot of the day programming for seniors is located at St. Joe’s, so they’ll have affordable housing next door to where the programming is.

The legislation, though, will also provide some flexibility in the way that program money is used as it arrives from the province. That means that people in Toronto can use it in one way, people in Leeds–Grenville can use it in another, and people in Nickel Belt or Timmins can use it in another way—whatever makes the most sense locally.

A couple of things that people in my community are very pleased about in the bill are that rent geared to income will now be a once-a-year calculation, not a continuous recalculation, and also the requirement to have municipalities allow one-off affordable units in single-family residential—good things in this bill.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the speech by the member from Leeds–Grenville on Bill 140, the Housing Services Act, 2011.

I think the member made some good points. In particular, he was talking for a while there about order paper questions that were coming on the issue of affordable housing from community groups in his riding trying to get some very specific information that he was going to pass on to these groups and how the response from the government to his specific questions was not very helpful. I would simply say that seems to be what this government is doing.

For those who aren’t familiar, as MPPs we can table questions, which we give to the table here in the Legislature, and then there’s a time frame whereby the appropriate minister has to respond to the question. But if they’re going to give answers that don’t really provide any information, it’s really not very helpful.

Last year I held an affordable housing roundtable, a consultation meeting, in Parry Sound. In my riding, Parry Sound has probably the greatest need for affordable housing. We had many individuals and groups who came out to participate in that. I have since then passed on their thoughts and recommendations to the government, so I hope the government is listening to the input they’re getting.

This bill is a small step. Our party will be supporting the bill, I think, as debate winds down. But it would be nice if the government would take opposition order paper questions seriously and actually make some sort of attempt to provide information which can then be passed on to our constituents.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened again to the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: Yes, I was going to say that he didn’t use his BlackBerry, and he spoke so eloquently without it.

He quite rightly pointed out that there is no help. There’s nothing that you can do when you get an answer, or a non-answer, like he gets. There is no appeal, and as he said, there’s not even a late show. There’s nothing that can be done.

Now, we in this House, particularly on the opposition side, know that when you ask a question in question period of a minister or of the Premier, they’re often not going to answer it. They’re going to skirt around the issue and say whatever they want, but they’re not going to directly deal with the issue that you are bringing forward. I was at a reception last night and met a Liberal staffer and talked about that, and she was very blunt and very bold. She said, “We never intend to answer your questions. Don’t you know that yet after 10 years?” I said, “Well, yes, I do.” But it was the first time I’d ever heard someone from the Liberal Party actually explain it that way.

Please, when he’s asking a non-technical question, please find it in your hearts to answer them. We all have a job to do here: to represent our constituents.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Leeds–Grenville has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’d like to take the opportunity to thank the members for Nickel Belt, Guelph, Parry Sound–Muskoka and Beaches–East York for their questions and comments,

And I apologize: I was a bit over the top today. I was blowing off some steam a bit, but there was a lot of frustration. As I said before, in my riding, in our communities, the local service provider has over 1,130 units that they own or fund, in addition to 113 rent supplements. The two projects that were requested, the 80-unit seniors’ building in Kemptville and the 80-unit building for disabled persons in Brockville—again, there was some frustration. We had received no money one year; we were asking for $29 million. We ended up, of the 323 units that we asked for, getting 14. We got 12 units in Elgin and a two-unit in Kemptville. So you have to appreciate that we’re extremely frustrated.

I saw some figures a year ago, just after my election, and our waiting list in housing fluctuates between 350 and 600. That’s significant, when you look at 600 people as a high on the waiting list when there’s only 1,130 units that the county is involved in. Again, we were trying to develop a strategy, we were trying to develop a partnership, but we needed the base information from the government. We needed that information so that we could provide a strategy back to them so we could participate.

Time is running out on this session of the Legislative Assembly, and when you put a bill like this, I think you have to be prepared to provide not just the normal fluff answers like the ones I received to my order paper questions. I think people deserve better.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been more than six and one half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader indicates otherwise.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we would like the debate to continue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Is there further debate? The honourable member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to start by quoting from a book, Persistent Poverty: Voices from the Margins, which basically says that in Ontario, right here, right now, 1.3 million households are precariously housed; that is, they pay more than 30% of their total income on housing—1.3 million households. That’s a lot of people.

There are 120,000 families that live in overcrowded housing. If any of you ever care to come to northern Ontario and go into any of our First Nations communities, you will see what overcrowding is all about and you will see what sleeping in shifts is all about.

We also have 80,000 Ontarians who live in substandard housing that requires major repair. We’re not talking about changing the colour of the porch here. We’re talking about windows and doors and a roof that doesn’t leak and mould in the bathroom etc.

We have over 140,000 households that are on waiting lists for affordable housing. That’s worth repeating: 140,000 households are on affordable housing wait-lists in Ontario. That’s throughout Ontario. It doesn’t matter where you go, there are wait-lists for supportive housing. This number increased from 2009 to 2010. It increased by 10%.

Housing insecurity is rising partly because the cost of energy keeps soaring and people can’t make ends meet. Rent has also increased faster than inflation, while the income of tenants has stagnated or declined. Half of tenants do not have enough income to pay for housing and other necessities such as food, medicine, transportation or education.

The author of Persistent Poverty spoke to hundreds of people from across Ontario struggling with poverty and insecure housing. I’ll give you one example. His name is Jacob. He’s a young man from Toronto who said at a recent community meeting, “A bachelor apartment costs $600 or maybe $700 a month in Parkdale. Rooming houses are terrible. People steal your food, mess up the bathroom, get drunk and bring their friends home. My socks and underwear were stolen from the laundry. How do I pay a high rent on my ODSP cheque of $1,092 per month? It could be worse if I were on OW at $585 a month. What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to steal?” Those are some of the comments that we’ve heard.

There’s a real need for action on affordable housing, yet we see a bill that takes a few tiny steps that are welcomed by all but that miss the whole picture. How can we be bringing forward a bill that deals squarely with supportive housing and miss the most important issue of them all: the fact that we need more affordable housing, or we need a way to support people so they don’t need affordable housing and can pay their own rent? But this is completely missing from the bill. We’re talking about an issue that is really pertinent, right here, right now, to millions of people in Ontario, yet we’re missing the boat.

We’re not talking to them about what’s most important to those 140,000 households on waiting lists: They want affordable housing. Those people who can barely pay their rent and their utility costs want help with decent pay and decent jobs so that they can pay their own rent and they don’t need supportive housing. But we’re not seeing any of that in the bill. We’re seeing a few small good steps, but we’re missing the elephant in the room. How can we do this?

Not so long ago, three and a half years ago, I was the executive director of the community health centre in Sudbury, and we ran a program. We were the lead agency for the Homelessness Network, which dealt with homeless people in Sudbury. We worked under a strategy called Housing First. That is, the people we dealt with, the great majority, from month to month—depending; between 85% and 90% of them—dealt with severe mental illness and addiction. They were people who were chronically homeless.

They had developed coping abilities that made them really, really hard to house, and without a stock of supportive housing it became almost impossible to help them. Because you know what? If you want to do anything that would help people cope with their mental health and addiction issues, the first thing you have to do is house them, because when you don’t know where you’re going to sleep tonight it becomes all-consuming.

All of your time, energy, effort and resources are going to be focused on this, never mind trying to get a hold of your addiction issue or starting on a path of recovery for your mental health issue. You need housing.

But in Sudbury, the wait-lists are just as long as everywhere else. Over 10,000—actually 12,000—people in Sudbury are waiting for supportive housing. Sudbury is not a big community, but it sure has a big wait-list for supportive housing. You add into this mix close to 450 people with severe mental health and addictions issues who are difficult to house, and you have a desperate situation for a lot of people.

I remember way back, maybe eight or nine years ago, we had a nurse at the community health centre—her name is Lorraine LeBlanc—who started to talk about homelessness in Sudbury and said that there were people sleeping outside. When I brought that forward to a forum of other health care providers, they all had a good laugh. It was January. It was minus 35 outside and I was talking about people sleeping outside. Well, she started going to what we call the soup kitchen. They had a little porch attached to the soup kitchen at the time.

The place was not heated, so she froze in the winter, and there were lots of bugs in the summer, but she toughed it out and kept going and kept saying, “There are people sleeping outside. It’s minus 30. We have to do something.”

The social planning council stepped in. They did a study and showed that between 350 and 500 people are homeless in Sudbury on any given night. It was minus 29 in Sudbury last night. I guarantee you there were people sleeping in the cemetery and there were people sleeping underneath the bridges, at minus 29. They don’t do this by choice. They do this because there is a lack of affordable housing, and on the little money they get on OW or on ODSP, they have lost their housing. They have been kicked out and they’re out at minus 25.

How could that be? This is Ontario. We’re not talking about some Third World country, where—but are we? We’re talking about a community in northern Ontario, like many other communities, where between 350 and 500 people are homeless. They sleep in the cemetery, they sleep under the bridge and in the entranceways of the banks, wherever they can find, because we have this elephant in the room called, “We need more supported housing,” or “We need a way to lift people out of poverty so that they can afford housing.” Here’s a government that brings this bill that talks about some technicalities that we all agree need to be fixed but leaves that huge gap out there that leaves people homeless.

I and many of the colleagues in this room spent close to 18 months on the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. We heard from 33 different communities, and 335 deputants came and told us their stories. Every single time we sat, in every single community we went to, we heard about the need for supported housing, the need for affordable housing. We saw the compounding effect it has on people who are trying to deal with mental health and addiction issues when they don’t have access to housing. We wrote a report that was supported by all parties in this House.

It was a cry for action on mental health and addiction with a specific recommendation targeted at affordable housing, because we know the links are there.

Yet we have a government right now that is putting forward a bill that talks about the right issues—it talks about supportive housing—but it takes the wrong path. It takes a few little steps that are good, but it doesn’t address the core of the issue, which is, how do we make sure that access to safe and secure housing is considered a human right? Why don’t we recognize that the lack of affordable housing in Ontario is an assault on the human rights of our citizens?

When we see 350 to 500 people in Sudbury being homeless or near homeless, when we see people sleeping outside at minus 29 degrees—and it goes way colder than this in Sudbury and in all of northern Ontario—there’s something drastically wrong. If this is not a call to action, what is a call to action then?

But there’s no movement from the government. There’s no clear plan that says, “Here’s the number of new units that will be built each and every year. Here’s how we will make sure that we follow through and that those new units are being built. Here’s how we make sure that people with mental health and addiction or other disabilities have enough to be able to afford the rent and also to buy food, clothing, a little bit of transportation and other necessities of life.” But there’s no movement. What an opportunity lost.

We also have in Sudbury what is called an ALC, alternate level of care, crisis. Our hospital, a brand new state-of-the-art hospital on one site—something that we have been waiting for, hmm, 16 years—finally came to be. The grand opening was done last spring, and we have the new Sudbury Regional Hospital. We should all be happy. We have state-of-the-art equipment throughout. The place is functional, it’s well designed, it has top-notch staff. Yet they are bogged down with long waiting lists in the emergency room, cancelled surgeries, and the list goes on. Why?

Well, partly because of affordable housing, partly because we have elderly people who run into trouble in their own homes who are admitted into the hospital and then they can’t go back home. They sit in a hospital bed because there’s nowhere else for them to go.

We need affordable and supported housing in Sudbury. We have a task force put into place, headed by Dr. Zelan, and everybody agrees that we need more supported housing in Sudbury. We presently have—it’s on the hospital website; anybody can go and see—200 people at the Sudbury Regional Hospital who are there awaiting proper care someplace else but there is nowhere to go, so those 200 people stay at the hospital causing the hospital many, many difficulties trying to operate as an acute care hospital.

There are only 300-some beds at Sudbury Regional Hospital. Take 200 of them and give them to people who don’t need to be there and you can see how the problem will develop quite quickly. Well, they are dealing with challenges and they are having many, many difficulties. The solutions have been put out to the community care access centre, to the local health integration network, to the Ministry of Health, to the Ministry of Housing, but yet there’s no action. I mean, the Minister of Housing is also the MPP from Sudbury. He knows what’s going on in his own city. He knows the recommendation that everybody agrees to: That we need more supported and affordable housing. Yet there’s no action.

There are groups. Tullio, from Capreol—a very charming town in the northeast end of my riding—has on the books an almost shovel-ready project for affordable and supported housing for Capreol within Capreol co-op housing. They have the track record; they have the banking ready; they know how to do housing. This is what they are. They are a housing co-op and they certainly have the support of our community. How come we cannot move forward? How come we’re not able to get support from the government to move those units, to get them built, to get them filled? Because the wait-list certainly is there.

Here we are talking about a subject that is of great interest to hundreds of thousands of Ontarians, yet I feel like we’re kind of paying lip service to this. We are doing little, wee changes that everybody will agree with, that will make some of the paperwork of existing tenants a little bit easier, and we support this; there’s nothing wrong with that. But we’re missing the elephant in the room. We’re missing the plan that will say, “We have a plan to make things better. We have a plan that shows that we listen to everybody who lives in poverty.

We listened to the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions and their recommendation for people who are trying to deal. We listened to the Social Planning Council of Sudbury, who says housing first is the way to go; housing first is the strategy that should be followed. We listened to the leaders of the Sudbury health community, Dr. Zelan and his group from the local health integration network that looks at how we solve the ALC crisis that is causing so much difficulty for Sudbury Regional Hospital.”

The solutions are clear and they all point in the same direction: We need affordable housing in Sudbury; we need supported housing in Sudbury. I know that it is the same in every other community. Yet we’re talking about this subject but we’re not going to do anything that addresses the major issues facing housing in Ontario: the fact that 1.3 million people are precariously housed and the fact that the wait-list stands at 140,000 for all of Ontario. We’re not going to do anything about this. This is a real shame. It is more than an opportunity lost; it is almost cruel.

How can it be that in my Ontario, right here, right now, such a basic human right, the right for housing—remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? We’re not talking about self-actualization here. We’re talking about your basic needs: food and shelter. We are all human. We all have those basic needs for food and shelter. Otherwise, nothing else can happen. You cannot grow to your full potential. You cannot be a fully contributing member of our society. Hell, you can barely participate in society if you don’t have your basic needs addressed.

And we have this bill, Bill 140—what a really good name if you ask me—the Strong Communities through Affordable Housing Act. Now, doesn’t that lead you to believe that we’re going to address the housing crisis in Ontario, with a name like that? It sure led me to believe. I was happy when the title was unveiled. Then the happiness quickly faded away when I read the bill and realized that we are tinkering with some little issues that are important and that will make things a little bit better, but we’re not addressing the main issue.

The main issue is those 1.3 million people previously housed, 120,000 families in overcrowded housing, 80,000 families in housing that—

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

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m pleased to rise and respond to the member from Nickel Belt. I can certainly understand that there’s a challenge facing us when 17,000 units were cancelled by the previous government. Of course we are in catch-up.

Having said that, we have invested $2.5 billion into housing in this province since 2003. In particular, $1.2 billion has gone into housing in terms of repairs and new units with our stimulus package.

But interestingly enough, while the member stands and waxes eloquent about this need, they voted against the package. They voted against new units, jobs and repairs for exactly the same people that they’re concerned about, and the reason they voted against it was it was considered crumbs: $1.2 billion was considered crumbs.

The other thing that we need to speak about is this homelessness issue. We’ve invested $157 million to help combat homelessness just in 2009-10. That’s an increase of 30% since 2003. We’ve spent more than $89 million in provincial funding for emergency hostel services offered by municipalities, just in 2009-10. We’ve actually increased domicile hostel housing by 33% since 2003.

In 2010-11, we’re investing $31.5 million to the consolidated homelessness prevention program, over $35 million—again—for the domicile hostels and over $2 million emergency funds, so add that to the $1.2 billion with the federal government. In 2008-09, again, we put in $32.6 million. The money is coming. We are working toward—we’ve got a strategy.

We know we need to work with the service managers. We know we need to find a less complicated way for them to be able to do their jobs. We sat and worked with them. They have helped us put together what we believe will be that long-term strategy for moving forward.

Obviously, the commitment is there on behalf of our government.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the member from Nickel Belt, as I always do. She brings a perspective that is unique to this place: She comes from a mining community that has boom-and-bust cycles and she has many First Nations people who live in and around her riding.

She talked about the human face of Sudbury. She talked about a woman who lived in the soup kitchen’s unheated porch at 30 and 40 below zero for a winter and is happy that she has even that, because that woman knows that there are people sleeping under bridges and in the cemetery and who have worse conditions to live in than she does. The member has, eloquently and with some great passion and compassion, talked about the people of her riding and the people of Ontario.

I do have to say I was taken aback a little by the member from Etobicoke, who commented on this. She said that the NDP and this particular member had voted against a budget. Yes, we did. We vote against all budgets that don’t do what they’re supposed to do for the people of this province.

We also voted against a government that, in 2003, promised to build 20,000 units of affordable housing in its first three years in office and, eight years later, has yet to deliver 11,000. Eight years later, they haven’t even met the commitment for the first three years. They’re only halfway, eight years later.

Did we vote against the budget? Sure we did. Did we do so for malicious reasons? No, we did it for the people who are on the waiting list, the people who are sleeping in the soup kitchens and the cemeteries and under bridges—something that this government does not care a whole lot about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments? The honourable member from—Chatham–Kent–Essex?

Mr. Pat Hoy: Correct, Speaker. I do propose that we change that to Chatham–Kent–Leamington someday, but we’ll wait and see if that actually happens; I’m hopeful that it would. It would certainly make the people of Leamington very happy, including their mayor and council.

But to the points that are contained in Bill 140, if this was passed by the Legislature here, it would give Ontarians access to a system that puts people first. That’s what we’re hearing this morning from speakers: that we do recognize the people who are seeking long-term and affordable housing here in Ontario. That’s what this bill would aim to do; it would put people first. It will also set a strong foundation for a more effective, accessible system for those who need it.

My colleague from Etobicoke Centre, Ms. Cansfield, mentioned a great number of figures in her remarks. I have a few as well, because this legislation builds upon the more than $2.5 billion the McGuinty government has invested in non-profit housing since 2003—a very sizable investment, indeed—and the more than $430 million our government has provided in housing and homelessness supports annually, also an important figure to recognize.

This legislation, if passed, will give municipalities the flexibility they have requested so that they can better allocate resources to meet local needs. We recognize that the needs of the GTA and Ottawa, for example, and the Far North—Timmins, another example—are not the same as what might be needed and required in Chatham–Kent–Leamington.

I support this bill, and I look forward to the debate and the actual vote.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member from Nickel Belt has two minutes for her response.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to make a comment in response to the member from Etobicoke Centre. She referred to the NDP voting against some of the investments that were coming for affordable housing. The problem with those investments is that they were bundled up in a budget that also included a $2-billion giveaway to the richest corporations in Ontario. How, coming from Sudbury, can I ever do this? I have forestry companies all over my riding that are barely hanging on. They’re not paying any taxes; they’re not making any profits. They are barely staying alive.

How is a $2-billion tax cut to profitable corporations ever going to help the people of Nickel Belt? It escapes me completely. I don’t see how more profits for the banks and more profits for the insurance companies are going to help the people in Nickel Belt. I can’t vote for this. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex and the member from Etobicoke Centre quoted a lot of numbers and, in and of itself, the investment looks impressive. But just to put those figures into a little bit of a comparison, Ontario spends $64 per capita on affordable housing. We are the lowest in Canada, with the average being at $115 per person of government investment into affordable housing. If we compare ourselves to Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan spends four times as much as we do here in Ontario. The numbers are not that impressive anymore, are they?

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I realize my time will soon run out, probably in about five minutes, but I’ll come back and say some more on the next date.

This is a huge issue in and around the city of Toronto, a place where I have lived almost my entire life. With the exception of one year in Ottawa and, a subsequent time, six months or so in Ottawa, I have always lived in this city.

I have seen poverty in all of its aspects, in many parts of the city, many communities, many neighbourhoods, many new Canadian groups, many First Nations. But in particular, I want to talk about my own riding of Beaches–East York.

People often ask me, “The Beach: Isn’t that a rich place? Aren’t the homes expensive there?” They sometimes marvel that a place like the Beach would vote consistently for NDP members in this Legislature. I have to inform them that, yes, although there are some very expensive and very nice homes in the Beach and in parts of East York, there are also ongoing pockets of poverty in many of our communities.

I’d like to talk about those places, like Crescent Town, Barrington and Lumsden. I’d like to talk about some of the rooming houses along Gerrard Street, Main Street and places where people don’t have enough. Those are the communities that want and need a government to take action on housing and poverty issues. Those are the communities that, more often than not, are disappointed at the lack of government action affecting them and their daily lives.

Crescent Town in particular is a large high-rise development. It’s a very large place. Some 10,000 or 11,000 people are crammed into six or seven major buildings. If you go through the halls of those buildings, you can hear any number of languages being spoken. You have new Canadians literally coming from all over the earth to live there.

They live there because the rents are cheap. They live there in spite of the fact that many of the homes have cockroaches, bedbugs and mice. They live there in spite of the fact that the elevators going up 20 and 30 floors often break down. They live there in spite of the fact that the buildings are not in the kind of repair that you and I would deem to be acceptable.

They’re not alone. There are other apartments, other buildings and other places where people live, where they too find themselves in poverty. They find themselves in overcrowded conditions. They are overcrowded because, with rents so high in Toronto, they often have to have more than one family living in an apartment unit, a house or a place that was not designed to accommodate that many people.

You go in and you see the consequences of that. It does cause the buildings to deteriorate at a faster rate. It does cause boilers that were designed to produce the hot water for a limited number of families not to be able to produce the hot water that is necessary when you have double or triple the number of people living in the buildings than they were designed to house. You see the result of the overcrowding with children not having sufficient opportunities or being in portables all around Crescent Town school. You see that. You see that in Thorncliffe, which isn’t in my riding but is part of the former borough of East York. You see it in many, many places in this city.

These people all have one common need: They want to have more decent housing for themselves, for their families and particularly for their children. If they are new Canadians, they came here hoping for a better life, if not for themselves, then at least for their children. Living in overcrowded conditions, often in poverty, often without adequate employment: They find that to happen too often.

Housing is a fundamental right, I believe, of Canadians. Particularly because we live in such a cold and northern climate, we need to be adequately housed. It’s not good enough to say that someone can have some kind of substandard housing. We are not living in a tropical place. We are living where the extremes of cold are going to have a terrible effect on the human condition. We need to have that kind of accommodation here, and the housing needs to be built.

We also, as a government, as a Legislature, should be fundamentally aware and, I suggest, ashamed of the fact that the waiting lists for housing continue to grow. As more and more people came to Ontario, particularly through immigration but also net migration from the other provinces over the last 20 years, the housing did not keep up with it.

I am mindful. I was a mayor on that very sad occasion in 1995 when the government of Ontario changed and the new government came in and cancelled all of the building projects that were being undertaken at that time to build decent and affordable housing in Ontario, and particularly in East York. I remember going to places that had been earmarked for extra monies, places that were about to become co-operatives because the apartment buildings had been bought from landlords who didn’t, frankly, give a damn.

They were being bought; they were about to be changed; they were about to be turned into good and decent housing, and all the money was yanked away; all of it was gone. Only those projects that were almost completed were allowed to continue, and the housing that we saw in our municipality evaporated. The opportunity for the families that were living in East York evaporated on that date.

I do remember, with some chagrin, going out as the mayor in the weeks and months and years that followed, as those places were completed because they were too far along to have been cancelled by the incoming government, and seeing the smiling faces of Conservatives and Conservative cabinet ministers shaking hands on the development of these projects. It was bizarre; it was absolutely bizarre to me. When a Liberal stands up and says, “This is what was inherited”—yes, it was inherited. But eight years after the Liberals formed government—eight years—what do we have?

We have housing costs that have skyrocketed and we have literally no affordable units that have been built. Those that were stopped have not been resurrected. Those community and social and church groups that want to do something have not been given the opportunity. The 20,000 units that were promised in the first three years of a McGuinty government have never been built. Eight years after they took office, only 11,000 units have been built in all of Ontario. That is a pretty sad record by any standard at all.

The Housing Network of Ontario declaration has been endorsed by Habitat for Humanity, the Social Planning Network of Ontario, the Wellesley Institute and 450 other community and housing groups, and what they say we need is absolutely basic to what has to be done. They suggest, first, that we need bold targets and sustained funding, including a minimum of 10,000 affordable housing units a year. For us to build that many housing units in a year, we would have to be as bold and as brave as the province of Saskatchewan. That’s what we would have to do.

Instead of being last per capita, we would have to be tied for first. I think that’s realistic and we should aim for it. If Saskatchewan can do it, surely Ontario can do it as well.

They suggest, secondly, that we have to have a clear measurement of progress, including specific targets and timelines for reducing affordable housing waiting lists. People who are on housing waiting lists all across this province wait for years for decent and affordable housing. Sometimes they die waiting for it.

Sometimes when they apply because they have children at home and they need a unit with three or four bedrooms in it and put their name on the list, by the time their name comes to the top of the list—which in Toronto is 17 years, on average—those children are all grown up, they’ve all moved away and they’re not there anymore, and therefore you’re no longer eligible for that for which you applied, because you don’t have the children still at home to occupy those units.

We need a real timeline on the list. People ought not to wait any more than a few months, or at most a year, before they get action for affordable housing. That’s the kind of commitment a government needs to make. We need action to improve housing affordability for low-income people, including a new monthly housing benefit; not just that your rent geared to income is calculated yearly, but that there be a monthly housing benefit and that it be affordable so that low-income people have that opportunity.

I can see I’m being signalled. Just one last point I’d like to make before I stop today, and that’s a reformed housing legislation, including stronger rent control and inclusionary zoning at the municipal level. Those are the four tests. I’ll deal with that later, when I stand back up on the next date.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I’d just remind the member that because we are past the six-and-a-half-hour mark—

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Seven hours.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): —or seven hours, we’re into 10-minute rotations. So I probably gave you a couple of extra minutes there.

Mr. Michael Prue: But she got 20.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): That’s fine.

Anyway, by the rules, it now being past 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: Once again it gives me great pleasure, on behalf of my Leeds–Grenville page, Tyler Millson, who’s got a wonderful head of hair, unlike his MPP—I’d like to introduce some very special guests. His dad, Bart Millson, is in the gallery, and I’m very pleased to introduce his grandparents Bill and Nancy Millson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. John Wilkinson: My good friend the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore and I are delighted to introduce some 32 farmers from Perth–Wellington, who have come to spend the day here in Toronto. They’ll be visiting the minister’s riding—the two of us—and having a wonderful day, bridging that rural-urban divide with a bridge of friendship.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’m very pleased to introduce the mother of our page from Kingston and the Islands, Erik Stein: Petra Stein, who is in the gallery here and who is the daughter of Felix and Alzira D’Sousa, good friends of mine in the Kingston area.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. In the wake of the eHealth scandal, the Premier gave his solemn commitment that he had put a stop to sole-sourcing government contracts. He didn’t say, “Unless it’s convenient”; he made a clear commitment that all future government contracts would be put to competitive public tender.

How does the Premier justify his government’s approval of the recent multi-million dollar sole-source contract for the purchase of train cars for the air-rail link approved by the Metrolinx board as well as the Minister of Transportation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the member opposite has all the information on this file, because I have given him a letter that was written by Coulter Osborne, who laid out the details of the deal and who, in fact, said that it was a very reasonable choice for us to make.

The fact is that Metrolinx is exercising a contract option from the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit contract in California, which was an open, competitive procurement process. I have said in the House before that all of the rules have been followed. It’s not uncommon, as the former Minister of Transportation would know, in the transportation industry to join another procurement process to get the best price possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: We have a copy of that letter from Coulter Osborne. It confirms that Metrolinx did not issue a public tender. In fact, Mr. Osborne clearly states in his letter that it was the government’s onerous time constraints on the project that made it impossible for Metrolinx to issue a public tender.

According to Mr. Osborne’s letter, the treasury board and cabinet authorized the sole-sourcing of this contract by calling it “an expedited procurement process.” Call it what you will; there was no competitive bid and there was no public tender issued by this government on this multi-million dollar contract.

The Premier and his cabinet may not care to know whether taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar, but taxpayers do. Will he agree to order a public tender on this contract?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I first of all want to welcome the member opposite to the discussion of public transit, because they have been markedly absent from that discussion—for decades, really.

I just want to speak to the issue of the open procurement. Coulter Osborne, in his letter to Mr. Robert Siddall of Metrolinx, says, “Joining the SMART procurement”—which is the procurement that I just referenced—“in this way seems to me to have been a ‘no risk decision’ that enabled Metrolinx to take advantage of a larger similar vehicle procurement process in California that was open and competitive.”

As I said before, it is not uncommon in the transportation industry, when there are large purchases being made, when there has been a procurement process in place, that another entity would tag onto that contract to get the best deal for the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The fact is, it didn’t need to be that way. Ontario could have done its own tender. The fact is that by imposing an artificial, unnecessary timeline on this project, this government essentially forced Metrolinx to abandon an open, competitive bid process. All Canadian content rules were ignored. It took cabinet to whitewash this sole-sourced deal by calling it an expedited procurement process. This, so that even Fairness Commissioner Coulter A. Osborne is compelled to bless an offensive deal as being fair and in the public interest.

Speaker, nothing is fair, nothing is in the public interest about a multi-million dollar company that excludes companies like Siemens from bidding on this contract.

Will the Premier insist on ensuring that this contract is put to a public tender so that Ontario taxpayers know they’re getting the best deal possible?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it’s beneath even the member opposite to cast aspersions on the integrity of Coulter Osborne. I really think that that is absolutely outrageous.

Let me just continue to read from his recommendation on this: “In addition, the fact that there are no commercially available DMUs in production in North America militates in favour of acquiring DMUs under the umbrella of the SMART RFP....

“In my view, joining the SMART RFP”—which is the deal that we engaged in—“in the manner generally described above was manifestly reasonable ... In the end, it will provide Metrolinx with FRA-compliant DMUs within a delivery time that meets Ontario’s needs, and at a highly competitive price.”

That is why we engaged in this. That is why Metrolinx worked with Sonoma. I think it is beneath the member opposite to question that.

POWER PLANT

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy. We just heard about a sole-sourced deal at Metrolinx. Now, it looks like you have another one up your sleeve.

On October 7, 2010, you backtracked, broke the contract with TransCanada and cancelled the Oakville power plant. When asked how much this would cost Ontario families, you said you would be pleased to share this information with the public. It’s now been 148 days since you backtracked, made that commitment to share information, and you haven’t told us anything.

How much are Ontario families going to pay on their hydro bills for you breaking this signed contract to save the seat of the member for Oakville, making him the first charter member of the McGuinty seat-saver club?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I’ve said repeatedly and say often publicly and in this place, the OPA is still in discussions with TransCanada and those conversations are progressing well, which is good news. We’re looking forward to those consultations and discussions continuing until they reach a resolution.

There’s nothing new about that. This is something that we’ve talked about and been upfront about from the very beginning. We’re looking forward to those discussions continuing. We’re looking forward to those discussions finding some form of resolution, and when they do, I’ll be more than happy to share it with the member opposite, the people of Ontario and all members of this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Page 34 of your long-term energy plan says the “procurement of a peaking natural gas-fired plant in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area is still necessary.”

One possible location for this project is land owned by TransCanada on Witmer Road in Cambridge. The CEO of your unelected, unaccountable Ontario Power Authority said that one of the discussions with TransCanada has to be about alternatives and that it could include the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge project.

Will you confirm for the House and the people of Ontario today that you will issue a fully transparent, competitive RFP to procure this new power plant and ensure the best value for Ontario families who pay the bills?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member likes to enter into speculation about things that may or may not be happening. I’m going to talk about what we know. What we know is that we have a 20-year plan for energy that’s going to provide a clean, reliable, healthy, renewable future for this province, build a healthier future for our kids and grandkids and create thousands of clean energy jobs.

What we don’t know is why the member opposite and his leader are afraid to share their plan with Ontario families. We can speculate on that as well. Maybe it’s because you don’t support our clean energy benefit, which has taken 10% off the bills of Ontario families. Maybe it’s because you don’t support the thousands of clean energy jobs that we’re creating right across this province. Maybe it’s because you want to hammer Ontario farmers, as the member for Simcoe–Grey indicated earlier in the month, and take away that $10,000 a month on average that those farmers are able to make off our microFIT—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I didn’t get an answer but I did get the minister confirming that he has so much trust in his own plan that he keeps tearing pages out of it day after day after day.

It’s interesting to hear that the minister would not confirm that he would issue an RFP on this project. Ontario families have seen how much your sole-source deals have cost them before: eHealth, Samsung, Metrolinx, the Windsor Energy Centre, the LHINs, Casino Niagara, just to name a few.

When he was asked about the talks with TransCanada, the CEO of the OPA said, “I’m not going to rule out anything.”

Minister, I ask you again: Will you today avoid repeating your sweetheart Samsung deal, rule out sole-sourcing this billion-dollar power plant to TransCanada alone and ensure the best values for families in this great province who pay the bills?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member likes, as he does, to chirp about our efforts to build a clean energy economy in this province, but why doesn’t he want to talk about his own plan? I think it’s pretty obvious that the PCs would scrap the Samsung initiative and kill $7 billion of private sector investment, as well as the 16,000 Ontario jobs that go with it.

Why don’t you be straight up with Ontario families and those workers about what you’re going to do? What’s in your plan? Speaker, they want to send a message to the entire world that Ontario is no longer open for business. Frankly, they’re against foreign companies; they’re against foreign investment; they’ve proven they’re against foreign students. The only thing foreign they seemed to like was foreign, US-imported power, because they couldn’t produce enough power to provide families and businesses across this province with the amount of generation that was required. Thank goodness those days are gone. I know Ontario families are going to see right through them and they’re not going—

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

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. This week we’ve heard from people about their concerns. They see the cost of everything, from gasoline to home heating to getting proper medical care for their loved ones, get more expensive while their paycheques are staying the same. The Premier says he has to make their lives more expensive while handing out corporate tax giveaways worth over $6 billion. Why does the Premier keep putting people last?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s always a pleasure to receive questions from my honourable colleague. One of the things I want to point out to my colleague is that it’s true we have a plan in place to reduce the level of taxation on Ontario businesses. We think it’s important that we be competitive, not just with businesses in other parts of the world but with businesses that are competing against us in other provinces in Canada.

In addition to that, I’ll point out to my honourable colleague that as we move forward to reduce our level of taxation on our businesses, we’ve also made some tremendous progress in our schools and our health care. Test scores are up, graduation rates are up and Ontario students have cracked the top 10 globally in international testing. Not only are we measuring wait times in health care for the first time; we now have the shortest wait times in the country. So we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can reduce corporate taxes, we can improve our schools and we can improve health care for our families. We’re working together on behalf of the economy and on behalf of our society.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the past, the Premier has also been unequivocal. In fact, he slammed a former Premier for not caring about gasoline prices and urged him to get out of his chauffeur-driven car. He denounced a previous government’s corporate tax cuts, saying that they would lead to closing hospitals and firing nurses. Eight years later, hospital budgets are frozen, ERs in Fort Erie and Port Colborne are closed, corporate tax rates are being slashed, and Premier McGuinty is the one in the chauffeur-driven car. After eight long years, has the Premier forgotten who sent him here and why?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would have gladly attended the NDP fundraiser at Barberian’s last night but I couldn’t afford the $500; it was too much. Today’s NDP moves in very expensive circles. It’s not something they used to do. It’s an unfortunate development.

Let me tell you a bit about some of the other things we’ve done to help Ontario families. Ninety-three per cent of Ontarians have received a permanent tax cut. Ninety thousand people no longer pay personal income tax in the province of Ontario. The average family with an $80,000 income is seeing a 10% income tax cut; that’s $355 per year for mom and dad, this year and every year going forward. On top of that, there’s our new children’s activity tax credit: $50 each year to help pay for sports or art and music classes. There are a number of other items which I look forward to speaking about in my final supplementary.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The fact remains that while banks and oil companies come out the big winners from the Premier’s tax cuts, families are left with the $6.8-billion bill, and they’re paying more for everything from home heating to gas at the pump. Why are families missing from this Premier’s equation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m not sure if that was a subject of conversation at that $500-a-head fundraiser last night at Barberian’s. Again, we would have liked to have gone but we can’t afford those prices.

What I can say is that on so many different occasions when we worked hard on behalf of Ontario families, put in our $12-billion tax reductions over the course of three years, whether it was the Ontario child benefit, whether it was our children’s activity tax credit, whether it’s full-day kindergarten, which is saving our families thousands of dollars annually in day care costs, this party stood opposed to those kinds of measures. They’ve opposed our interventions to stand up for Ontario families and help out with their household expenses.

We will continue to bring a balanced, thoughtful, responsible approach to governing. We understand that we need a strong economy to support a caring society, a caring society characterized in part by good schools and good health care, and we continue to make measurable progress in both those areas.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier’s corporate tax cuts hand banks—banks—$535 million, no strings attached. They’re not obliged to create any jobs or make any new investments. Families are already stretched to the limit and they’re footing the bills for that generosity. And when people ask for a break on their home heating bills, the Premier says he can’t afford it.

Why can the Premier afford a tax break for banks while offering little to families who want quality health care and want a break from the growing cost of living?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, this is a part of old-style NDP politics: You attack businesses; you attack the corporate sector. It’s an easy thing to do.

One of the fastest growing sectors in Ontario today is our financial services. We’re close to nearly 300,000 jobs around the province because of the health and vitality of our financial services sector. On top of that, our brand has gone platinum globally as a result of its performance during a terrible economic recession. When she thinks it’s quick and easy to attack financial services, I’d ask her to keep in mind that there are 300,000 Ontario moms and dads who are working in financial services, who bring home money to support their families on the basis of that connection with a very important industry of which we can all be very, very proud.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families know that the McGuinty government’s priorities are very obvious: a multi-billion corporate tax cut instead of a break on the heating bill, an unfair tax on gasoline and haircuts, while charging seniors waiting in hospitals $1,800 a day. How can the Premier be surprised his popularity is sinking when he is so out of touch with the families across this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to remind my honourable colleague: The comprehensive tax reforms that we have put in place benefit families to the tune of $12 billion over three years in comparison to $3 billion for businesses over three years.

I know my honourable colleague is adamantly opposed to our tax reforms, but I don’t think she fully understands how important it is and how urgent it is that we take measures to strengthen this economy. We have been hit by a powerful economic recession. In many ways, our world has changed: We now have a high dollar, we have a weakened US trading partner, and we have a weakened European Union which is no longer driving growth in the global economy to the same extent that it used to.

We’ve got to do some things inside Ontario to make ourselves stronger so we can continue to support our schools and our hospitals. I haven’t met a single grandmother, grandfather, mother or father who is not prepared to do what it takes to ensure that we secure a bright future for our kids.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of Ontario tell me that they want a Premier who listens. Instead, they have a Premier who ignores their voices and dodges the facts. The government can protect families from growing costs and improve the health care system, but the Premier just doesn’t seem to give a damn anymore.

After eight long years in office, why does this Premier now stand for everything that he ran against?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to give you—

Interjection.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Always good to hear from my friend from the Ottawa Valley, but I think I want to speak to the NDP.

My honourable colleague, the leader of the NDP, forgets that when we brought forward one of the most progressive initiatives to help children in struggling working families in Ontario, the Ontario child benefit, they voted against that. That’s benefiting Ontario children. In fact, it’s benefiting 1.3 million Ontario children to the tune of $1,100 every year. They voted against that.

We put forward a measure to take 90,000 low-income Ontarians off the income tax rolls; they stood against that.

We put in place our senior homeowners’ property tax grant; it’s $500. It’s helping 600,000 Ontario seniors; they voted against that.

At the end of the day, I look forward to being judged on our record in terms of what we’re doing to help those people who are most vulnerable in Ontario.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

The backbone of Ontario’s economy is our thousands of small businesses, most of them family-run businesses or small companies with only a few staff. Yet small business owners have to spend more and more hours away from their families meeting the demands of your government’s red tape rule makers.

Minister, why won’t you provide relief to the thousands of small and family-run businesses by cutting the burden of the rules and regulations you place on them that keep them from creating prosperity and jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: In fact, I applaud the member opposite for working for small business. What I would like to say is that while she may be tabling a private member’s bill in the House related to the small business industries, we would ask the same member to be very supportive of the number of initiatives that this government has taken to support small business.

For example, the last budget introduced significant tax policy measures to help small business. So while this member purports to support small business, how could the member vote against a 20% decrease in the small business corporate income tax that is such a big help to business?

We appreciate that she would stand in the House in support of small business, but when the rubber hits the road—and small businesses watch us very carefully—when there are measures that are introduced to help small business, they expect the same kind of support from the members opposite, and so would we.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Your continuing failure to provide relief to small businesses owners and employees is because of your fundamental lack of respect for how hard they work and how important they are to our economy. That’s why I introduced a small business bill of rights: to change the attitude of government towards small business.

Government needs to stop being a punitive regulator and start being a supporter of small businesses. Will you support my bill and help restore respect for small business in Ontario?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Again, I applaud the members opposite who might purport to support small business. Small businesses need to see support from all of us. They are the backbone of this economy.

I have to suggest, though, that the number of initiatives that we have been doing to support them have been voted against by that party, and I want to ask her why. Why, in this last economic update of October, when we offered that 10% relief directly to small business on those utility bills, did the member opposite vote against that initiative? We have to suggest that the Canadian Federation of Business, which I know the member opposite speaks to, was dramatically supportive of these initiatives.

When we launched the Open for Business initiative across our government to work with all ministries and with all sectors of our economy, this is the same party that did not support that initiative, and we demand some consistency—

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

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister has admitted that there are problems providing intervener services to the deaf-blind community. CBC Radio and the Toronto Sun have exposed the problem. I have been working with the deaf-blind community to stop the ministry from making harmful cuts to services to people like Caitlin Ryan, from the Premier’s own riding, and from Carl Ford, whose mother, Julia, is here in the gallery today.

Changes to the assessment tool will deny people with significant loss of vision and hearing the intervener services they so desperately need. Why is this minister holding the deaf-blind community hostage while she dithers on her plan?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, I want to say thank you to the parents of deaf-blind children for their advocacy. If we did not have these parents here, coming to see us and coming to talk to us about the needs of their kids, there would be no other person talking on their behalf. So I want to thank them for being here.

Unfortunately, there is false messaging going around, and the member of the opposite party continues to distribute these wrong messages. There is no cut in the budget of the deaf-blind. Since we came to power we have more than doubled that budget, and I’m very pleased to be saying that. Every year we have improved the budget; we have added money into the budget. We are out consulting on a model—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The people in the gallery here today came for concrete answers, not thank-yous, and they did not hear this minister’s litany of excuses. Carl Ford needs a commitment today. He wants to live his life. He wants to continue working in his community. Caitlin Ryan wants to finish her education and become a productive adult with much to offer this province. They won’t be able to accomplish their goals if their support system is cut in half or if anything is done to change the intervener status. Why won’t this minister reveal her plan today and assure the deaf-blind community that their services won’t be slashed?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Further to an agreement with the human rights commission, we have to transform this intervener and interpreter service. The system that we have inherited was unfair, and we need to transform the system. On the contrary, we’re not cutting any money from the budget. We are transforming the services so that they are fairer, more transparent and financially sustainable.

On this side of the House, we comply with the human rights commission when we signed an agreement with them, so that’s what we are doing. We have parents involved, we have interveners involved and we have our stakeholders involved. What is out for consultation will not be implemented; it’s out for consultation. We need the input, we are welcoming the input and we will continue to work with the community—

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

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, yesterday phase 3 of full-day kindergarten was announced. I’m very excited that this program is moving forward. I’m hearing from my constituents, who are also excited and looking forward to the day when it will be available in all Ontario schools. However, the opposition leader yesterday said that this was a promise that we were unable to keep, as the government had not supported the rollout of the program with new funds.

Minister, my constituents deserve to know about the implementation of this program and how we will ensure that full-day kindergarten is rolled out in a responsible manner. What can I tell my constituents in response to this claim by the opposition leader? Are we sufficiently funding the full-day kindergarten program?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: That’s an important question on a very important issue, an issue we are hearing a great deal of support for. The member can tell her constituents that we are taking a phased approach. Yesterday, we announced the financial dollars assigned to phase 3 schools. That’s an amount of $280 million to support schools and to add 900 new full-day kindergarten spaces. We will, at that phase, have accomplished providing spaces in 1,700 schools for families and parents who very much need this.

Now, I understand the opposition. They are not committed to this. They will not follow through with what parents are telling them they want. They are prepared to have have and have-not schools. We are committed to the full implementation—

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This will be great news to take back to my riding, as I can inform my constituents that we are fully committed to this program and helping our youngest learners succeed and get the best start in life.

Minister, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition also said that he planned to halt the implementation of full-day kindergarten if he was elected Premier. Parents in my riding are concerned about this, as they are very excited to enrol their children in this program. Minister, could you please share with this House your views on why we are so committed to this program?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I understand; I’m getting the same kinds of calls in my constituency office. There’s no question that parents want this program and educators want this program, and they are very concerned with the thinking on the other side of the House; that they don’t understand why supporting our youngest learners is one of the best investments that we can make.

I have a quote here from the director of education in the Leader of the Opposition’s own riding, who says, “It is very gratifying to see the priority the government is placing on giving children a good start in school. Research shows that when students enter grade 1 ready to learn, they are more confident and more likely to be successful in school.”

That is why our government is making this commitment. Parents need to understand that we are the only party in this province who is absolutely committed to the full implementation, by 2014, of full-day kindergarten, using a model of a teacher—

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

RED TAPE REDUCTION

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The government talks of its Open for Business strategy as if it helps business. We know that it is just a paper-pushing process inside government ministries.

But let’s go back to the first promise you made when you announced Open for Business. You promised, “The government will reduce the amount of regulation in Ontario by 25% in the next two years.”

You made this promise on March 6, 2009. The two years are up on Sunday. Will you tell us how you will cut 25% of Ontario’s regulations between today and Sunday?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted to talk about the tremendous work we’re doing for Open for Business. We have launched a very exciting and frankly historic engagement between the private sector and the government, and we have done this by sectors.

The first sector was BILD and all of the developers that they represent, as they interact with a number of ministries all at the same time. Then we moved on to the manufacturing sector.

We’re working with the medical devices sector and we’re working with the information and communications technologies sector, and when we bring them to the table we are hearing from them that they’re excited to engage in a process where, for the first time in all of their interaction with governments over a number of years, including with those that purport to support business, in fact they’ve never had an opportunity to have deputies from all the ministries at the table at the same time. When we launch these initiatives, the Premier of the province is at that table.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Minister, you’ve been the Minister of Economic Development and Trade since June 2009, 20 months out of the two years since your government made the promise to cut regulations. Will you tell the thousands of small and family businesses in Ontario why you have failed to stand up and help them by cutting red tape? Why should any business person in Ontario believe any promise you make when you have abysmally failed to keep the first promise you made?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m not sure what the opposition would call a failure. Is it removing 1,700 certificates of approval at the Ministry of the Environment, many that were kicking around in 1995, when her party was the government? What do you call a failure, the harmonization of regulations between Ontario and Quebec for the transportation industry, so that you can drive the same truck through Ontario and through Quebec when we’re selling our products around this country and the world? What kind of success would this member like to hear?

From the IT sector that is telling us that they are elated with the opportunity to wipe out these kinds of problematic areas in interacting with our government?

We are delivering on the priorities that they, as a sector, are giving to us, and we’re doing it within a time frame that is working for the industry. Those are successes of Open for Business. I would encourage the member opposite to go to our website—

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

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Minister, you come from northern Ontario, so you see the same things as I: town after town in northern Ontario that has lost their only employer in the forest industry; the northern economy being devastated; people unemployed by the thousands across the north. Your response so far in seven years has been pretty inadequate at best.

Tomorrow, you’re going to make this announcement in Sudbury about the growth plan. Tell me why anybody in northern Ontario should think that any plan you bring forward is going to be any different than what you did over the last seven years.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’m delighted to have an opportunity to speak about our excitement at being able to release the growth plan, which is an economic vision for the next 25 years for northern Ontario, the second growth plan released in the province. A real priority of our government, obviously, is northern Ontario, and we are going to be looking at ways that we can guide investment decisions from southern Ontario, based on what northerners have told us.

This has been a three-year consultation period. We’ve talked to thousands of northerners. They’ve given their advice to us. Tomorrow, indeed, in Thunder Bay and Sudbury, we’ll be releasing the details. We’ve got some very specific initiatives that we’re excited about, which again, I believe, will reflect the northerners’ view of how we can develop the north in a very exciting way.

We all know about the many opportunities that are developing there, whether it’s through the wood supply competition to our new forest tenure modernization process or, indeed, our commitment to the Ring of Fire development. The long and the short is, this is an exciting day tomorrow in northern Ontario—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, what you call “excitement,” I would call rage. People in northern Ontario are upset with you because you have not responded to the economic downturn in northern Ontario. The growth plan is not going to deal with the nub of the issue. You talked about the Ring of Fire. Cliffs Natural Resources has said that they’re not going to build a refinery smelter in Timmins, in Sudbury, in Thunder Bay or Greenstone if we don’t deal with the price of electricity. They’re going to do it somewhere else.

I don’t expect for you tomorrow, all of a sudden, to fall off the turnip truck and finally understand that you’ve got to do something about the electricity prices, so I ask you again: If you’re not going to deal with what the real issues are in northern Ontario, why should northerners have any confidence in what you have to announce tomorrow?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We are responding in a very direct way. We have already, as a result of our discussion through the growth plan, brought forward incentives that are going to help the industries in the north. In terms of forestry and mining, our corporate tax breaks and the tax reforms that are put in place are bringing down costs and bringing more investment to northern Ontario. We are excited about that.

Our commitment to the Ring of Fire development and seeing a processing facility in the north is one that we feel very strongly about. We’re in some very, very good discussions with Cliffs Natural Resources as well as other companies. We have made available to the forestry sector up to $1 billion, and there are more incentives to come through the wood supply competition.

The long and the short is that we have responded in a very strong and aggressive way. We are seeing an upswing in the northern Ontario economy related to the mining development. Boy, I wish I had more time to talk about some of the extraordinary things that are happening—

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

ELDER ABUSE

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. A recent story about elder abuse in the media has shocked many people living in my riding of Scarborough–Rouge River. The media reported that on February 23, paramedics found an elderly woman unconscious and suffering from frostbite in an uninsulated garage in a home in my riding. She has since been taken to hospital, where she remains in life-threatening condition after suffering a stroke.

A story like this has people asking what our government is doing to help protect seniors from elder abuse. Can the minister please tell this House what the government is doing to help protect seniors from elder abuse in my riding and other parts of the province?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I thank the member from Scarborough–Rouge River for that very important question. I can’t speak on the specifics of this case, but I can tell you I believe that each and every one of us in this House finds any form of elder abuse despicable and very, very disturbing.

The safety and well-being of Ontario’s seniors is a priority for me, as well as our government, and that’s why I’d like to take the opportunity to tell people in Ontario what we’re doing for elder abuse. One of the things we have been doing since 2003 is we’ve invested $5.2 million to help in the prevention of elder abuse. We are one of the first governments to fund prevention of elder abuse. We’re investing $900,000 a year in ONPEA, which is the Ontario Network—

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Support for elder abuse prevention is good news for seniors in Ontario. But while this story has raised the profile on the prevalence of elder abuse in communities across Ontario, the fact remains that there has been a rise in the number of elder abuse stories and cases.

Recently, there have been stories reported in the media of seniors receiving calls from people claiming to be family and asking for money. All together, these stories highlight a widespread problem of elder abuse that takes many forms, including fraud and scams against Ontario seniors.

March is Fraud Awareness Month, and I know for a fact that seniors want to learn more. Can the minister tell this House where seniors can find help and what initiatives were taken to inform seniors about elder abuse?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: The member is right: March is Fraud Awareness Month. But, again, I want to stress that any form of elder abuse is unacceptable, and we are doing everything we can to help. One of the things that’s important is if anyone is a victim of elder abuse or knows of someone, I would encourage them to call the police immediately.

For protection when it comes to fraud, it’s important to give out some information to our seniors on what we are doing. We have a province-wide Seniors Safety Line. It’s available 24 hours, seven days a week in 154 languages. That number is 1-866-299-1011. We also have consumer tips on how to avoid fraud, and those can be found on ontario.ca—

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

RED TAPE REDUCTION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Premier. Your government boasts about cutting red tape through your Open for Business, but I have here an internal document from OMAFRA which provides advice on how to hide regulations or burdens so they can report red tape reductions that don’t actually exist. It recommends hiding burdens in

definitions and forms because those don’t count. It recommends things like changing “sheep and cattle” to “livestock” because that reduces two burdens to one: “If a regulation requires an annual report ‘to be prepared’ and ‘submitted,’ that counts as two burdens. However, if the requirement ‘to be prepared’ was removed, only one burden would remain.”

Premier, have you so lost touch that you thought pulling the wool over people’s eyes was more important than helping farmers and businesses in Ontario?

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m not sure what paper you must be referring to or if you in fact drafted it up yourself. What I will tell you is that this week, our government launched Open for Business with the agriculture and food sector, and we did it in this very building. We brought representatives from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

It was a mixed bag of a number of people from different sectors of agriculture, and it was the first time all of these individuals were in the same room at the same time with all of the deputies that represent all of the various ministries that they interact with, whether that be the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of the Environment—bringing them together.

What this organization did was table for us their top five priorities of where they want us to work to smooth life for them as they interact with the government. It was a very lively debate—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, here is an example of how an internal document from the ministry recommends hiding burdens from farmers: “Rather than stating within a regulation that a stakeholder must submit his name, address and phone number (three requirements) simply state that the stakeholder must complete the form (one requirement). That form could then require the name, address and phone number.” It also recommends using commission regulations because, apparently, they decided that those don’t count towards the burden.

Clearly, Open for Business lets you boast about cutting red tape but does nothing to help farmers or agribusiness. Minister, do you really believe that farmers are that easily duped? Will you apologize and tell us how many of the burdens you claim to have reduced were actually a sham?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: If I may quote a great MPP in this House, Pat Hoy, you’re supposed to turn the manure spreader on when you leave the building.

In fact, from the member opposite what I would like is a copy, if he’s at all serious—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I’m going to ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment that she just made.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I withdraw.

Please do deliver, if you’re at all serious, a copy of whatever it is you’re reading from; it’s not familiar material to me.

What is familiar material is the fact that what all the farmers are saying right now is that they think that you and your party would have an opportunity to rip up all of those feed-in-tariff contracts with our Green Energy Act that we’ve signed with them, which is a value, on average, to the farmer, of $10,000. The number one concern today out there is that party ripping up those contracts, and they actually want an answer from this party. I will—

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

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Three years ago, right before an election, the McGuinty Liberals announced the construction of a new long-term-care home in Welland, with about 100 beds or so. But here we are, and construction hasn’t started yet. There doesn’t even seem to be a plan to get this home built.

Why did the Premier make a promise to Niagara area families that he had no intention whatsoever of keeping?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m happy to have the opportunity to talk about long-term-care homes and the improvements that we’ve been able to drive in the long-term-care-home sector.

We are adding capacity. I will check into the details of this particular case. What I can tell you is that we’ve now got almost 9,000 more beds open. That means 9,000 more people who are getting the care they need in long-term-care homes. We’ve got plans to add another 1,000 beds. Those plans are underway.

We have also worked very hard to rebuild and redevelop some of the older long-term-care homes that, frankly, do not meet today’s higher standards. We’re continuing to improve care in long-term-care homes. We’re continuing to add new—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not just broken long-term-care promises that frustrate Niagara families: Two local emergency rooms were closed, despite widespread opposition. Families across Niagara region are seeing their local health care needs erode, yet the minister says that the NHS, Niagara Health System, “is doing excellent work.” That is out of touch. Many families have lost faith in the Niagara Health System, a feeling that, in fact, I understand.

Instead of more broken promises and out-of-touch remarks from this health minister, will the Premier take a step back, listen to Niagara’s residents and support an independent investigation of the Niagara Health System?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Health care is getting better in Niagara; make no mistake about it. Because we measure, we can actually report the results for people. The rhetoric aside, let the numbers speak for themselves.

Just last week, the St. Catharines Standard ran an

article saying that in nearly every category the Niagara Health System wait times were lower than the targets required for 90% of cases as set by the local health integration network. Let me share how health care is better for people now: The wait for hip replacement has been cut by 201 days; that’s a 58% cut in wait time there. Knee replacement is down by 36%. The wait time for CT outpatient is down by 50%, and what’s very exciting for the people in Niagara—

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

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Last week you announced 40 new renewable energy projects across Ontario. Among them were six solar installations in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock that together are going to produce 51 megawatts of clean electricity for Ontario’s grid. Obviously, this is welcome news. It means job creation in my area, dollars into our local economy and helping Ontario get off dirty coal. These are exceptionally important things for my riding and for the province that a few opposition members have vehemently opposed. Given that, can the minister tell me that the government remains fully committed to seeing these projects move forward?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for raising what really is a very important question. We were very proud last week to announce those 40 new clean energy projects which will represent an investment of three billion private sector dollars in our economy and 7,000 Ontario jobs.

Yes, the government very firmly stands by the development of cleaner sources of energy for the province of Ontario and we certainly stand by our feed-in tariff program.

The member is right though: There are members of this House whose opposition to clean energy is sending a threatening and frankly insulting message, like the member for Simcoe–Grey, for example, when he said, “We’re not going to sign any more of these feed-in tariff contracts. Those days will be gone. Whoever gets a contract now, enjoy it” while you can. That kind of arrogance may define those guys over there but it will not deter us from our responsibility of building a cleaner, more reliable—

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: Minister, I’ll be sure to share the comments of the member of Simcoe–Grey with my constituents in Beaverton, Eldon, Lindsay and Kawartha Lakes, where these clean energy projects will be located, as well as with the many farmers in my riding who are taking

part in the government’s popular microFIT program.

Cleaning up our energy system is one of the most important things our generation can do for our kids and grandkids. It’s a responsibility that no government could in good conscience ignore. Anyone can tell you that cleaner energy and renewing our electricity system has a cost that shows up on our bills. Can the minister tell us to what extent renewable energy affects that?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I’ve said in the past, we’ve laid out a long-term energy plan that clearly illustrates how we will renew our energy system and how we’ll move off of coal to cleaner sources of power.

The member talks about costs that show up on consumers’ bills. I want to remind him and others as well of one cost that consumers often bring up with us, and that’s the debt retirement charge, because it allows me to quote the member from Simcoe–Grey once again, who proudly reminded us yesterday, “I brought in the DRC, the debt retirement charge, when I was Minister of Energy.”

While the member opposite is trying to explain to farmers why he wants to rip up their contracts, he may want to also remind them why he brought in that debt retirement charge, and in the years that they were in office, did not take a cent off our debt—

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

ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General is well aware that Ontario’s current Pawnbrokers Act is severely outdated and unenforceable by police. This law is even older than the Public Works Protection Act, dating back to 1906. It was written so long ago that it doesn’t even include second-hand stores and virtual pawn shops that buy gold through the mail. This lack of effective modern legislation is making it easy for thieves to use pawnshops and second-hand stores to fence the goods they stole from innocent victims in break and enters.

Many of these criminals are taking full advantage of lax legislation. They become chronic property crime offenders who steal multiple times from multiple locations in one day simply because they can. Property crime offenders leave behind a trail of innocent victims who are psychologically, emotionally and financially devastated. Many victims lose precious family heirlooms that can never be replaced.

When will the Attorney General make fighting crime a priority and listen to police leaders who have been telling him that they desperately need new legislation to better protect potential victims of property crime?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We’re actually doing what the member opposite and his government didn’t do for eight years: We’re taking a look at the Pawnbrokers Act and seeing how it can be modernized. We’ve been working very closely with the police chiefs and the associations, but we have also been working very closely with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We’re trying to come up with amendments that will provide for strengthened law enforcement without raising privacy concerns for all Ontarians.

That has proven to be a challenging line to walk. We will continue to. We will continue to do the work that the member opposite and his government failed for eight years to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: You’ve had seven and a half years and you’re still failing.

The Attorney General made a commitment to the OACP at their 2008 annual general meeting that he would introduce new pawnbrokers legislation. To be effective, the legislation must include a centralized database and a standardized reporting system for the entire province to address the cross-jurisdictional nature of property crime. Under today’s outdated legislation, it is almost impossible for police to help recover victims’ stolen property. Current investigations are often derailed because an identification of items that is strong enough to proceed in court can’t be made when only 15% of the items have serial numbers.

When will the Attorney General make fighting crime a priority and give police leaders much-needed investigative tools? When will he put victims first instead of protecting the identities of criminals?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We actually believe that we can both fight crime and protect the civil rights and civil liberties of Ontarians. That’s what we’ve been working on with the police chiefs—there’s a very good discussion going on—and with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

It may be that the party opposite does not care about the input from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It may be that the party opposite would simply introduce amendments without worrying about the civil rights and the freedom of all Ontarians. It may be that they’ll introduce amendments and not care what will be done with information gathered and whether the charter rights of Ontarians are actually protected. They’ll have an opportunity, in their plan, which we know they have but won’t reveal, to tell us whether they’re prepared to dismantle the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner as one of their “eliminate the red tape”—

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

CURRICULUM

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Premier. Last spring, the government introduced a new health curriculum for Ontario students, but at the last minute, under duress, it cancelled changes to sex education. The government promised it would start a new round of consultations on updates to sex education. What is the status of those consultations, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: What we have done, first of all with respect to the curriculum that is out there, is that we have new physical and health education, save and except for the sex education piece. All of the good work that went into that document is now being implemented in our schools, save and except for the sex education curriculum, which continues to be what was in place in our schools.

We have a process in Ontario where we review our curriculum on a regular basis, and that was the process that was followed. People—parents especially—in Ontario made it very clear that the way that they were engaged around changes to curriculum did not meet their needs, and our Premier made a commitment that we were going to consider how we could do a better job of that. My ministry is taking a very careful look at how we’ve done it in the past and what some of the most effective ways are, going forward, that we can ensure that the issues of parents—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Health and education groups in Ontario haven’t heard a word about the consultations that were promised a year ago. Nothing has been done. There are no consultations.

Ontario children and youth need accurate information about sexually transmitted diseases, sexuality and early pregnancy to develop into healthy adults, but Ontario’s sex education curriculum is outdated. It appears that this is the education Premier for everything except sex education. Why is the Premier afraid to talk about sex?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it’s important to clarify that we have sex education in our schools now. We have had it for many years, and that continues to be the case.

We have an improved physical health education curriculum in our schools. That did go forward.

We are looking at the process that we have to review curriculum. We review curriculum all the time.

What was evident with the sex education part of our curriculum was that we needed to do a better job. My ministry is working to understand what is the best way, given that we did have a consultation process that obviously was not adequate for parents. So we are looking at ways that we can do a better job of getting their feedback on a very important curriculum for students in our schools.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. Ontario has always been good at turning money into research. To foster a culture of innovation that will lead to the creation of long-lasting, knowledge-based jobs for Ontario families means that we need to value-add research back into money.

Western Mississauga has always had the critical mass of world-class skills, proximity to major markets and first-rate infrastructure.

Though entrepreneurs may be good at the science, few are also skilled in the business of business. Entrepreneurs need help and advice from industry experts and access to capital to take their products to market in Ontario and around the world.

Minister, how is our province and your ministry helping forward-looking young companies in areas like Mississauga to succeed?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I know the question is coming from this side of the House because this ministry has never had a question from that side of the House. They don’t know what the word “innovation” means.

It is fascinating to me, because we’ve launched the Ontario Network of Excellence in 14 communities. We don’t only respect small business, we are enthusiastic supporters of them. You can now get capital, you can get access to talent and technology in almost every centre.

What’s so remarkable about this program is this isn’t being done by government bureaucrats. This is being done by the Guelph Chamber of Commerce. So all the money goes to people in Mississauga–Streetsville, home to my friend Her Worship Hazel McCallion.

The city of Mississauga is doing studies to leverage and invest and expand on our regional investment in the great community of Mississauga–Streetsville.

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today in response to a question from the member from Oxford, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, I believe, in her answer, contravened standing order 23(j): “Charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood.” In her response, she accused the member of writing a paper himself that he clearly received through the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

I would humbly ask that you review the Hansard of today when it is made