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

September 25, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Sep-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 25 September 2008 Jeudi 25 septembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SERVICES AND SUPPORTS

TO PROMOTE THE SOCIAL INCLUSION

OF PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL

DISABILITIES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES SERVICES

ET SOUTIENS FAVORISANT

L'INCLUSION SOCIALE DES PERSONNES

AYANT UNE DÉFICIENCE INTELLECTUELLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

C. DIFFICILE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

POVERTY

MANUFACTURING AND

FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

PROPANE EXPLOSION

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

SIGN LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS

LANGUAGE TRAINING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

WORKPLACE SAFETY

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

GUN CONTROL

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CHILD CUSTODY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

VIOLENCE IN ENTERTAINMENT

HOSPITAL SERVICES

POPE JOHN PAUL II

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

VIOLENCE IN ENTERTAINMENT

LEGION WEEK

EMERGENCY SERVICES

REAL PEOPLE CAMPAIGN

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CORAL PLACE

BRIDGE CROSSING

PAN AMERICAN GAMES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

1068080 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2008

HOME ENERGY RATING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ÉVALUATION

DE L'ÉNERGIE DOMESTIQUE

SENIORS' OMBUDSMAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'OMBUDSMAN

DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC ATHLETES

DRAPEAU FRANCO-ONTARIEN

DRAPEAU FRANCO-ONTARIEN /

FRANCO-ONTARIAN FLAG

OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC ATHLETES

OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC ATHLETES

FRANCO-ONTARIAN FLAG /

DRAPEAU FRANCO-ONTARIEN

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN YORK REGION POWER CONSERVATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ÉCONOMIE D'ÉNERGIE DANS LE SECTEUR NORD

DE LA RÉGION DE YORK

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

TOWING INDUSTRY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INDUSTRIE

DU REMORQUAGE

NORTHERN YORK REGION POWER CONSERVATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ÉCONOMIE D'ÉNERGIE DANS LE SECTEUR NORD

DE LA RÉGION DE YORK

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

TOWING INDUSTRY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INDUSTRIE

DU REMORQUAGE

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES /

POLITIQUES FISCALES

FÉDÉRALES-PROVINCIALES

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SERVICES AND SUPPORTS

TO PROMOTE THE SOCIAL INCLUSION

OF PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL

DISABILITIES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES SERVICES

ET SOUTIENS FAVORISANT

L'INCLUSION SOCIALE DES PERSONNES

AYANT UNE DÉFICIENCE INTELLECTUELLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 24, 2008, on the motion for third reading of Bill 77,

An Act to provide services to persons with developmental disabilities, to repeal the Developmental Services Act and to amend certain other statutes / Projet de loi 77, Loi visant à prévoir des services pour les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle, à abroger la

Loi sur les services aux personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle et à modifier d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: As I was speaking yesterday, when we started the debate, I believe I had spoken for some 10 or 12 minutes, and the balance will be today. I refer to these as my bifurcated speeches, and it seems to me that I've had a whole lot of those over my seven years in this House—speeches that you begin one day and end another.

On the last occasion I was talking about the

preamble and about the necessity that—I believe—a

preamble should be contained within the body of this bill. I am not alone in that thought, because after we had gone through committee, Community Living Ontario wrote a very good four-page paper outlining a critique of this particular bill and what had happened in committee. I would like to quote them and what they said at the bottom of page 3. They wrote, "One recommendation called for by 25 groups and individuals who presented at the hearings was the need for a

preamble to the legislation. We are very disappointed that a

preamble was not included and frankly, we are surprised because this seemed like a simple amendment that would have greatly enriched the bill."

I could not concur any more than that. In fact, I want to tell you how disappointed all of us were at committee when it was determined by the government members that there would not be a

preamble or a purpose clause contained within the body of this bill.

What had been proposed—and was proposed by the New Democratic Party—was very simple. I'd like to read it into the record because it perplexes me as to why the government does not want to proceed with the

preamble or a purpose clause. What was proposed said as follows:

"0.1 The purposes of this act are,

"(

a) to recognize that the inclusion of all residents of Ontario, including persons with developmental disabilities, is the foundation of a strong Ontario;

"(

b) to promote the delivery of services to persons with developmental disabilities so that the services are,

"(

i) available at a consistent level across the province, and

"(ii) based on person-centred planning to assist the person and his or her personal network to plan for a life in the community; and

"(

c) to ensure that core mandated services are provided to persons with developmental disabilities."

It seemed passing strange to me, and I think to all of the people who were present in that room, that the government chose not to proceed on that line. In fact, questions were asked of the solicitor, Mr. Wood, who was present, to outline what a purpose clause or a

preamble might do. Mr. Wood, in his wisdom as counsel to the Legislature, stated, and I quote him in one large part:

"There are two things to distinguish here: One is a

preamble, and this motion does not add a

preamble; the other is a purpose clause. The purpose clause is part of the bill and certainly therefore affects the

interpretation of the bill. As I understand it, Mr. Ramal is saying that the amendments the government is proposing deal with the issues in the purpose clause. All I can say, from a neutral point of view, is that a purpose clause does affect the

interpretation of a bill, and there is some danger that if something is in the purpose clause and is not in the content of the bill, the purpose clause could affect the content of the bill. Conversely, if all of the amendments are in the bill, then a purpose clause, in a way, becomes redundant."

It went on, Ms. Elliott from the Conservatives asked further questions and in the end the members of the Liberal Party voted it down.

Now, I have to question—and I think everyone, including those from Community Living and especially those who support this bill have to ask—why the government does not want the provisions in there. Does the government not want to recognize that the inclusion of all residents of Ontario, including persons with developmental disabilities, is the foundation of a strong Ontario? I find it very strange that the government would not want to make this statement. Certainly the minister and the parliamentary assistant said very flowery things the other day, but it seems they don't want to enshrine that in the legislation.

I'm perplexed why they would not. Does the government not want to promote the delivery of services to persons with developmental disabilities so that the services are available at a consistent level across the province? I will deal with this later, but I know they don't want to do that, because a motion was made to that effect, that the services be consistent across the province, that they not just be available in large cities but that they be available in small towns, in rural areas and in the far north. The government opposed that provision too.

So I think I understand why they didn't want this provision in the bill.

The government also was opposed to, or appears to be opposed to, the provision that the delivery of services to persons with developmental disabilities is based on person-centred planning to assist the person and his or her personal network for a life in the community. In fact, they tweaked the words to make sure that "person-centred planning" was changed to "person-centred direction." I believe that was the way they wanted to go.

Finally, I don't know why they would be opposed to this, but they appear to be: "to ensure that core-mandated services are provided to persons with developmental disabilities."

A

preamble, a purpose clause, is essential in legislation. It is essential because from that everything else flows. So if there is an

interpretation in the courts or if the judges are called upon to deal with it, they read, first of all, the

preamble or the purpose clause and then they reflect on the true meaning of the bill. Sometimes words, especially legal words, are hard to understand. But if you understand the

preamble, you know the purpose of the legislation and everything that flows from it.

Of course, people would know the

preamble to our own Constitution, promising peace, order and good government, and living next to the United States, you would know the

preamble "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union" and things that flow from that is the hallmark of the American Constitution. You will know that many bills in Ontario have a

preamble or a purpose clause in order for the courts and others interpreting the law to better understand it and come to the correct conclusions.

It's not just the judges and lawyers who use a

preamble clause; it's those who work in the service industry surrounding people with developmental disabilities. They need to understand what the purpose is as well, and it needs to be clearly articulated, but the government does not want to articulate it. I can only concur with those who are disappointed. I can only concur with the 25 people who came forward with deputations—that's 25 out of about 100—who named this as a fundamental aspect of what they were requesting. I thank Community Living for putting it in writing and providing the disappointment they have, and I'm sure that is shared literally by everyone, that this government has chosen not to include a purpose clause or a

preamble.

The second thing—and I think this is also very disappointing to a lot of people—is that this legislation enshrines waiting lists. I know that it is contained in a couple of other pieces of legislation, including the provision of social housing in Ontario, but it is a rather rare phenomenon to actually enshrine waiting lists in the body of legislation—to state that there will be waiting lists.

I think what the government here is admitting is that there will not be sufficient monies after this bill is passed for there ever not to be a waiting list; that for all times eternal, as long as this bill survives, there will be a waiting list, people will be put on it and they will wait anywhere from a day to a month to a year to a decade in order to get service. The government is enshrining this to make sure that it is the law that there will be a waiting list.

We were very dissatisfied, and I believe my Conservative colleagues as well were dissatisfied, that there will be a waiting list, and we tried on three separate occasions to convince the government to take this out of the bill. I know there was some considerable sympathy from the government backbenchers and the parliamentary assistant to see whether there was a way around this, to see whether there was some way, but in the end, the government members, all five of them, voted against take waiting lists out of this legislation.

Just for the record, I'd like to talk about what was proposed; of course, all of this ultimately failed. The first motion was made by my colleague Mr. Miller. This was motion 18, simply asking that paragraph 3 of

section 7(2) of the bill be struck out. That won't mean a lot to anyone other than the explanation that he gave, and it's a good one: that "no person with a developmental disability should be forced to linger on a waiting list when they have been assessed and necessary services have been determined. When need has been identified, the level of service to meet this need must be provided." My colleague Mr. Miller thought that that was a basic thing that no one could disagree with.

But the parliamentary assistant, Mr. Ramal, stated, "We will vote against this motion because we want to create some kind of transparency across the board and consistencies when we introduce one

section in other sections of the bill. That's why we're not going to go for this one, not because we don't like you, just because it's not consistent with the stature of the bill."

I'm not sure what that means. And quite frankly, I was disappointed when I read what he had to say about the waiting lists: "It's not consistent with the stature of the bill." Not the "status" of the bill, the "stature" of the bill. It is strange that the government has no real rationale for leaving the waiting list in, other than "it's not consistent with the stature of the bill."

So we tried again, and this was NDP motion 51 put forward by me. I simply moved that we strike out "may place the applicant on a waiting list for the services or funding, as the case may be" and substituting "may apply to the minister for additional funds." This did something else, and it was different from our other attempt.

It was anticipated that if the government was intent upon putting waiting lists right in the legislation to tell the whole world that there are going to be waiting lists, there should be an alternative for the agencies and those who deal with the developmentally disabled; there should be an opportunity, as there is from children's aid, for those agencies to apply to the government for additional funding.

If there is an absolute need, if the waiting list continues to grow, if the services must be provided as they are provided by children's aid, then surely there must be a mechanism that would allow those agencies such as Community Living Ontario and all the others to come forward and say, "There isn't enough money. Can we have an additional amount of money from the contingency fund or any other fund that the government might have?" We proposed this. I thought it was pretty rational.

If the government's going to go with a waiting list, then at least make it possible for the additional funds to come forward to reduce that waiting list, should it ever become ponderous, onerous or too longstanding. And of course the five government members voted that down, too.

So I have to say, "Okay, where do we go next?" So we tried something else, and this was NDP motion 50. This was that subsection 19(3) be struck out. The rationale for that was that we did not believe "that a person with a developmental disability should be forced to" wait "on a waiting list when they have been assessed and the necessary services determined." We went on to say that we were not naïve. And I am not naïve. We know that there are waiting lists for hip and knee replacements in the hospital. We know that there are waiting lists in a broad range of government services, including supportive housing.

We know that there is a finite amount of money available. But having known that, we were upset that the government was trying to entrench it and that they even proposed that these waiting lists point to chronic underfunding, and we said that.

I went on—and I'm going quote myself, which I think is often a dangerous thing to do in the committee. I said, "I do not want to see this bill go forward with a waiting list. I think virtually every person who came before the committee over four days talked about abolishing the waiting lists. They talked about how this was something that they did not want to see in the law, and they have asked that it be removed." We attempted, therefore, to remove it.

In the end, I guess the government's position was, "There's nothing for you here. There's nothing this year. There may be nothing next year; there may be nothing for years ahead." That is what a waiting list does, and the government proceeded. All I can say is how profoundly disappointed all of us on that committee were—including, I believe, the government members—at having to put that into the bill.

There were other things in the bill that caused some great difficulties. One of them was the provision of workers. You see, what is happening here by virtue of this bill is potentially a very good thing: People will be given choice, whether to go to a service agency to get the service, as has been provided for many years; or families who wish an alternative may be able to use the resources of the government to directly fund and hire someone who is not part of a service agency. I know that many people have requested that. I see my friends from London up on the top; they have requested this for a long time.

I can understand why the government would want to accommodate this in what have, in the past, been rare circumstances; certainly it may be something that will go on if it works. But it requires the government to do something correct in order for it to happen, and the government refused to allow it to happen. They refused to do what was necessary to actually give credibility to what many think is a noble idea.

We know that people who work in this sector are chronically underfunded. We know that the wages that are paid, even for those service industries, can range from as little as $10 to $12 an hour to a high, we were told, in the $15- to $17-an-hour range. We know that the higher wages, in the $15 to $17 range, tend to be unionized places of work, by those belonging to CUPE or OPSEU or to one of the other service industries; we know they get paid a higher amount of money. We know that those places that are not organized tend to earn at the bottom.

What we in the NDP are afraid of, and what I think everyone should be afraid of, is that when there is a direct, person-to-person contract—when there is no service agency and no union there to assist—the workers will be shoved to the bottom of the pay scale.

It is not unreasonable to imagine and to know that when one is dealing directly, one on one, and hiring through an agent, as this bill will allow, a family will be given an option: Do you hire somebody for minimum wage at $8.75 an hour, and therefore you can afford 30 hours a week with the funds the government has given you, or do you hire somebody at twice that, at $17 an hour, and they will belong to one of the unions and you will get them for 15 hours a week? I know what most families are unfortunately going to end up doing, and I don't blame them. They're going to hire somebody for $8.75.

With greatest respect, those people may not have the same qualifications, but they are people and they need our protection too. So we tried to do two simple things, if the government is intent on proceeding this way, to ensure that those people who are brought into this industry, who are now part of the government scheme and who want to seek work in this sector, are protected too.

We attempted to make two motions. The first was NDP motion number 33:

"Deemed member of bargaining unit

"

(10) A support worker hired by a person who receives funds under a direct funding agreement is deemed to be a member of a bargaining unit in the geographic area in which the person resides.

"Wages

"

(11) A person who uses the funds provided under a direct funding agreement to hire a support worker shall pay the support worker,

"(

a) an hourly wage equivalent to the hourly wage earned by employees of service agencies in the geographic area who have comparable responsibilities, job skills and experience; and

"(

b) additional remuneration in lieu of benefits.…

"

(12) A person or entity from whom services are purchased with the funds provided under a direct funding agreement shall comply with such quality assurance measures as may be prescribed."

It's not surprising that the government voted this down, because the government has no intent of allowing people who come into the sector under this agreement who are not covered by a collective agreement of being paid the same wages as everyone else. They have no intent at all. Number two, they have no intent of giving them the necessary funds so that they can have hospitalization, so that they can have pay and other benefits consistent with what people who are already in this service industry get. I clearly understand where the service industry and many of the unions came in on this.

This is clearly an attempt, they see—and I cannot see any rationale, because the government provided no rationale, for voting this down. I cannot see any rationale except that they want to reduce the wages of those who work in this sector, which is already chronically under-funded.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It's not relevant.

Mr. Michael Prue: My friend here is saying it's not relevant to the bill. That's what he just told me—the parliamentary assistant. I think it is relevant to the bill. I think it is absolutely relevant that when we are setting up an alternative structure, the people who work in this alternative structure not be put in a position that they are second-class citizens, that they earn less, that they have no hospitalization and that they have no benefits. The government didn't want to go there.

I was extremely disappointed too because we had one deputant who talked about working in Alberta. He talked about working in Alberta with a service agency—Alberta has a similar system to what is being proposed here in Ontario. He worked first of all with a service agency. The service agency went bankrupt and didn't pay him, so he was transferred to another service agency. That too didn't work out, so the family came along and said, "We'll just do a one-on-one with you." The one-on-one worked all right for a few weeks or a few months, until he was injured as a result of the job.

I believe he was pushed or fell down some stairs caring for a person with developmental disabilities. He was not angry about that; he knows that's part of the nature of the job, that from time to time it can be dangerous. But there he was, stuck, and he had no insurance, no hospitalization; he was not covered by any laws. He came before the committee to tell us that we needed to make a provision for this.

So we tried. We tried again. This was a very simple thing that we said. I would just like to quote it for the record. We said—and this was motion 117:

"O. Reg. 175/98 (General) made under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997

"60.1

Schedule 1 to Ontario Regulation 175/98 (General) made under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 is amended by adding the following to 'Class H—Government and Related Services:

"'5. Operation of a service agency under the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008,' as has been passed by committee."

That's a whole bunch of legal talk, but what that really meant was that people who come into this are deemed to be covered by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act so that these new employees that are hired by families are deemed to be covered.

Well, I have to tell you how extremely disappointed I was to the government reaction to that. You would think that people who work in an industry where they might be injured, from time to time—and it's because oftentimes, dealing with people with developmental disabilities, injuries do occur. I do know people who work in the industry, including my own brother, and injuries do occur. They occur. They are often not that serious, but they need to be dealt with.

The government first of all—the parliamentary assistant—tried to rule it out of order. I don't know what authority he had to rule it out of order because he was not the Chair. When the Chair corrected him that it was in order, he continued to try to rule it out of order until the legal counsel came and said that it was a perfectly legal motion to make, at which time, after I gave continued expression to wanting to protect these workers, the five Liberals present unanimously voted it down—because they don't want to provide any protection to these new workers.

They don't want to do it, they don't want it in the bill, and they don't want it in the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. They simply do not want it.

You can understand why people who work in this industry are upset. Here you have a government with flowery language that talks about the rights of the disabled—and I agree with everything that was said—but in implementing the bill, they are forgetting about the rights of the very workers who implement this act; they are forgetting about their rights. I have to tell you how profoundly disappointed I was with the government reaction on this.

We tried other things, too; we tried other things to make this bill a good bill. My colleague Mr. Miller moved a motion about consistency of service. He said: "A director shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that core mandated services prescribed by the regulations are funded and provided at a consistent level across the province."

You would think that would be something the government would want to do in a province that has a thing like the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, where you can go to any place in this province and find the prices identical to what they are in Toronto; in a province where you can go anywhere and find a hospital that will attempt to give you, if they have the services available, the same service you can get in Hamilton or in Ottawa; in a province where we try to be consistent and fair, where the rates for welfare and the rates for education and everything are spelled out so that everyone is treated fairly. That is not going to be in this bill. We attempted to have it, but it was voted down.

Mr. Miller gave an explanation. He said: "To uphold the commitment that individuals with developmental disabilities are included as active members of the community, it is unacceptable to leave people languishing on waiting lists. Therefore, services and supports identified under this act must be mandated services. If an individual is assessed, found to be eligible and necessary supports and services identified, then those supports and services should be provided without delay.

This amendment ensures that proper steps are taken in order to do so." Well of course the government is not interested in providing like services across the province. I think that's because they are not interested in finding the necessary funds to do so.

We go on. There was a fifth thing we tried to do, and that was the whole concept of advocacy. We tried to set up an advocacy office so that there would be an advocate. There is an advocate if you live in assisted housing in Ontario. There are advocates in many fields that we are very proud of. There is a child advocate, there are advocates for everyone, but there is not to be an advocate for people with developmental disabilities. You can understand how profoundly disappointed people are.

You can understand a group like ARCH, which came forward and said that this was something that was absolutely essential that we include in the bill—how disappointed they were when this government shot this idea down, too.

Mr. Miller, on my behalf, put forward a motion: "The minister shall establish an independent advocacy office to,

"(

a) provide advocacy to persons with developmental disabilities in respect of services and funding under this act; and

"(

b) provide education to persons with developmental disabilities about rights under this act."

We thought that this was a great amendment. We thought that this was in compliance with the United Nations charter on the rights of the disabled. We thought that this was in compliance and was going to be something that every single group would want and that we would want for ourselves. But of course the government saw fit to shoot this down, too. I guess they don't want to have an advocate, they don't see a need for an advocate and they don't believe that people with disabilities should have the same rights that you or I do.

We went on. We talked about the right of appeal: If you can't have an advocate who speaks on your behalf, at least can we have a right of appeal, so that the families of people with disabilities or the disabled themselves can come forward and appeal an arbitrary decision made against them? We asked for that, and we thought that was a pretty reasonable thing: If we're not going to have an advocate, can we have an appeal procedure? So in motion number 45, I proposed the following: That there be an appeal.

"If an application centre determines on a review"—and this is what the motion was—"that an applicant is not eligible for services and funding under this act, the applicant, or a person acting on his or her behalf, may appeal the determination to a director in accordance with the regulations….

"The application centre shall provide the person appealing the determination with information about the appeal procedure."

And a very important phrase here: "No person shall take a reprisal against an applicant who has appealed or a person who has appealed on the applicant's behalf."

The government saw fit to say no to this, too. Now, they did say, to be perfectly blunt, that you could go through the process, that you could go back to the officer or the person who had made the decision and try to rationalize or reason with them to change their mind. But there is no appeal process; they're not willing to allow a more senior person or an independent body to look at it to see whether it's reasonable.

I don't understand. In almost every aspect of life in this country, whether it be employment insurance, access to welfare, Ontario Works or ODSP, literally anything, there is an appeal process so a person so aggrieved can go before a fairly independent person to talk about what went on and try to appeal it. That's good enough for everyone else, but it doesn't appear to be a right that this government wants to give to the developmentally disabled. I'm profoundly disappointed with this, too.

I don't know where the government is going on this. I listened to the flowery language and listened to how we want to close down institutions. I listened to how "these people," as the minister said—and I took umbrage with that statement too—"our people" need to be treated exactly the same, and they're not going to be. So, again, here I am, disappointed.

There were other things. The whole issue of access without a warrant: I know this was more an issue brought by my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, but it's an important issue. Access without warrant, if you are developmentally disabled, is going to be the law, so that anyone who wants to come into your place of residence can come in without a warrant. No one can come into my house without a warrant, and I will ensure that they won't come. I will ensure that they won't, and I will live up to that. But a person who is developmentally delayed, or their family, will not have that safeguard.

I know that the group called ARCH wrote a very long and very good paper about this being one of the fundamentals that needs to happen, that people who are trying to live independently have to have the dignity and the sanctity of their own place. The government refused to act on this; the government refused to take this out of the legislation.

Now, I do understand that if there was a matter of profound safety, if someone's life was at risk, there may be cause for an emergency action from time to time, but that should be few and far between. My goodness, a warrant is not a hard thing to obtain. If there is reasonable cause to believe that a person is at risk, if there is a reasonable cause to believe that some illegal action is taking place and if there is a reasonable cause to believe that someone may be mistreated within the confines of their home, then surely a warrant will be issued.

Warrants are issued every day, not just not just in criminal cases, but in all manners of cases, everything from finances to customs regulations to immigration to literally every government action. There is no reason to believe that a warrant could not be issued upon cause in this circumstance as well.

But under this bill, developmentally disabled people will not have the same rights as you or I, and I think what went on is a shame, and I think it is a shame that the government would not bow to what were reasonable requests made by my colleagues in the Conservative Party and groups such as ARCH and others who brought this forward.

There was the issue of legal capacity. Again, I go back to what Community Living has written, and this is on the final page of their four-page letter sent September 15, following the committee hearings, and I think they set it out very clearly and correctly. They wrote, "The bill fails, however, to make any provision for recognizing the legal capacity of people who have an intellectual disability or for providing support to those individuals who need assistance in exercising their legal capacity or making substantial decisions. Without such a clause, there remains a fundamental incoherency in the legislation."

In fact, that is correct. The absolute need for recognizing the legal capacity and a mechanism to fund assistance for people so that they can understand, is inherent for their being full citizens of our society. It was not contained within the body of the bill, and I can assure you that if it's not within the body of the bill there will never be such a position, nor monies for such a position. It makes rational sense to me.

I have a friend; his name is Martin Levine, and I'm going to talk about him in a minute. He describes himself as a slow learner. That's the adjective he uses for himself, but he understands and he knows. What he needs is just a little bit of time and a discussion to get his head around the issue, and some assistance. Then he knows exactly what he wants and exactly what he needs. I think that this should have been contained within the body of the bill, and there were attempts and discussions to bring this within the four walls, but it did not happen.

Just a little bit about Martin Levine, because I don't think I could talk about this issue without talking about him and the profound influence he has had upon me around all of these matters. Martin Levine is a person who lives in the riding of Eglinton—Lawrence. Martin is well known to the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, Mr. Colle, but he's also well known to a great many politicians around this place, because Martin writes at least one letter a month to the Premier—at least one. He writes and tells the Premier what he thinks the Premier should be doing around a whole list of things, such as assisted housing, affordable housing, welfare rates, ODSP provisions and the like.

He's quite a remarkable man. I met him for the first time when he and a group came forward to give their life stories of what it was like to grow up, to have people call you "retarded," to have people not give you an opportunity, to be put in an institution when he was nine years of age. He sent me a few weeks ago—and I had never seen it before—a copy of a little book. It's photocopied, but it's a copy of a tiny book that was written by Martin Levine, as told to Gary Kogan, and it's the life story of Martin Levine. I don't want to read it all, although I could read it all in less than the six minutes remaining, but just a couple of quotes.

The first thing I knew is that he had epilepsy as a young man and that people didn't know how to deal with it, and his family didn't know how to deal with it. He went to school and he had a hard time learning. Today, we would have remedial classes and everything else, but in those days it didn't happen. So his family ended up putting him in an institution and he languished there for 19 years. He had never done anything wrong, but he spent 19 years of his life, until he was pretty well grown. A psychologist who was at the institution said he was too sick and would have to stay in the institution for the rest of his life.

Martin, in his story, writes:

"He did not listen to my side of the story. So I spent the next 20 years in institutions.

"I have been out of those institutions for 17 years now. My epilepsy is very much under control.

"Thanks to my workers Jill Yeatman and Valerie McKinnon, I moved out of the institution and in with my foster parents Bruce and Mary Phillips.

"They made a new life for me. It was not easy for them but they brought me out into the world and made me part of their family. I lived with them for 13 years.

"I was 35 years old when I got my first schooling. The institutions never had any schooling, so we could not learn reading, writing and math."

He went on to talk about how he was amazed that he could go to school and that the government paid for it. There were classes at the school and there were teachers who were patient and there were tutors who came and helped him in the literacy program at the North York library.

He goes on to talk about some of the pride that he has as a person in Ontario. He goes on to talk about the three jobs he's had and how happy he is and how he's worked there for seven years. He went on in his little book to talk about his contributions to society, even about having a bar mitzvah, as Martin is Jewish, but it didn't happen till he was 42 years of age. You would know how difficult that is for a young Jewish man. Mostly that happens when you're around 13, and it happened to him when he was 42.

That said to him that he could now make his own decisions and, in fact, he does. He helps to raise money for Big Brothers, he works every day, he belongs to many community social groups. He works on political campaigns for people who he believes will help him. I believe he may have worked for Mr. Colle in the past; I know he came out and helped knock on a couple of doors for me.

We need to recognize that there are so many people like Martin Levine. We need to recognize that assistance is necessary. We need to recognize that funding has to be made available. There are no funds or provisions for funds within the body of this bill. We are waiting, I guess, with trepidation, with a little fear and perhaps even a little hope for that day, October 22, when the Minister of Finance stands up in his seat and tells us the state of the economy, whether there is going to be money to do the things that we know need to be done.

We know from what the Premier had to say in the last couple of days, including yesterday at the Royal Ontario Museum, when asked about poverty, that there's going to be a great plan but there is not necessarily going to be any money to go with that great plan. So although they're going to identify what needs to be done in the long term, there may not be the resources to do it. That was reiterated yesterday by my colleague. The Honourable Minister of Children and Youth Services, the lead on poverty, said much the same thing in this House and later in scrums.

I am afraid of what is going to happen with this bill. I am afraid that the lofty goals and the fine words that were said by the minister and the parliamentary assistant yesterday will be for naught, that what is contained within the body of the bill, as weak as it is, will not have the resources to make it all happen. People like Martin Levine and the tens of thousands of others with developmental disabilities may not have what they need.

I believe this government has an obligation. If they are not going to be able to put the resources forward, then they should change the bill to make it even tougher and even stronger in order to allow hope. They should have made the changes that were requested of them for a

preamble. They should have agreed to the requests that were made of them to take out waiting lists wherever they occurred within the bill so that people would have hope, that they would not languish for years and years waiting for service. They should have put provisions in the bill that allowed for workers to have workplace safety and health provisions provided and a decent wage. They should have agreed to core mandated services so that service could be provided anywhere and literally everywhere in this province.

They should have allowed for an advocacy office so there would have been an advocate for the disabled. They should have allowed for a right of appeal in the absence of an advocate. They should have forbidden access to private homes without a warrant. They should have given some funds and thought around legal capacity. They should have done all of those things that were necessary for the Martin Levines of this world to fully participate in this wonderful place we call Ontario.

I am saddened that they chose not to do that, that they went so timidly forward and that they are so full of such flowery words, but the actions, I think, belie all of that. I know the government has the necessary legislative muscle to pass this, and it will pass. I can only hope that something more is done in the future.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I was listening to the member from Beaches—East York since yesterday. He talked on many different issues. I was listening carefully to all the elements he described, which we discussed during the journey of the bill from Ottawa to Timmins to London and Toronto, and we listened to many different people.

I know this bill exactly. Everybody knows that the current Developmental Services Act is almost 35 years old, and it was part of its time, its face turned to the past, while Ontario looks forward to the future.

This bill is about choice, about people with disabilities, about their families. That's why we wanted to create choice. Also, when we listened to people from across the province, they mentioned and talked about many different issues. They talked about the title, the language of the bill, person-directed planning, applications, inspections, agencies taking over, waiting lists, complaints and regulations, and we dealt with all these issues. We dealt with them in many different fashions and many different ways. Maybe it's not exactly what the honourable member from Beaches—East York wants, but at least we discussed it, we talked about it and we made substantial changes.

He talked about salaries. We are not going to enter that debate, because salaries are not our jurisdiction. The aim from day one, as I mentioned, was to create choice for the family, for the person with the disability. That's what we're trying to do. Salaries are under the jurisdiction of the bargaining agreement with the Ministry of Labour.

He talked about advocacy. As we know, when we changed the application centre as part of this bill, we created two entities: one to process information and applications, and one to do the funding. As he mentioned, people can go back to the person and appeal and talk about it, and maybe they'll be able to change the decision.

He talked about inspections. No one said a private home should be inspected. But we talk about workplaces being subject to inspections—the minister spoke about it a lot yesterday—because we want to protect people with disabilities.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It was a pleasure to listen to the new leader of the NDP—perhaps I'm a little premature in that comment. We look forward to his comments. You could hear the passion in his voice on this subject. It was obviously very important to him.

The issue that I thought I might comment on is where the government is allowing people to enter residences without warrants.

If you live in a long-term-care home, you need a warrant to come in. If you live in an apartment, a condo or government-subsidized housing, you need warrants to come into these places where people live.

In thinking about it—someone may have other examples—I believe the only place you can live and not have the protection of a warrant is when you're in jail. Guards in jails can enter cells without a warrant, and I think most of us would agree that's probably appropriate.

But this bill proposes that handicapped people living on their own in supportive housing are not subject to the same rights enjoyed by every other individual in our society, with the exception of people who are in jail: the protection of unauthorized entry. Handicapped people in our society would not enjoy that very, very basic right.

I think the government should take a very serious look at that. They should have an internal review of that. I think it's absolutely disgusting that in the 21st century we would look at the possibility of relegating someone to that status by legislation in this time and place.

Mr. Peter Kormos: We in the NDP are proud of the leadership of our colleague from Beaches—East York around this whole area of access. And that's what he has been talking about: access. Not a ramp up to the back door, not tokenism; he's been talking about the right of every Ontarian to participate fully in the social, cultural and economic life of this province. The member for Beaches—East York has been very clear about the fact that you either believe in that as a fundamental right or you don't. There are no half measures.

New Democrats are insistent that tokenism simply doesn't cut it. New Democrats are insistent that there isn't any more time to wait, just like the plea of Mr. Prue and other New Democrats around the issue of poverty in response to the government's announcement that they're going to defer their anti-poverty agenda because now is not the right time. Hell, when workers are losing their jobs left and right—a quarter of a million of them across the province —when poverty is booming, now couldn't be a better time.

I say this to you: Let's understand who's poor in this province. Workers who lose their jobs are poor; persons with disabilities are poor in this province. I say to you, to be poor just because you have a disability is in and of itself a fundamental violation of the most basic concepts of human dignity.

The New Democrats are going to keep working on this file—count on it. Michael Prue is going to keep providing leadership across the province—count on it. New Democrats are going to be there.

Mr. Bob Delaney: After three quarters of an hour of listening to the member for Beaches—East York, I think it's time to return to what Bill 77 was written to achieve. The current legislation is 35 years old. It dates back to the era of Bill Davis and Pierre Trudeau. The world has changed, it's changed again and it's still changing. Even the scope and the range of the services and the supports for people with developmental difficulties has changed. This bill recognizes that men and women with developmental difficulties can live independently if they have the right supports.

The bill empowers people with more choices and more control over these supports. Bill 77 improves services. People only need to go to one place to apply for services and support. Bill 77 offers more choices: One size doesn't fit all. People could receive funding directly for supports that are tailored to their needs. Bill 77 levels the playing field. It makes the system more fair. Everyone will use the same application and the same assessment package.

Even the member in his just-completed remarks acknowledged these benefits, so let's go forward together. Let's update the language and the terms in the bill and bring them into the 21st century. Let's get the province moving to create application and funding entities for developmental services. Let's authorize them to make decisions to allocate resources and to deliver services. Let's stop sending people around town to multiple agencies and focus on the solution rather than the process.

Ontario spends more than $1.5 billion every year on a system that serves 40,000 people. Let's help the agencies that deliver these services focus more on the people whom they serve and less on bureaucratic processes and paperwork.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Beaches—East York has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Michael Prue: I'd like to thank my colleagues the members from London—Fanshawe, Halton, Welland and Mississauga—Streetsville.

A couple of points in the very brief two minutes: I'd like to thank the member from Halton for what he had to say about warrantless entry again. I had never thought of it quite in that context, that the only people other than disabled who do not have the right not to have their places of abode searched are those in jail, but I guess that is in fact correct. I think that one statement said legions in this debate.

I'd like to thank my colleague from Welland because he brought up an issue which I had not really had time to explore in the hour available to me, and that's the whole issue of the disabled and poverty. We know that not all disabled live in poverty, but we know that too many do, especially those with developmental disabilities. They tend, in almost every case, to live in poverty.

I'm reminded of a wonderful group that Carolyn Lemon runs called Lemon and Allspice. It's developmentally disabled or delayed people who work in a kitchen. Sadly, what happens to them is that they get ODSP, but much of what they earn is clawed back. I've said before to this government, and I'll say it again today, that having a disability should not be tantamount to forever, for your entire life, living in poverty. The government needs to recognize that people, whatever their disabilities, whatever their skills or abilities, provide a service to all of Ontario and they should be allowed to keep those monies they earn and to escape poverty.

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

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'm pleased to join in the debate this morning. I want to talk for a minute about where we were 35 years ago when this developmental services sector was last refreshed and revised and where we are today.

La Loi de 2008 sur les services et soutiens favorisant l'inclusion sociale des personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle est une nouvelle loi qui va aider les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle à être plus autonomes et plus libres dans leurs choix.

C'est certain qu'il y a 35 ans, quand la loi a été premièrement mise en place, la société était très différente. Il y a 35 ans, j'avais cinq ans. Quand j'avais cinq ans, le monde était très différent. Quand j'étais jeune enfant, ma grand-mère travaillait dans une des institutions où les gens étaient mis quand ils avaient une déficience intellectuelle. Depuis ces 35 ans, on a bien changé le domaine et la façon dont on donne le soin—un soin compassionné, un soin de communauté—à ceux qui vivent dans nos communautés.

Alors, cette loi va aider l'Ontario à continuer à bâtir un système de services aux personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle qui est plus moderne, plus équitable et plus durable. C'est un système qui va être accessible aujourd'hui et qui va nous aider à nous rendre à demain. C'est un système qui va donner à ces gens une plus grand autonomie et une plus grande liberté d'action.

La loi qu'on met en place, la loi dont on discute ici dans la législature aujourd'hui, va avoir un langage plus moderne et plus nouveau. Cela va mettre en place un système de demande et d'évaluation. On va continuer à regarder comment on peut gérer un système qui va aider les gens à continuer à vivre dans nos communautés et dans chaque région, où ils vont avoir les mêmes outils. On va avoir des normes standardisées.

Il y a aussi une compréhension qu'on doit avoir une planification axée sur les personnes, une planification où les personnes elles-mêmes vont pouvoir faire des décisions avec leur famille, et puis on va centrer sur eux.

Alors, c'est une approche différente de celle qu'on a eue dans le passé, quand on mettait tout le monde dans une grande institution. Même si on leur donnait des soins avec beaucoup de compassion et de conviction, c'était un système où on ne les traitait pas comme individus. Alors, pendant 35 ans, les gens ont beaucoup demandé d'avoir pouvoir avoir un traitement individuel, un financement direct. Cela donnerait aux personnes et à leur famille plus de choix et plus de souplesse.

D'après tout ce qu'on a appris dans 35 ans dans le domaine, une nouvelle définition de la déficience intellectuelle est bien importante pour qu'on comprenne qu'il y a beaucoup de différents types de personnes qui ont des situations individuelles et des déficiences différentes. Ils ont aussi des spécialités, des choses qu'on devrait requérir pour avoir un système équitable.

On doit aussi assurer que ce nouveau système répond aux demandes des familles. Dans ce domaine, il est très important de savoir qu'on a eu plusieurs présentations quand on était en comité. On a reçu beaucoup de demandes des familles et on a répondu à beaucoup de leurs demandes.

Bill 77 had a high degree of consistency when we heard presentations from various communities across the province. Based on that feedback, a number of motions to amend Bill 77 were brought forward. I want to speak just specifically to a couple of those motions so that when folks are listening at home or around the province, they understand the process that has been taking place.

One of the recommendations brought forward by many of the families and many of those who made presentations was that we needed to change the name of the act because they wanted the act to be reflective of the inclusion of persons. That amendment was made, to change the

short title of the act to Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008. That came directly from those who are most in the know and most closely connected to the work being done in communities to help those who need the help of the province with respect to those developmental services.

The other choice of language that was brought forward at committee was to put forward the language of supports, and that the bill should include services and supports. Those amendments were approved at committee to make sure that was reflected in this new modern act that, as I said in the beginning of my submissions, is to take us from today, where we're refreshing after 35 years of not refreshing, to be ready to reflect the future that we will need going forward.

Another important concept—and I talked about the autonomy and the individual approach that needs to be brought forward—is the concept of person-directed planning. That amendment was also approved to include person-directed planning as a ministry-funded service and support under the act. That's so critical for the families that I meet in my community in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, who come forward and who want us to move very much from the past that I talked about earlier, where you're institutionalized, maybe very well cared for, but not treated as an individual.

We have moved over 35 years to today to a time where we recognize that even those with developmental disabilities need to have that individual treatment and need to be respected, and our legislation needs to reflect the fact that individuals and their families have decisions to make, and may make different decisions depending on their circumstances.

Recommendations also came forward with respect to the application process. Bill 77 was amended to set in place and outline a consistent process for applying to access developmental services, supports and funding.

One of the discussions on the floor of the Legislature over the last couple of days has been concerns with respect to inspections. I do want to highlight that concerns with respect to inspections were brought forward to the committee and an amendment was approved by the committee to outline, in regulation, the conditions that must be met in order to enter and inspect a supported group living or intensive supported group living residence without a warrant.

I know the minister spoke about this issue yesterday and highlighted the importance of being able to get in quickly in instances that are necessary to protect the safety and the well-being of those we have the responsibility to care for, but at the same time, the committee reflected and understood that you need to have protections in place to make sure that only under certain conditions are inspections undertaken without a warrant. That is committed to in the legislation to be put forward by regulation.

Another area that we've talked about over the last couple of days is with respect to waiting lists. I want to highlight the amendment that was approved by the committee with respect to waiting lists. The provisions put in place allow the establishment that a waiting list would remain in the act. For those of us who work in our communities and understand the importance of transparency, and families understanding how individuals are prioritized and how waiting lists are managed, the establishment of a waiting list is to promote transparency in the process of prioritizing individuals and managing waiting lists.

Funding entities will provide the ministry with annual reports on waiting lists, which the ministry would post on its website or in any other appropriate manner. That's critical for those who think that some work is done in backrooms and that there's not a transparency and an understanding with respect to how we are ensuring that individuals and their families get the services that they are looking for.

I think that those areas are ones that will help, again, lay the foundation in a piece of legislation that we need to govern and help model in this sector for many years ahead. The world was a very different place 35 years ago, and, as I said earlier, I was five years old. I don't even want to think how old I'm going to be 35 years from now. I'm going to be too old and too grey, but I certainly know the world will be a very different place again.

We are trying, with the revision of this important piece of legislation, to speak to the needs, to reflect the needs of communities, of individuals, of their families, of a sector that does incredibly important work in all of our communities across the province. I know some of my most privileged discussions have been with families I work with in my community to make sure that their sons and daughters are well taken care of by those in this sector who do important and wonderful work on behalf of all of us.

So we're trying to set in place a structure and a piece of legislation that will help make sure that this sector is in a good state for many years to come, that reflects the modernization of where we are at. I'm very proud that we have been the government who has taken the steps necessary to make sure that 35 years of inaction is now replaced by an important and modernized piece of legislation.

With that, I cede the floor to someone else who might like to debate this important bill, and I certainly look forward to standing in my place and supporting it when the vote is held.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'd like to respond to comments by my friend from Etobicoke—Lakeshore with reference to this bill. I'm concerned about the passage of this bill in its present form simply because I've had a belief, probably all of my life, that handicapped people are people, just like anybody else. The difference between a handicapped person and myself is that I'm not handicapped and they are. We have to treat them with the utmost respect.

I've held round tables in my own community on this subject, and I've had occasion, like many members in this House, to meet with those on the receiving end of what this government has in place. We can agree on one thing: We certainly need to revisit, review and change legislation that indeed is too old and too tired to address the realities of today.

But we come to committee as a party to try to make contributions with open minds and to work in the true bipartisan spirit that should mark this House. When I hear my honourable friend speak, I know that she's sincere, but back in committee, I also know that we got slapped down: 66 amendments, all of them reasonable, none of them—not one of them—accepted.

This bill remains flawed. We are simply introducing another level of bureaucracy and built-in wait lists by passing legislation in its present form. There is an unworkable appeal process built into this. Can you imagine facing your accuser to appeal a decision? The same body that says, "This is the way that you're going to be treated" is the body that you appeal to when you don't like the treatment that's being meted out. This, in effect, as it stands, is a form of abrogation of personal rights because it includes warrantless entry. We can do better.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I, for one, down where I come from in Welland riding, have been blessed and fortunate to have had the assistance and guidance of people who are in the Community Living movement, perhaps itself close to 35 years old. Are my colleagues opposite going to suggest that they be replaced? I think not. I'm talking about people like Barb Vyrostko, down with the Community Living centred at Welland, and the work that these people have done for the maturation of this movement. It's an access movement.

I just find it incomprehensible after listening to the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore—and look, I understand. She's in the government benches. She's got to shake the pompoms and lead the cheer for the government. She's paid to do it. If she doesn't, she'll find herself sharing a caucus room with Billy Murdoch. But for the life of me, I don't understand why the government was not more responsive to any number of proposals put forward by Community Living Ontario. I think one of the most substantive ones was the request for a

preamble that would provide guidance to what is, in and of itself, some pretty stark, bare-bones legislation. You've heard Mr. Prue talk about the significance of a

preamble. You heard the submissions at committee. Why would the government not have adopted that very wise—and I say "wise" because it is a wise proposal, because it provides guidance for those who have to interpret the legislation and avoids the anomalies that are inevitably going to flow.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I also want to add my voice to the discussion on Bill 77. The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore talked about how things have changed, the fact that we haven't revised this legislation in over 35 years. We are now moving forward with this.

It brought to mind, even for myself, how things have changed in my lifetime. As young people, we used the word "retarded" in reference to people with developmental challenges. That no longer is the case. At one time, we weren't exposed. People hid these children. They were ashamed. They didn't know how to handle them. They were told that they should institutionalize, and they did. Parents didn't have options. They didn't know what to do. Now we have parents who want to take care of their children and keep them at home.

There's a group called the Lifelong Caregivers' Support Group of Sarnia-Lambton, who have arrived, I see. My sister is a member; my niece has developmental challenges and the family embraces them. There are opportunities there for her now that she wouldn't have had 35 years ago.

Are we perfect in how we're dealing with developmental challenges today? No. We still have a long ways to go. But I think Bill 77 opens the door for that kind of change. We are going to move forward in a way that we haven't done before. We're giving families options that will allow families to make decisions for themselves that weren't there before. I think that's very important. I'm very proud to be able to say that as a government, we are addressing something that other governments—

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

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Whoever gets up.

Mr. Michael Prue: Is he standing up or not?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I don't know.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): There are two minutes. Two minutes: the honourable member from Beaches—East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you very much for an unexpected opportunity to respond. I listened to the honourable member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and what she had to say, but I have to agree with my colleague from London that this was just more of a cheering section, a member who is speaking on behalf of the government and what they're doing because that is what is expected. I did not hear the passion in her voice that one would expect if one believes that this legislation is so good. I did not hear the reasoned and rational argument about why certain things were put in the bill and others were neglected.

Quite frankly, I remain disappointed. I hope that other government members, when they speak to this bill, will explain in some detail why the government chose half-hearted measures; why the government did not listen to groups like Community Living and put in a

preamble; why the government did not listen to the 34 people who talked about not enshrining waiting lists in the legislation; and why the government did not listen to those who were advocating, like ARCH, on behalf of persons with disabilities and looking for funds and offices for advocacy and for appeal. I haven't heard any of that.

All I hear are the same flowery words, that 35 years have gone by and we're updating a piece of legislation and that people with developmental disabilities are part of our community. We all accept that the legislation is old. We all accept that people with developmental disabilities are part of our community. But, you know, the actions need to be taken to strengthen this legislation. If a government is content to go forward with half-hearted legislation, then stand up and say, "That's all we want to do. We're going to take this half-hearted approach." Be honest with it. Be honest with the community and then, perhaps, we can proceed from there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I always do find it passing strange to listen to the opposition who, in the recent history of this province, had the opportunity to move forward legislation, to make the decisions in this Legislature, and they chose not to. They did not make it a priority to reinvest in this sector and they did not make it a priority to change this legislation.

The commitment of our government is loud. We have moved forward to modernize a piece of legislation more than 35 years in the waiting. In addition to that, my constituents in my community of Etobicoke—Lakeshore know the importance that we've placed on this sector because we have committed to investing a half a billion dollars in developmental services since coming to office. A half a billion dollars is a significant amount of money. We've made it a priority.

Each of us sitting in this Legislature—I know from working with my colleagues from all over the province—sit down and work closely with our parents and with our Community Living foundations. I work very closely with Community Living Toronto. I work hand in hand with parents in my community who are looking for the best for their children. Where those children are now adults and their parents are aging, we're working to find creative solutions to make sure that those children who are now adults, and many who are young, will be able to have what is best.

As every single parent knows, and I know, you would do whatever it takes and you will move every mountain to help your kids. They have a government who understands that. They have a government who's willing to work in partnership with them, willing to modernize a piece of legislation that, frankly, nobody cared about for 35 years. Those on the other side of the House who are sitting here now saying they would have done it very differently, well, you know what? Those are hollow, hollow words, because they did not.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: I've been listening to the debate and this is an important subject for myself. I think, very clearly, we can all see in this House and throughout this province that one of the fundamental and important roles of government is to provide for and protect those who are not capable of doing so for themselves.

As I listened to the debate and the discussion, I heard that the purpose of bringing in this legislation is because we have old legislation, that it has to be revised, that it's the age of the legislation that requires new legislation, not the betterment of the protection of our handicapped people, people with disabilities. That's not why this bill is being changed, apparently; it's because the old one is 35 years of age.

The members of the third party make a significant point. The

preamble that was requested is absolutely fundamental in a piece of legislation such as this, to provide that guidance for the people who will be interpreting this legislation down the road. The government has failed miserably in not providing that guidance in this legislation, for down the road what will be the intent of this legislation other than it replaced something that was 35 years old?

There are good elements to this legislation, but it is a half-hearted attempt at addressing problems. I would like to just focus on what I see as flaws, but not just myself; many community groups have indicated, through committee, that there are indeed flaws that are going to hamper their ability to provide good services to those most in need. The first one is that, clearly, the government does not expect to fund completely people with disabilities, and that is why wait times will be entrenched in this legislation. Just for clarification, we have wait times now in that 35-year-old legislation. It's not defined in the legislation, but we do have wait times.

I'll just give you a couple of examples from one of my community forums in Lanark county earlier this year: 234 people are on a wait list for residential services; 273 people are on a wait list for program services. And of those 273, 134 are children; another 142 people are on wait lists for day program support services.

We have wait times. Now, instead of just being unacceptable and intolerable that we have wait times, they will be legislated as acceptable. I find this totally unacceptable, that the government intends not to fund, not to provide and not to protect those most in need, and is willing to entrench its mediocrity in legislation.

The bill also creates more bureaucracy for individuals and families to deal with, if they don't have enough already. We've seen so many examples of parents and caregivers of people with disabilities travelling through the maze of bureaucracy. It's hurtful for me to see it when I hear their stories of going through all the empty doors, the false doors of bureaucracy, trying to find services for their loved ones, only to find more dead ends.

I'll just give some examples. One was the Passport program, which sounds great—much like the flowery words and rhetoric that we've heard from the other side. In my area last year, there were 229 applicants for the Passport program. Five applicants were approved. That's right, five of 229—2%. That's what happens when government creates programs, elevates expectations and then sits on its hands with funding. I find those numbers disturbing—I think everybody in this House would find those numbers disturbing—but now they will be entrenched. Again, mediocrity is the order of the Liberal day.

I'll give you an example. Out of those Passport applications, 20 carried the same priority score of 41. Karen York, whose son has disabilities, received one of those priority scores, and she got the same word back: "Unfortunately, your application cannot be funded at this time. However, Passport will keep your application on file for the next three years." We are spending significant dollars administering a program that does not fund anything other than the administration of the program.

This Liberal government can do better. It is not the 35-year-old piece of legislation that is at fault; it is the lack of political will, the lack of political oversight that is at fault, not the legislation.

Many speakers have spoken about this warrantless entry and, clearly, we must judge governments not by their intentions, but by their actions. Again, a government's role is to provide protection and not to abrogate the rights of its citizens, least of all its most vulnerable citizens. This idea that because someone is disabled they no longer have the protection of privacy that we all enjoy—our homes are our castles. This is not for disabled people. Disabled people have no privacy under this legislation.

I find it difficult to believe that anybody in this House, any legislator, would even bring such an abhorrent thought into legislation—that we can just enter somebody's residence and remove their privacy because they are disabled. But, like many of the other amendments—there were over 200 amendments to this bill. A few did get put through, the ones that were sponsored by the Liberal Party, not the ones by all the community groups, members of the third party or members of the Progressive Conservative Party. Still, there was a half-hearted attempt to address the failings of their execution and implementation of support and services and protection for people with disabilities.

In the same vein as this warrantless entry—that is a fundamental tenet of justice: that we have our right to privacy, our freedom of privacy. Another tenet of justice is a review process, an appeal process. We often hear the terms from this Liberal government of "openness" and "transparency," and that everything is good as long as they use those words in front of their phrase, as long as it's "open and transparent."

The appeal process for this assessment: If somebody with disabilities is assessed by an individual or group, the only appeal process is back to the assessor. It is absolutely, fundamentally and totally incomprehensible that the Liberal government would include that in this half-baked legislation. It would be like getting a ticket for going through a yellow light, and then having the police officer who gave you the ticket being the judge and the jury.

If the Liberal government indeed believes that openness and transparency is important, they will modify this and install and include an appeal process that is not just flowery, but effective; not one that is just open and transparent, but one that is real, one that is tangible, one that has effect and value for those engaged in being assessed. The PC Party believed, and brought forth an amendment, to have the Ombudsman as a vehicle and a means to deal with appeals. That amendment was struck down as well.

I've seen so often in this last year, as I've spent time with members of the disabled community in my riding, that there are indeed hardships, there are troubles, there are difficulties—without a doubt, too many of them for us to bear or tolerate, in my opinion. But I see in this bill—as we have seen in other bills and other legislation—that the minister is removing herself from oversight and responsibility in this legislation.

She's taken a hands-off approach, creating arm's-length arrangements where really any minister of this portfolio will be able to sit back and say, "I'm only responsible for funding; you have to deal with others." That's been a great thing, and I think of how over the last number of years politicians and government are willing to abdicate our ownership, our responsibility to the citizens of this province. It is not enough to hand off responsibility to an arm's-length organization and then plead ignorance or plead inabilities. They can do that already, quite effectively.

We need to take to heart our responsibilities. We have to ensure that when there's a problem, people can access government, access ministers, and demand accountability and oversight. It's not enough that we just pass off all the regulations that this bill will create to the bureaucracy and not have any political oversight over those regulations. We are unsure of what those regulations will be, but we know we will not see them. They will have the force of law and nobody on this side of the House will have an opportunity to debate them or challenge them. Nobody in our galleries will have the opportunity to review them, discuss them or debate them—they'll just be done.

I really request the Liberal government to take time to rethink and reflect on this piece of legislation. Look at the flaws that you are creating with this legislation and address them, fix them. There are many people out there who are counting on your government to fix the problems, not entrench them.

I have to address one other failing in this, and we already see it right now. In my community, there is a pressures and priorities group that defines the needs and services requirements, and it creates budgets for them. We spend countless hours developing that pressures and priorities budget, and then the ministry provides funding, not on that budget but on a per capita basis. These are elements that will continue to be flaws under the new legislation. This new legislation does not address that at all. In fact, it is my belief that it expects not to fund these pressures and priorities, and once again, to ensure that wait times are the order, not improved times, not beneficial times.

For all the members here, all the members in my community of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, it's time for the Liberal government to stand up, to think about this and to fix and correct the flaws, and ensure that the people of this province who are the most needy and who are the most vulnerable are not forgotten by this legislation and by your government.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being just about time for introduction of visitors, I think we'll move to introduction of visitors. We'll just wait for the Speaker.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning, members. I'd like to introduce a few guests today.

On behalf of the member for Welland, Jozef Kormos from Haniska-Prešov, Slovakia, in the west members' gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park.

On behalf of the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, we'd like to welcome the Lifelong Caregivers Support Group of Sarnia—Lambton. Welcome to Queen's Park today as well.

I'd ask all members to welcome former member Gary Malkowski, from the riding of York East, from the 35th Parliament, in the east gallery. Welcome today, Gary.

ORAL QUESTIONS

C. DIFFICILE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. I'd like to warmly welcome the Minister of Health to his new position.

Minister, earlier this week you supported the Prime Minister's call for a public inquiry into listeriosis, which killed 19 people across Canada. When 44 people died of SARS, you repeatedly demanded an inquiry and we responded. There are now at least 500 deaths from C. difficile across Ontario that we know of. The actual number is unknown and it could well be in the thousands.

Minister, I ask you, how many more excruciating, painful and undignified deaths in our hospitals will it take before you call an investigation to get some answers?

Hon. David Caplan: I do want to first of all accept the good wishes of my colleague opposite. I do want to extend my sympathy to all of the patients and families who have been affected by hospital-acquired infections. I want all members to understand and know that I take patient safety incredibly seriously.

Hospitals are actively working to continue to manage outbreaks when they occur and where they occur. We've done the studies. There have been three independent inquiries, reviews and investigations into C. difficile in Ontario hospitals. That's why, and following the advice of medical experts, we will have mandatory reporting at the end of this month. When you track, as we found in other jurisdictions around the world, you can improve upon it. The best prevention does remain handwashing, and in Ontario some of the best protocols anywhere in the world—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: You haven't learned from any reports because the reports do not exist. Despite the fact that you say you've learned from the Soo, you've learned from Joseph Brant, you haven't.

Pursuant to a freedom of information request that I have here, we've learned that the coroner who investigated the 22 deaths in the Soo never produced a report. Yesterday, your Premier said it was a coroner's jury that looked into C. difficile in the Soo. That's incorrect. There was never a jury. There was never a report.

We've also learned that your ministry doesn't have a report of the outbreak at Joseph Brant. In fact, your ministry has, according to the response, no notes, no memos, no records whatsoever into either report. There's no paper trail.

Are you prepared today to retract those false statements that you, your Premier and your predecessor have made? You have not learned everything that—

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

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, the acting medical officer of health and the associate deputy chief coroner of Ontario have said that the investigations that have taken place are sufficient and it would not add anything new to have anything in addition. That's why we've brought in Dr. Michael Baker, one of the noted and well known patient safety advocates and experts, to form a medical expert committee to be the lead on patient safety.

The provincial infectious disease advisory committee, or PIDAC as it is known, is providing that expert advice to the government. That's why we are beginning, as I had mentioned earlier, the tracking, the mandatory reporting, which will be in place at the end of this month. But in addition to that, we have 137 new infection control positions in hospitals around Ontario. We have 14 regional infection control networks to promote best practices. We have—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: This minister, like his predecessor and the Premier, continues to stonewall and not provide the public with the answers they deserve and have the right to know. Not only are you stonewalling us, but you're stonewalling the families of the people whose family died. Dr. Warren Hewitt's father-in-law died at Joe Brant. He tried to get a copy of Dr. Gardam's report into Joe Brant and he was told by your ministry that you don't have it. This is his FOI request. And then, you wonder why the public's lost confidence.

He says, "My question is, insofar as the ministry and the minister did not possess a copy of the report outlining the extent of the outbreak at Joseph Brant, how could the minister possibly be in a position to fully consider the merits of an inquiry?" I agree.

You failed to tell Ontarians the truth. You don't have any reports. You're hiding from accountability and liability. You have a choice today, Minister. Be different from your predecessor and your Premier. You can show leadership. Will you—

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

Hon. David Caplan: I disagree. The premise of the member's question is simply wrong. This government—my predecessor, the Premier and all members—has taken the leadership to put in place the necessary resources and supports to ensure patient safety. That's why we're beginning, and we will be the second jurisdiction in Canada, to have public reporting on C. difficile and we'll be expanding to include other hospital-borne infections. That's why we put in place, as I mentioned earlier, 137 new infection control positions in hospitals. That's why we've created 14 regional infection control networks.

That's why we're working not only with the expert committee that we've brought together, but we've brought together the Ontario Hospital Association and their constituent partners in individual visits and teleconferencing in order to share those best practices that have been recognized to be amongst the best in the world as far as the kind of handwashing protocols that ought to be in place.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last night, we witnessed the President of the United States on television indicating that America's economy is at risk and that they could be facing a long and painful recession. As you well know, living in a border community, Ontario's economy is very closely linked to the economic well-being of the United States and the President's message has to be of concern.

Minister, can you advise the House what plans your government has in place to, as much as possible, protect this province's jobs and savings if there is further deterioration in the US situation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We've laid out a five-point plan that is solid, that is working. It involves targeted business tax cuts. It involves substantial investments in skills training and substantial investments in infrastructure, which will provide short-term employment and long-term productivity improvement. It provides for investments and innovation to help prepare for the economy of the 21st century and it involves building partnerships: partnerships with our municipalities, partnerships with our First Nations, partnerships with the federal government.

There is no doubt that the state of the US economy is of deep concern to all of us here in Ontario and indeed around the world. We will continue to implement the plan we've laid out. We believe it is the right plan and we believe it is showing results.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The minister's response should fall under the heading of alarming. We know the economic outlook facing the government has weakened noticeably since the spring and now it looks like it could get much, much worse. This government clearly has no contingency plans in place. Its answer is always the same: Point fingers at the federal government and repeat the mantra, "Five-point plan, five-point plan," and then apparently hide their heads under the blankets and hope it all goes away.

Minister, will you please try to give people worried about their jobs, their kids' futures and their pension some comfort that you are prepared to deal with a potential crisis in the US economy? Please.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the member this is not a potential crisis in the US economy; it has been there for 18 months. What hasn't been in this debate is your party.

The people of this province are looking to all levels of government to respond appropriately. We have laid out a plan which does just that. We have laid out a plan that makes targeted critical investments in the areas that we have been advised, by the business community, labour and others, are the appropriate places to make investments. We do so in the context of a balanced budget. We do so in the context of an economy whose growth—while there continues to be very modest growth, there continues to be growth. I will lay out on October 22 precisely where our numbers are, and I would remind the member that we built in reserve and contingency at all levels of the budget—

Interjection: Prudence.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —prudence—to ensure that Ontario is prepared to face the challenges that we have acknowledged for more than 18—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The reality is that they are ignoring experts and seem oblivious to the storm clouds circling this province. Almost 85% of our exports go to the United States. Almost one million Ontario jobs are dependent on those markets. Before the recent crisis in the financial markets, TD Bank Financial Group predicted Ontario's unemployment rate going up above 7% and personal income stalling. Inflation is up; we know this. Housing starts, manufacturing sales and international merchandise exports are down. The signals are there; the alarm bells are ringing.

Minister, when are you going to admit that your five-point plan is failing the people of this great province and bring in policies, recommended by a range of experts, that can protect the economic well-being of this great province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What we reject are the policies of tax cuts, which were present in the United States, and deregulation, which was present in the United States, the same panacea that you and your friends propose to offer. The time now is for prudence. The time is to hunker down. We have laid out a plan that does just that. I remind the member opposite that the very economists he has quoted have also said that our plan makes investments in the right places, our plan is prudent. Our plan, in the view of many people, including the 21 business leaders I met with yesterday morning, is the right plan.

It involves careful and cautious response to the circumstances not only Ontario and Canada find themselves in, but indeed all western economies. This government is moving in—

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

POVERTY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. This government's long-term poverty plan is getting more long term by the day. First, the Premier says he has to go slow on poverty because of the economy. Now this minister says that the government strategy is not even "about what's in the budget next March." During these difficult economic times, how does this minister justify telling Ontarians that there will be no new expenditures for poverty in the upcoming budget and that they should just continue to wait for a plan that may never come?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me make it really clear that what has been said by the Premier and by myself is that we are on track to deliver a poverty reduction strategy, a long-term, comprehensive poverty reduction strategy for this province by the end of the year. The implementation of the strategy, as we have always said, will be in a manner that is as aggressive as we can do. Despite the attempt of members opposite to pull out certain questions from our consultation document and ignore the others, we are moving aggressively forward on this. I am as committed to this as I have ever been, as are members of my caucus and as is the Premier.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As economic downturn pushes more Ontarians into poverty, the government is backtracking on its poverty promises. The backtracking is also very disrespectful to the thousands of Ontarians who took time to participate in their poverty consultations. Yesterday, the minister said the consultations were extraordinary. She's right. They are extraordinary, because the government won't even reveal what was said. That's extraordinary.

When will this government release a report, not just on its poverty plan, but a report dealing with the consultation and what those participants said during that process? We need to know what the consultation gave you in terms of information from the people who are actually living in poverty in this province. Why won't you reveal what's in those reports?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the member opposite well knows, we have released all of the submissions that were made from organizations through the website. You have those reports, and you know what was said. I was happy to finally get a copy of your report yesterday, which was a list of things you heard—very similar to the things we heard. I wouldn't describe it as a strategy, but that's another point. We are not wasting any time. We are not waiting. We are delivering on issues immediately. This past July, the first Ontario benefit cheques started to be delivered to low-income families across the province.

The minimum wage has gone from $6.85, when we were elected, to $8.75—it's on its way to $10.25. We have introduced a low-income dental plan in our last budget, we have doubled the funding for student—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is that this minister still will not reveal what was said in her consultations that she held across the province. She will not say what the government will do; she will not even say when the government will do it. In fact, she won't even state clearly who the plan is going to help. Sometimes the government says the plan will be comprehensive, and sometimes it's only going to apply to children. Could the minister at least clarify one thing for Ontarians: Will her government's plan really be comprehensive and apply to all people living in poverty in Ontario? Or will it only apply to children?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The answer to your question is this: We will be delivering a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy for the province of Ontario. It will lay out a road map that, if implemented, over time, will reduce poverty in this province. We have every intention of implementing the strategy. It will speak to all people living in poverty in this province.

But our highest priority is breaking the cycle of poverty. Our focus to begin will be with children. We know that the most important thing we can do for kids living in poverty is to ensure they get the education they need to be successful in their lives. The evidence is very clear that investments made in young children pay off multiple-fold. We intend to listen to the research, and we will implement the strategy.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We don't need a long, long road map; we need the rubber to hit the road by this government.

MANUFACTURING AND

FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This next question is to the Minister of Finance. It appears that this government's sole response to Ontario's job crisis is to plead to all who will listen that Ontario needs to be treated the same as all other have-not provinces. What he refuses to admit is that it's his government's inaction over the past five years that has directly been responsible for Ontario's ongoing slide into have-not status. When will the minister admit that 235,000 lost manufacturing jobs, 40,000 lost forestry jobs and the growing list of devastated communities across Ontario is his responsibility? When will he stop passing the buck?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, in fact, the government has a five-point plan. We have invested over a billion dollars in skills training, which you voted against. We have invested in the last year $9.9 billion in infrastructure, which the NDP voted against. We have invested $3 billion in corporate tax cuts and tax cuts designed to protect the jobs of Hamilton workers, and you voted against it.

We are calling on the federal government for a partnership, and I'd like to know: Will Jack Layton stand up for Ontario? Will he ensure that if Ontario qualifies for equalization, Ontario will be treated fairly? Will Jack Layton ensure that Ontarians get equal per capita health care funding? What about it? What's Jack Layton's view on that issue? I ask the member opposite.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's even more clear from the minister's answer that he and the Premier intend to spend the rest of the federal election blaming everybody but themselves for Ontario's slide into the economic minor leagues. It's also clear from the minister's answer that he refuses to take responsibility for the failure of his own economic program, the five-point failure, such as doling out more than $400 million to some of the world's largest auto companies without securing job guarantees.

When will the minister admit that his so-called "fairness for Ontario" campaign is nothing more than a cheap diversion from the real issue at hand: his government's complete and utter failure to sustain Ontario's manufacturing and resource jobs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Premier of Ontario is today at a Honda plant welcoming 300 new jobs to Ontario with money that we provided, which that member and her party voted against—the NDP, the "never done pandering" party.

This government has made strategic investments in the automotive sector and the high-tech sector to attract and maintain the jobs that will keep communities like St. Catharines and Windsor working. What we need is a federal partner. What we need is an opposition that won't vote against helping companies keep jobs. They voted against the Stelco assistance package. Were you against that, I ask the member? There is an appropriate role for government to take in working with business. We remain committed to that to protect the jobs and incomes of Ontarians in Hamilton, in Windsor, in St. Catharines. Thank goodness—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We've had an astonishing 235,000 good-paying jobs lost in Ontario's manufacturing heartland, and all this government can say is, "It's not my fault. It's the federal government's fault." More than 40,000 forestry jobs have been lost in the north, and all this government can say is, "Please, Mr. Harper, just treat us like any other have-not province."

Well, the people of Ontario aren't buying the Premier's lame lines. They want this government to take responsibility, not shirk it. When will you finally quit playing the blame game and start protecting the jobs that are the lifeblood of Ontario communities?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I never thought I'd see the day when the Ontario NDP stands so firmly behind Stephen Harper.

This government is taking responsibility. This government is delivering a five-point package that is protecting our economy and helping to maintain jobs. I would invite the party opposite, instead of just talking about things, to put real proposals on the table. Explain to Ontarians why you voted against $9.9 billion in infrastructure money. Tell unemployed Ontarians why you voted against more than a billion dollars for skills training. Tell Ontarians why you voted against targeted tax cuts for our manufacturers that are designed to help protect Ontario jobs. Tell them why you voted against it.

This government is taking appropriate measures with appropriate tools, recognizing—

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

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. This afternoon in the House, we will be discussing the issue of providing opportunities for young skilled workers in Ontario by changing the journeymen tradesperson to apprenticeship ratio from its current 3 to 1, which puts Ontario at the back of the pack in Canada, to a fair and reasonable ratio of 1 to 1.

Both you and the Premier have used the excuse of safety to avoid dealing with this matter. If this was a safety issue, then I think you would be on the phone screaming at the Liberal Premiers in BC and in New Brunswick, both of whom provide their skilled workers with 1-to-1 ratios.

Minister, I'm not sure if you're planning on being here for the debate this afternoon, so I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you: Do you support changing the current ratio from 3 to 1 into a fair and reasonable ratio of 1 to 1?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the member's question. We've had a chance to discuss this issue a number of times in the House, and I just want to put some facts on the record.

First of all, we're one of the first governments in the history of Ontario to make apprenticeships a priority. Under our watch, we have seen an increase of 50,000 apprenticeships, which is quite extraordinary when you look at the dismal record of the last government that was in power.

The member opposite likes to go on about a 3-to-1 ratio in the electrical sector. The fact is that this ratio only applies to larger companies. Smaller contractors, who represent the majority of electrical companies, are governed by a 1-to-1 ratio.

We are committed to improving and reforming the apprenticeship system. Based on industry advice, we have changed eight ratios in the construction trades during our time in government, as opposed to—

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I just want to put on the record for the minister that the PC Party introduced the first apprenticeship program. So your history is wrong. You can't continue to duck and dodge this important matter at the expense of young and eager workers.

We also know that the colleges are well suited to teach skilled trades—they are getting that part—but what the people need is for you to remove that bottleneck that happens the minute they're done their schooling. They can't get their hands on training to complete the apprenticeship because of your ratios.

This afternoon, there are going to be many apprentices here at Queen's Park. Are you telling us this morning that Dalton McGuinty and you, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, are saying to those young people, even though you encourage them to drop everything and obtain a skilled trade, that they've made a mistake in their career choice to become skilled tradespersons? Yes or no: Do you support changing the journeyman-to-apprentice ratio in Ontario to 1 to 1?

Hon. John Milloy: I am very proud of the emphasis that we've put on apprenticeship training under our government. Let me give you a few facts about the PC Party. In their first three years, they had 37,000 new registrations; the Liberals, 60,000 new registrations. In their second mandate, they increased new registrations by over 30,000; we have doubled the number of annual registrations to over 60,000 in our first three years.

We have said over and over that we acknowledge the fact that we need increasing reforms and modernizations to the apprenticeship system. We looked for the best advice from Mr. Tim Armstrong, a respected expert in the field, who came out with a report a number of months ago which has been available to the public. That report made a very thoughtful and innovative recommendation for a college of trades, which we want to proceed with. I ask members opposite to join us in making sure that we have a college of trades to strengthen the system and to—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Acting Premier: What did the McGuinty Liberals do to protect the 800 John Deere, Welland, jobs that have been shipped to Mexico?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To those families affected by that decision, our government continues to be concerned about them, and all others. We have made a number of investments across a range of sectors that have helped our economy weather the storm in manufacturing that is being felt all over North America.

To suggest that there are not challenges and that we can fix every problem simply is not accurate. The investments we've made in manufacturing, including the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, have helped protect a number of jobs, including producing new jobs which we are announcing today. There's more to be done. Those families in Welland affected by this need a government that is on their side, and they know that this government is, based on the investments, based on the undertakings—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: Some 800 jobs out of 1,000 that week alone, thousands more in the months preceding. I ask the government one more time. The workers in Welland don't need the Premier to wring his hands and tell them he feels their pain. He can send them a damn Hallmark card that says the same thing. They need work. They need jobs. What is this government doing to protect the jobs of workers in Welland, Niagara, across southern Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We were involved immediately, upon notification, with Welland. We are continuing to make investments in the manufacturing sector to help keep jobs, recognizing the tragedy of those job losses in Welland and job losses in factories across North America, indeed in the western world in the manufacturing sector.

There is no easy answer to this challenge and anybody who suggests that there is one is wrong. You need do no more than watch what was going on in the United States yesterday evening to come to terms with the order of magnitude of what the North American economy, indeed the world economy, is faced with. To suggest that any government can solve every problem is wrong. The solutions we've laid out are a good help, they're the right direction, and we'll continue to find innovative ways to work with those families who are dealing with the—

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

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Many constituents in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham are concerned about the proposed construction of a 350-megawatt, single-cycle, natural gas-fired generating plant in the northern York region. Some municipal leaders and citizen advocacy organizations have also expressed their concern. There have been conflicting reports about the need for this generating facility, especially since you, as the new minister, have made it clear that you're going to be focusing a lot on conservation and renewables.

Minister, what reassurance can you offer my constituents and the affected citizens of northern York region that the proposed power plant is needed?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for her interest in this and I know that other members have also been expressing interest in this. I think it's important to know, first off, as it relates to our electricity system, that reliability is job one. In the circumstances of York region, because it's an intensely growing spot, we do have some risk with respect to reliability.

We have to recognize that the residents of York region have previously opposed transmission upgrades, which would have brought more power from off site, and that with the 3% projection in growth each year for electricity demand we really do get into a very vulnerable spot. As the reliability goes, the premise of the weakest link certainly comes into play.

Conservation is part and parcel of the mix. We anticipate 56 megawatts of saving in the northern part of York region, but as we look to the pressures of peak demand when people turn up the heat or turn on the air conditioning, the sufficiency of supply is not there, and that's why it's necessary to move forward with this peaking plant in the northern York region.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I know that the citizens of my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham, and indeed all Ontarians, understand the need for an adequate and reliable supply of power for our homes and businesses. My community has been working hard to reduce their energy consumption through a variety of conservation programs. This year, in his 2007 annual report, the Chief Energy Conservation Officer reported that Ontario had met its peak demand reduction target of 1,350 megawatts by 2007.

Last Thursday, at a speech to the Ontario Energy Association, you made an announcement about the government's integrated power system plan. In that announcement, you directed the OPA to review a modest portion of the IPSP, including the

section about conservation. Can you tell this House what those changes were and how it will help the citizens of my riding?

Hon. George Smitherman: On the matter of conservation, the integrated power system plan has a very aggressive target of 6,300 megawatts. It is aggressive; everybody, I think, acknowledges that. What we want to make sure of is that the progress that we've made to date can be sustained, and that we can achieve those numbers. In part, we'll take a look at whether there are prospects to achieve them on an even more aggressive time frame than that which has been established.

In the province of Ontario, 75% of our energy supply last year was met by what I call the two ends—Niagara Falls and nuclear—that is, the combination of our nuclear assets and our hydroelectric assets provided about 75% of our needs. We've made good progress, in fact, progress better than was first anticipated, with respect to the implementation of renewables into our supply mix.

Last week, I asked the Ontario Power Authority, working through their IPSP, to take a look at whether we could offer more aggressive targets with respect to renewables and whether those conservation targets, which are aggressive, could be met in a more timely manner. These are matters that are currently under review.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I want to read from an e-mail that was sent to Dan Racicot, a member of the provincial advisory committee, or PAC, on construction and maintenance electricians. It's from Anika Fernando, an employee in your ministry. The e-mail asks Mr. Racicot to fill out a form to update the information in your ministry's database. Ms. Fernando goes on to give directions on how to fill out the form, and she says, "Please note that for the union member column, 'True' means you have a union affiliation and 'False' means you do not."

Minister, can you tell me why it's so important that your ministry ask for this information of whether you're a union member or not?

Hon. John Milloy: I'd be happy to look at the document the member is referring to, but again we go back to the first principle, which is that we look to the industry for their best advice in terms of apprenticeships and moving forward, and I'm very proud of the progress that we've made.

Our government has freely acknowledged the fact that we need further reforms in terms of our apprenticeship system and we need to look at how we get that advice from the industry.

That's why, based on a recommendation that was brought forward by noted industry expert Tim Armstrong, we're proceeding with the establishment of a college of trades, and we've asked Kevin Whitaker, the head of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, to undertake work over the coming months to put together the framework for such a college, which is going to look at a variety of issues facing apprenticeships, keeping in mind how we can strengthen the system and how we can make sure more people are coming into the skilled trades and receiving the training they need.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Well, again today you've been hiding behind these provincial advisory committees, or PACs, and saying they are the ones that set the apprenticeship ratios in Ontario and decide how many young people will actually get an apprentice position in Ontario. But it's obvious from looking at the lists of the membership of the PACs that you've been stacking these PACs with your union buddies. They have no interest at all—in fact, they have a vested interest in ensuring that the ratios aren't changed to one journeyman to one apprentice, like they are in other provinces.

Let me give you some examples. The brick and stone masonry PAC has four union members and three business reps. The drywallers, acoustic and lathing applicator PAC is stacked with members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. The boilermakers PAC is pretty well completely filled up by members of the boilermakers union, Local 128.

Minister, again, these unions have no interest at all in changing the ratios, so you're giving us nothing but rhetoric. You're hiding behind the PACs. What are you doing, and why won't you—

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

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, I find it a little passing strange. We've seen ratios change eight times under our watch; when they were in government, they changed none. If this was such a big issue, why didn't they change the ratios when they had the opportunity?

Again, we look for the best advice from PACs on how to strengthen the system. Let me give you one example: construction and maintenance electricians. Let's talk about the success in that field. New registrations have increased by 32% since 2003. Completion rates have increased by 151% since 2003.

To repeat again, we fully acknowledge the need for further reforms in the apprenticeship system. That's why we asked for the thoughtful advice of Mr. Tim Armstrong, a noted expert in the field, and that's why we're proceeding with his advice in terms of a college of trades. Again, I invite all opposition members, I invite all members of this House, to be part of this process to make sure we have the strongest apprenticeship system in Canada.

PROPANE EXPLOSION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. Will the minister hold Sunrise Propane accountable for the $1.9-million cleanup?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thanks very much. First of all, let me say that our Ministry of the Environment was on the scene almost immediately after it happened. Our main concern is to make sure that the health and safety of the people in the area is protected.

Secondly, we issued a number of orders against Sunrise to make sure that the cleanup was done in the proper fashion. When they didn't come through with it, the city of Toronto, I think rightfully, then took action to make sure the people of that area were protected.

As Shelley Carroll said in the paper today, they appreciated the work that the ministry has done there over the last couple of months, particularly early on, to make sure the people of that area were best protected.

Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the question was, who's going to end up holding the bag around the cost of the cleanup? The province is ultimately responsible for overseeing the propane industry. Municipal councillors in Toronto argue, very rightly, that the $1.9-million bill should not be covered by the local property taxpayer. If Sunrise Propane is pushed into bankruptcy and cannot cover the costs of cleanup, will this minister commit right now to fully covering the cleanup costs incurred by the city of Toronto?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, I think the city of Toronto took the right action. When no action was taken by Sunrise, they took action to make sure that the site was cleaned up. Number two, they now have the ability, in legislation, to go after Sunrise to make sure that they pay for the cost that Sunrise itself should have had to pay initially. Why don't we wait and see what happens there, and then later on we can always discuss what would happen in the event that Sunrise can't come across.

The number one priority was to make absolutely certain that the people in that area were protected. I personally went out there, spoke to a number of the people who were involved in the cleanup of the site and spoke to the MOE people that were on-site as well. I think that the whole operation from this terrible event was handled in a very professional manner by all concerned.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, there is no doubt that more and more students are seeking a post-secondary education and are choosing Ontario schools to obtain it. In my city of Hamilton, Mohawk College and McMaster University have seen the numbers of applicants surge over the past four years. In fact, I understand that post-secondary enrolment is up by 25% in Ontario since 2004, with 100,000 more students attending college or university.

Although this is good news, there is no doubt that increased enrolment is putting additional pressures on our colleges and universities. I would like to know, what is the minister doing to ensure that colleges and universities have the means necessary to support this growth?

Hon. John Milloy: I would like to thank the member not only for her question but for her commitment to post-secondary education, both in Mohawk College and McMaster University, which are part of her community.

The member is correct. We've seen a tremendous growth in post-secondary education in the province, which is something that I think all of us should celebrate—100,000 more students. At the same time, we have to make sure that there's the capacity there to support those students, and one of the thrusts of our skills-to-jobs action plan, as well as last fall's economic statement, has been on the infrastructure side of the equation. We saw last year alone almost $700 million invested in colleges and universities to maintain and enhance their facilities, as well as meet their capital needs.

Over the summer, the Premier and I announced $190 million for strategic skills training projects at a number of colleges, including Mohawk, and I'm pleased to announce that Mohawk College received $9.2 million for the —

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I want to tell the minister that when I've had the opportunity to meet with the administrations of Mohawk College and McMaster, what they tell me is that institutions need more than investments in infrastructure to accommodate the growing numbers of students in their classrooms. They worry about what's happening with the faculty-to-student ratios and the increased demand for graduate spaces. Could the minister tell us what is being done to address the pressures caused by enrolment growth at Mohawk and McMaster and all other post-secondary institutions in the province?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I'm happy to address the operational, but if I can just put it on the record, it was $9.2 million for the final phase of Mohawk's Skilled Trades and Apprenticeship Research, Resources and Training Institute, more commonly known as the STARRT Institute. But the member is correct, it's more than bricks and mortar. We are committed to ensuring that our province's universities and colleges have the means to support the growth. I'm happy to say we've increased operating funding for colleges and universities by 58% since 2003. That's $1.5 billion.

At Mohawk, operating grants have increased by 59% since 2003. That translates to an additional $337 million that we've invested in Mohawk to make sure that we have excellence in education and they can accommodate this tremendous growth which all of us should celebrate.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In 2005, as part of the Places to Grow initiative, your government mandated growth in my riding of Halton. Indeed, the region is now the fastest-growing region in all of Canada. However, your growth plan was dangerously incomplete and health care infrastructure must accompany mandated economic and population growth, but in Halton the equati