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

March 22, 2007

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2007-Mar-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 22 March 2007 Jeudi 22 mars 2007

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONDOMINIUM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

BLACK HISTORY MONTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE MOIS

DE L'HISTOIRE DES NOIRS

CONDOMINIUM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

BLACK HISTORY MONTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE MOIS

DE L'HISTOIRE DES NOIRS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CABINET MEETING

HEALTH PREMIUMS

SUDANESE COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

ROBERT DICKSON

GARY ALLEN WILSON

SHANE BERNIER

VISITORS

APPOINTMENT OF CLERK OF

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO HEATH CARE

STUDENT SAFETY

EDUCATION FUNDING

AIR-RAIL LINK

VISITORS

LABOUR DISPUTE

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

NUCLEAR ENERGY

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

SCHOOL FACILITIES

PAPER MILL

TRAFFIC CONTROL

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

ANIMAL PROTECTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

SHEHRAZAD NON-PROFIT

HOUSING INC.

LABORATORY SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

ADULT LITERACY

LONG-TERM CARE

PUBLIC EDUCATION

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

LABORATORY SERVICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2007 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L'ONTARIO DE 2007

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE DE CRÉDITS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONDOMINIUM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

Mr. Marchese moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 185,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Marchese, pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity–Spadina): It is a pleasure for me to speak to my bill, a bill that I believe is very timely. Some of you will know that we debated the Condominium Act—actually, that we didn't debate the Condominium Act very much—in 1998, which is a surprise to me, given the kind of reaction that I'm getting to this bill.

We had a Condominium Act in 1978, and there was debate—lots. In reviewing this whole process, I was a bit surprised that in 1998 we didn't engage very much in debate, we didn't have supporters or opponents coming to this Legislature saying, "Hold on. We need to review this bill." It puzzled me, because as I consulted people in my riding, we got an earful from many of the folks who responded to our questionnaire. We have had, in the last 10 years, an incredible boom in the condominium industry—incredible.

According to Stats Canada, Toronto's population is only growing in the condominium corridors along the waterfront, downtown and Highway 401, and Toronto is the epicentre of the condo boom, with 17,000 new units being sold in 2005 alone. Other areas experiencing tremendous condominium growth are Kitchener, Waterloo and London—and, I suspect, many other parts. I'm obviously talking about where we are seeing an incredible boom, rather than where there is condominium growth in other areas. So there is growth across Ontario.

In fact, 40% of all new housing is condominium-related, and so it isn't a surprise to me any longer to find that there are a whole lot of condominium owners who are concerned about their relationship to developers in particular. So I want to thank many of the condominium owners who have responded to my questionnaire, responded to the bill that we have drafted, because many of them are looking for a voice. They think and they believe they are not being heard, and they're right. They are actually right in this regard.

This bill is an attempt to address that problem and to address the growth and the lack of changes that have not kept up with that growth.

This bill congratulates and thanks many of the people who have worked with me, and I want to thank a couple of people who came here today. I know we have four names: Eva Koletar, Moti Flaster, Richard Hamilton and Yvon Piché. We also have two condominium owners who are just here today to witness this debate, and I thank them for coming. I thank particularly Audrey Loeb, who is a condominium lawyer, who had a lot to do with drafting the bill in 1978. She has tremendous experience in this field. In fact, she's one of the few who are actively engaged. She would have loved to have seen changes earlier and is happy that someone took an interest to introduce some changes today.

We are bringing in standard provisions for declarations, good-faith disclosure and a review board with review officers who can do much of the work that I'm about to talk about in terms of the major changes that we are proposing to the Condominium Act.

Condominium owners need disclosure packages that are clear and straightforward, declarations with standard provisions, more effective ways to enforce the act, and faster and cheaper ways to solve disputes, and mostly they need to be protected from shoddy development practices, shoddy workmanship, surprise fees and sometimes complicated and unclear disclosures by developers. Our amendments to the Condominium Act are as a result of the outreach we have done with many, and we hope that we will get the support of other MPPs in this House as we debate this bill.

Let me go through some of the problems. I want to start by quoting some of the people who wrote to us around issues of fair disclosure and standard provisions. Hana from Toronto says, "The sales office representing the developer did not advise buyers of upcoming construction."

Right now, disclosure packages are not clear. Developers imply they're making commitments they are not actually making and, as a prize, they get great latitude from the courts on a regular basis. Courts are continually awarding on the side of developers, telling new condo owners they should have looked at the fine print.

Here's another quote from John Doe from Ontario: "I'm concerned about developers and 'hidden' clauses, and having to sue or fight or pay to get out of contracts that the developers make."

We know that condo owners, on their own, prospective condo buyers, cannot do line-by-line comparisons of the disclosure documents they get in the original agreements versus final disclosure documents they receive on occupancy. Lawyers are paid thousands of dollars by developers to make these documents complicated, often obscure, often vague; sometimes deliberately so. These are thousands of dollars that condominium owners have to pay to deal with these problems, thousands of dollars they cannot afford to pay.

John from Toronto says, "We were provided with vague explanations like—contractual expenses, utilities, etc." This bill, as a solution, says it will bring in standard provisions for declarations. To make sure there are no surprises, declarations will be standard so buyers can read them themselves and will not be bamboozled by legalese or distorted or contorted wording. All consumers deserve to know what they're getting when they make that purchase, and condo owners should not be the exception.

Here's Reshma from Toronto: "After living in my condo for eight months, my condo fees jumped up by 25%. For a 600-square foot condo I pay well over $300 in condo fees. I can't wait to get out of the condo."

This bill is bringing in good-faith disclosure, similar to that required in the Franchise Disclosure Act. Buying a home is too important a prospect to play "hide the deal-breaker" with modest-income purchasers, which make up the majority of the market. Good-faith disclosure can go a long way to eliminate the fights between developers and purchasers. Developers will think twice before playing games, faced with a prospect of having to pay damages when they fail to disclose.

A review board: "This condo experience," says Harry from Toronto, "in front of CN tower has been highly disappointing. As a buyer, I felt no support from the developer or Tarion or the city."

Condo dwellers deserve an office that is a one-stop-shop that will give them the information, that will advocate on their behalf, help them settle disputes and support them in their dealing with developers. That is why this bill is introducing the review board. The review board will advocate on behalf of condominium owners. They will carry the flag for them. It will also be available to give them the information they desperately require.

Nancy from Collingwood: "Someone must enforce condo law. Who enforces the law? The courts. Not very encouraging."

Our bill will have review officers who can resolve disputes between owners and boards, condos and developers, and condos and property managers, cheaper and more effectively. Right now, unit owners have to spend thousands of dollars and a long time solving problems with other unit owners, their boards and their property managers. If we don't bring in review officers, no one will be there to make sure that the act is enforced except the courts. That is unacceptable, and we know how expensive that is.

Condominium lawyer Audrey Loeb says: "For a lawyer to charge what they really should charge to do a thorough review of documents, each purchaser of a condo would probably pay $3,000 to $5,000—just to review the documents." It's just too prohibitive, she says.

That's another reason we're bringing in review officers. They can review documentation from developers and ensure fair and clear disclosure. The review board could also set up a panel for more complicated disputes and advise the minister or the assembly on behalf of the condominium owners.

What's not in the bill? Several other things. Some of the problems in condominiums escape the confines of the act and touch on general issues with building and construction that must be reviewed.

"Soundproofing is terrible. I can hear all drainage from the unit above me, in addition to loud noises such as music or loud voices," Connie from Toronto says.

The standards for sound insulation in the building code are inadequate, and better soundproofing requirements would go a long way to make condo living quieter. That doesn't deal with this bill, but this is another issue that must be dealt with under the Building Code Act.

These are other issues people have raised. We know there are thousands of condominium owners who are desperately looking for help. We believe this bill will begin to address many of the concerns they have raised, and if other members have other questions, we can deal with that when this bill goes through second reading, as a way of making this bill better and stronger.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's always a pleasure to engage in a debate with my colleague, and if I may cross party lines and say my friend, mon ami, the member for Trinity—Spadina. Nobody will ever suggest that the member is anything short of enthusiastic in the advocacy of the issues for which he stands. But should a bill like this be successful, this Legislature and the people of Ontario are going to have to live with it for a long time.

Let's separate the advocacy and look long and hard at the cold facts with which Ontario would have to live, if this bill is passed. It's hard to make a case for passing this bill. The member says that condo owners are "looking for a voice," to use his words. The bill's outcome would inevitably mean higher fees, but not a better voice. The fact is that the current condo act already does the things that the member would implement, in duplicate or in triplicate, with the passage of this bill.

The member quotes a number of people with complaints, and I don't doubt the veracity, the sincerity of these complaints. But it might have been better for this debate if the member for Trinity—Spadina had explained some of the measures that he proposes.

Good legislation ought to help condo owners, not hurt them. Ontario has already asked Tarion to review the current delayed closing provisions on new condominiums. Tarion has been asked to ensure that those provisions are clear, simple and certain for consumers and builders to comprehend and work with; they're already doing what the member has suggested. Tarion has been asked to ensure that contractual language is balanced and fair to both consumers and builders—again, substantially what the member had asked.

Tarion has been asked to ensure that condos are capable of being administered in a modern and efficient matter—substantially what the member has asked. Ontario is looking forward to Tarion's final recommendations being implemented later this year, faster than the passage of the member's bill.

Now, what are some of the current provisions in the condo act that already protect consumers, measures that are substantially the same as what the member for Trinity—Spadina is proposing? Well, there's already a mechanism making it mandatory—not optional, not a suggestion, but mandatory—for unitholders who have disputes with their condo board and their condo corporation to go through mediation or arbitration if the disagreement involves bylaws or declarations. That's substantially what the member is proposing.

Subsection 132(4) of the existing condo act reads, and I'll quote it exactly: "Every declaration shall be deemed to contain a provision that the corporation and the owners agree to submit a disagreement between the parties with respect to the declaration, bylaws or rules to mediation and arbitration." It would duplicate what's essentially already there. The mediator would be selected by the parties—largely what the member proposes; subsection 132(1) of the condo act. The mediator's expenses shall be paid by both parties under the current condo act—substantially what the member has proposed.

Subsection 132(6) of the existing condo act says, "Each party shall pay the share of the mediator's fees and expenses that,

"(

a) the settlement specifies, if a settlement is obtained; or

"(

b) the mediator specifies in the notice stating that the mediation has failed, if the mediation fails."

Again, that's substantially what the member has proposed.

I could go on at great length on this. For example, in providing information, the government already provides information to condo corporations and owners of condominium units—substantially what the bill has proposed. The Ministry of Government Services, consumer protection branch, already answers telephone inquiries from the public on all issues related to the Condominium Act, 1998—substantially what the member has proposed.

The Ministry of Government Services website already offers condominium-related information, including a printable document called Quick Tips for Buying a Condominium—substantially what the member advocates. As well, the Ministry of Government Services publishes a brochure entitled Condominium Living: Tips for Buyers and Owners—substantially what the member would propose.

Speaker, I'd like to share this debate with some of the my colleagues. I'm going to wrap it up there and thank the member for having brought the measures to the fore. In his 17 years, it's nice to see that this is the first time he has spoken up for condo owners. I appreciate the sincerity of his bill, and I'm having a hard time understanding the need for it.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford): Perhaps if the member who just spoke read the bill, he might understand the need for it. I can say that the member from Trinity—Spadina does have a lot of condominium owners in his riding, and obviously he has represented that riding very well over the past 17 years.

I went over his bill, in terms of what it requires. It has three simple themes. The first

part is the declaration, which is something that has to be put forth by the condo owner. It's a very fundamental part of any transaction. We have to keep in mind here that what the member from Mississauga West was speaking of was, there's a mediation process, there's an arbitration process. What the member is trying to do here is get away from litigation. I know Liberals like litigation, but the bottom line is that the member is proposing a declaration that will have to be consistent and comply with regulations. Now, he hasn't put that in there yet, but I know he's going to push the government to do that.

What he wants to do is to make sure there is no arbitration or mediation, so when a big developer decides to take a sledgehammer to a small consumer, that's not going to happen. Why can't we make sure that the declaration is understandable? It has to be in accordance with the law. The reason he's putting it into regulation is because things change. There are different manoeuvres that are made by the big developer that may not be seen by the small consumer, so having regulations allows that small consumer and the government to adapt to market conditions.

When the Condominium Act was changed in 1998, it hadn't been changed for years before that; now we're almost 10 years past that. What the member is saying is, "Listen, there's a lot of litigation on the declaration. There has been an unprecedented boom with respect to litigation and the condominiums being built."

I was speaking to a person by the name of Yvon Piché yesterday, and he gave me some information. He says there are 8,636 corporations registered as condominiums. That's a staggering figure. It means that we have to be very aware that this is a growth industry. I think everybody knows that condominium sales and the building of condominiums, especially in Toronto, has been unprecedented. Certainly there are some up in my riding, but not anything like what's going on in Toronto and what will be going on in the Vaughan region, which will be unprecedented, with respect to condominium building.

The first theme that the member is putting forth is that the declaration, which is a fundamental document in terms of protecting consumer rights, has to be reviewed, has to be implemented. He is proposing a simple measure to make sure that the litigation is gone from that process and that the government of the day can adapt to the changing marketplace.

The second part of what he's proposing is from a practical point of view. He's saying, "Listen, let's keep it out of the courts." You have to go to the courts to deal with certain types of disputes with respect to condominiums, in terms of damages, misrepresentations, things that are happening while you're living in that particular unit.

He did make one drafting error that I picked up, and I know he's going to change it if the Liberals don't kill the bill today—and I get the sense they're going to try to kill it here today. If the member wants to make the change, he's going to have to make it when we get into committee. In subsection 133(2), he should have put in the provision that he put in earlier, deleting the reference to the Superior Court and substituting "the review board." That's a key section, because that's the one that allows the court to deal with all kinds of different remedies.

It's a very important section, and I think the member appreciates my comments on that because, quite frankly, it's going to have to be put in there.

That's the second part of the bill. The member is proposing that we keep any of these situations facing a condo owner out of the court system, whether it's a structural defect, a problem with the contingency fund.

I was speaking to people in the insurance industry. A good friend of mine, Brian Brethet, up in the Barrie area, provided me with the types of coverages they offer in a condo package, and it's staggering. There are two pages of the types of condo coverage they offer, ranging from a unit contingency deductible, coverage limit, loss assessment for property, additional living expenses, satellite dish damage by wind, sewer backup, water escape extension, outdoor trees, lawns—all this insurance that, obviously, if the system was working, you wouldn't need. The bottom line is that there are almost two pages of insurance coverage that people are offered in the condo owners'

section for insurance. Obviously, there's a problem, and that costs money. It costs real money to deal with those types of problems, and sometimes you're not going to win in court. It costs a lot of money to go to court. You've got to get a good lawyer, you've got to make sure you get your case represented, and you're up against a big condo owner. Who do you think has got the best expertise? Who do you think has got the money and the bankroll to take it all the way?

That also applies to the comments from the member from Mississauga West regarding the mediation and arbitration. The condo owners will have a full-time lawyer on staff to deal with these things; they've got the expertise. But the condo member is faced with a situation for the first time, having bought the unit. They're not going to have the expertise to go in there and say, "I'm going to take you on. I've got a lawyer here." And why should they have to pay for a lawyer?

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It could be the owner of the Barrie Colts.

Mr. Tascona: Not the Colts. We don't want to get on the subject of the Barrie Colts, even though I love them and they're starting off against Brampton on Saturday. I know the member from Peterborough is passionate about the Petes, but the Colts knocked them out this year. I appreciated that.

Getting back to the point, the court system is not going to work for the condominium members. I don't know whether I want to go as far as the member from Trinity—Spadina in terms of what he's proposing. I think we need to have a hard look at that in terms of, what are the real problems that this review board is going to deal with? Because he made that drafting error, I think he's going to have to revisit the type of remedies he's proposing. Maybe that was just an oversight and what he wants to ensure is that the review board provides the type of remedies a court could provide.

If that's the case, I think we all have to be open to having a review of the condominium situation. The fact is that it has been 10 years of unprecedented condominium building in Toronto, and the growth you're going to find out in Vaughan is going to be unbelievable, because in Vaughan the builders have had some vision and they decided they're going to—just go down Highway 7 and go down Rutherford Road. You would not believe the condominium building that will be going on out there. Obviously, it's going to be a very attractive investment for the people who have put that forth, and that's to their benefit.

They're going to make money out of that. All we're talking about here is to make sure there's fairness for the consumer who buys.

The other part the member is talking about is fair dealing: "A duty of fair dealing is imposed on ... every declarant in its dealings with a corporation, owner or purchaser; and ... every corporation in its dealings with an owner or purchaser." And "a corporation, owner or purchaser has a right of action for damages against a person who breaches the duty of fair dealing." I'm not really sure what the member is getting at there with "right of action." If he's talking going back into the court system—I think he should be clear, because I'm really not sure if that's what he's proposing. Maybe he can respond to me, when he gets his reply, what he intends.

Anyone who reads the Toronto Star knows there's a condominium section. There are good articles in there every week advising consumers about different projects and different things to be looking at. There was an

article on February 10, 2007, written by Bob Aaron, special to the Star. He writes on real estate. He was very helpful to me when I was pushing to get the government to change their approach to mortgage fraud and to help people like Susan Lawrence and Mr. Reviczky, to move and make sure that mortgage fraud wasn't something that would be plaguing us in the future. The government, after being embarrassed many a time in the Toronto Star—to the Toronto Star's credit, it made the government move to protect the consumers with respect to mortgage fraud.

In this article, though, he talks about a situation involving Tarion, where the client refuses to sign the extension agreement. This is a situation where "a client calls and tells me"—Mr. Aaron being a lawyer—"that his or her builder is running behind

schedule with the house or condominium and has requested that an agreement be signed to extend the closing date." You'd think this would be fairly straightforward, but it does have notice provisions required and there are rules with respect to Tarion. This went to litigation, of course, because the builder felt they could take advantage of that particular consumer. The consumer obviously was looking for a compensation claim as a result of the extension of the closing. The builder was saying that by agreeing to the extension, they were releasing their right to any compensation. Can you get that?

Here you are giving the builder the right to extend the closing because they're delayed. The fine print says, "If you give me the extension, you release your right to compensation." Now, who in their right mind would do that, if they had been fully informed of what was going on? I'm going to give you an extension. You're going to put me out because you haven't been able to keep up with the date we agreed on. If I give you that extension, I lose my right to compensation,

whereas if I don't give you the extension, I get compensation.

So this went to the Divisional Court. The compensation—get this—was for $4,920, and the cost to deal with it, by the time they got to Divisional Court and finished up, was $8,700, double what they were going after. So obviously it's in the builder's interest to put them through that.

But the Divisional Court made it clear that "where a builder has given short notice of delayed closing to a purchaser, and the purchaser is entitled to compensation as a result, 'it should be incumbent on the builder to obtain an acknowledgment in writing from the purchaser when signing an amendment for the extension of an occupancy date that it is understood the purchaser is waiving his or her right to compensation.'...

"The law is now clear. If a builder of a new home or condominium wants to extend an occupancy or closing date by amending a purchase agreement, it must disclose and obtain a written waiver from the buyer to any delayed-occupancy claims."

Now, wouldn't you think that would be straightforward and that wouldn't have to be litigated? But it had to be litigated because of what happened in this court.

"The Divisional Court has clearly pronounced that the law governing the Tarion program is 'consumer protection legislation and should be given broad and liberal

interpretation.'

"This is good news for others consumers in the same boat as Markey. If the warranty period has not expired, consumers who have already closed but signed an amendment moving the closing date may still be able to apply for delayed closing compensation."

That's a typical example of the type of situation you can run into in a hot and overheated market, in a market where, quite frankly, there's a great demand for this type of housing, which is condominiums, because it's more affordable and may suit the lifestyle of the individual who wants that type of building. But it's obviously the wave of the future. And in terms of the government's approach to development, they want high intensity; they are promoting high-intensity building, which means condominium building is what they are approving and that's what they want done.

So if that's what we're dealing with here, in the current market of condominiums, where a government is promoting it, the government should at least make sure that the Condominium Act is responsive to the market and that everything that has to be done to protect the consumer and make it fair with respect to dealing with a condominium owner doesn't have to be litigated. It should be in the legislation.

We should be able to do something here today to make sure that a simple thing such as a declaration is very straightly set out, responsive to the market conditions, and that the consumer doesn't have to go the route of litigation.

I don't believe the Tarion approach is in favour of the consumer. The fact of the matter is that the Tarion situation of mediation-arbitration favours the builder, because they have expertise on staff; they have the knowledge to deal with a one-time buyer.

Also, with respect to dealing with the review board, there's some merit there; it has to be looked at.

But I'm in favour of an overall review. Obviously, after 10 years this legislation needs to be reviewed to respond to market conditions.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale—High Park): I want to first of all say that, from the comments made by the member from Mississauga West, anybody listening to this debate or reading it later in Hansard will see that this Liberal government is firmly on the side of the developer and against the rights of condo owners. The question is, who is on the side of condo owners? Clearly, our member from Trinity—Spadina has risen to that challenge with his Bill 185.

I want to focus on one aspect of what it means to be a condo owner right now, since I have a number of developments in my own riding of Parkdale—High Park. I hear, and I know we all hear in our constituency offices, complaints about increased maintenance fees. Now, here is the bind of the condo owner: Do you speak up about increased maintenance fees, some in the order of 33% in some of my developments, and risk the resale value of your unit?

Do you, as you've heard the member from Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford say, go out and hire a high-priced lawyer, who is never going to be high-priced enough in terms of what the developer can afford? There are all sorts of factors mitigating against the complaints of the condo owner, legitimate complaints. A law not enforced is not a law. The member for Trinity—Spadina is simply trying to redress this situation, and it is a situation that is real. We hear from condo owners all the time.

So again, what we're talking about here and what our member from Trinity—Spadina is speaking about is enforcement of laws, a review board that will act on behalf of the condo owners in a way that makes that review and the laws that we already have real. It reminds me of employment standards—that's my portfolio—where only 1% of all employers ever get a visit from an inspector. We don't have employment standard laws if that's the case. We don't have protection laws for condo unit owners if we do not have something like this review board that stands up for them.

Again, usually young owners particularly who are investing in less expensive units are using all of their money simply to buy the unit. They don't have money left over to hire a lawyer to fight a developer. They don't have money left over to risk even complaining, in some instances, about the problems in their building, because they might have to sell that unit in short order or might want to sell that unit.

My husband and I actually rented a condo unit from a friend of ours as we were waiting for our house to be readied. In the period of time that we rented this unit, his maintenance fees went up 33% in this new development. Our rent went up 2.8%. So this is an across-the-board problem. There's no redress for condo unit owners who are up against the cut-and-run attitude of the developer who builds shoddy developments that of course then result in increased maintenance fees.

So I just wanted to speak out on behalf of the bill, and I know my colleague is going to speak out as well, and thank the member from Trinity—Spadina for having the courage to stand up for condo unit owners, which clearly this Liberal government does not do.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): Prior to the previous comments from the member from Parkdale—High Park, I was looking up at the younger people in the audience today and I was thinking, you know what? They probably hit the Legislature on one of the better days. It's when the partisanship gets put aside and private members come to this House and debate legislation that is put forward, and put forward their own views. Some of the cheap shots, in my opinion, that were just taken were unwarranted, and from the murmurings that I heard around my seat here, she may have sunk the member's chance for getting this bill passed.

I think that, despite the fact that the bill was put on our desks just yesterday, which is pretty unusual for a private member's bill, most of us were doing our best to try to get our minds around the provisions of that bill, to see if it is supportable or not, to see if it's the sort of thing that we should, even if we don't understand all the ramifications of it now, allow to move forward or not.

I don't know what the intent of some of the comments was. If they were to somehow take some political advantage of what I think is a well-intentioned bill, then they were done at the wrong place and they were done at the wrong time. I don't think it served the members well, and it has probably given the young people in the audience an example of what many people say is wrong with this place and needs to change.

Having said that, I am a former condo owner. In my early 20s my wife and I, before we had children, moved to Oakville. It was a matter of affordability for us. The only place we could afford was a condominium. Every so often, we would walk by this meeting room and we would see a lot of older people meeting. We knew that we didn't want to be a part of that meeting. We were "double income, no kids." The last thing we wanted to do was to sit in on a condo board meeting. We were still having fun. But thank God there were people who were doing that.

Thank God there were people who were, on a voluntary basis, looking after my investment for me. So for all those people around Ontario, all the volunteers who sit on condo boards, I personally would like to extend my thanks, and I'm sure they have the thanks and the gratitude of all members of this Legislature.

Since that time, I've moved on to private home ownership, but I remember my days in the condo quite well. My biggest concern as a condo owner was not where I went for a debate on whether the board had done something right or wrong; it was the amount of my fees. It was how much I had to pay, over and above the mortgage principal, interest and taxes, as condo fees on a monthly basis from the two of us, who at that point in time were not earning a whole lot of money.

So the first question that comes up on the bill is, who is going to fund the review board? Is it another Ontario Film Review Board? Is it another OMB? Is it a Human Rights Commission? Is it a rent review tribunal? When people around this province are asking us to run government more efficiently, to spend their tax dollars more wisely, I think at least the question should be raised: Who is going to pay for this review board? It seems to me that the only place that it can come from is either from tax dollars or directly from the fees of condominium owners in the province. Maybe that's a good thing.

Maybe somebody should fund this review board. Maybe we need it. But I think we have to be honest and we have to be upfront as to who is going to carry the bill for this review board. That's one big question that I think needs to be asked before this bill is allowed to proceed, and perhaps the member will have some answers when he stands up again to summarize this. Is it government that pays for it? Is it the builders?

Certainly, the new-found interest in this issue is timely. I think government should on a regular basis review all of the legislation it has. I think we need to look at ways that we can improve bills; I think we need to look at ways that legislation can be made better. But it seems to me in this case that we've got a group of people out there in the province of Ontario that could be severely affected by the passage of this bill, perhaps in a positive way. Perhaps there are problems out there that need to be solved, and perhaps a review board could go some way to doing that. But definitely there will be a cost.

People on the review board will be paid; the review board will be staffed. Offices will be opened. Tax dollars will be expended. At the very least, even with the short notice this bill has received in being open to all members of this Legislature, very clearly that question needs to be answered by the proponent of this bill: Who is going to have their taxes raised, their condo fees raised? Who is going to pay for this review?

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto—Danforth): I just wanted to start off by thanking the member for Trinity—Spadina for bringing forward this legislation. There's no question that legislation to clarify rights, to simplify the interrelationship between developers and members of condos and their boards, is needed. If we in this area, in Toronto and the greater Toronto region, are going to have intensification, a denser city, we are most certainly going to have a lot more condominiums. In the extent to which condominium ownership is made simpler, clearer, less hazardous, we remove a block, an impediment, to that intensification.

Now, what has been said by one other speaker was that in fact things are fine and he didn't understand why this legislation was coming forward. I'm here to say that, frankly, not all is fine. Talk to people who have moved into condominiums, people who may not have owned a home before in their lives, people who may have owned a single-family dwelling but have not actually had to deal with the complexities of a board, of a membership. This whole process is one that does call for a review, does call for amendments along the lines of what has been proposed by the member for Trinity—Spadina.

They need, as has been said by the member, good-faith disclosure. They should have all the facts at their fingertips so that they can make a clear, rational decision for what will be for many people the single biggest investment in their lives. They deserve, at the very least, clear disclosure of all the factors that are going to affect the value of that condominium, all the factors that are going to affect their enjoyment of the condominium and all the factors that will affect resale.

I've had opportunity myself, as a property manager, to fight with developers. Before I was elected to Toronto city council in 1990, I was a property manager in the co-op housing sector. For the last eight years that I was a property manager, I was engaged in litigation with the developer that had built the building that I was managing. You get good developers and you get bad developers. The developer that had been hired to build to the co-operative housing building or complex that I managed, unfortunately, was not a great developer.

We had crumbling stucco walls, so that the people had rainwater running through their living rooms in October and November. We had basements that were flooding. We had upper units in an eight-story apartment building that were flooded in heavy rains. We had wiring that was dangerous. This was all new construction. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting that developer. In the end, the developer spent us out of court. We didn't have enough money to pursue the legal action and we had to eat what was put on the plate. We had to pay for those repairs. We weren't able to get satisfaction from the courts.

Frankly, if a co-operative corporation that brings in millions of dollars a year in revenue has difficulty carrying forward a legal battle, without any doubt individual condominium owners are going to have tremendous difficulty carrying forward a battle.

We know that in membership situations in co-operatives and in condominiums there are will be times when the members and the boards will be at odds. Frankly, without having to lose your shirt going to court, to have an independent agent who is available come in and arbitrate or mediate between the parties would mean that disputes are settled far more quickly, far more simply than if people have to rely for years or thousands of dollars for courts and lawyers to get through the issues, to settle the issues.

The member is doing this province a service. He is trying to simplify the whole process of condominium ownership, trying to protect those purchasers so that we don't go through some of the conflicts that have been seen in other jurisdictions. In Vancouver, in the 1990s, we went through horrendous problems with the quality of the buildings. In Toronto, we haven't seen a problem as sharp as they've seen in Vancouver. But we know that with lack of good legislation, you can get severe conflict, you can get people losing their shirts.

So I'd like to thank the member for coming forward and taking the next step in Ontario to make life better for ordinary people who are just trying to buy a home, a home to give them shelter, a home to live their lives.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): To reiterate what some of the previous speakers said, I too appreciate the intention of what the member from Trinity—Spadina is trying to do.

Many of us in this building today have condominium buildings that we deal with. We have some good condo corporations running them and we have some bad condo corporations running them. I know that in my previous life as a city councillor—and even continuing now as a member of provincial Parliament—once in a while I would get a call from a condo owner who would complain that they weren't advised, didn't know about increases in fees or didn't agree to something being done to the building which caused their condo fees to go up.

This was tabled yesterday, and I'm trying to get my head around this as to whether or not to support it. There are some good intentions here, clearly. The main concern that I would have is the cost function that was brought up by the member from Oakville: Who will pay the additional costs of having to do this review board? Who would run it, who would staff it, who would pay for that board? Because once it's created, it could become quite large.

I can think of an example of a condo building where just one person is unhappy for some reason, has a grudge against the condo board, is one of the owners and is unhappy with the way the board functions. So perhaps they would use this mechanism or this review board as a way to hold up the rest of the owners of the condo building and make them pay more in condo fees, by holding them up and forcing some type of litigation or arbitration to take place which could last for years. It could have perhaps nothing to do with the real problems.

Right now, it's the people who have an interest in the building, the actual owners, who form the condominium corporation. They are the ones, as the member from Oakville mentioned earlier, who get together once a month or once in a while to discuss problems with the building. Some that I've seen in my experience are very good at resolving problems and taking care of issues, and some are not that good. The present bill that we have, the Condominium Act, 1998, provides for a system and a way to protect condo unit owners through arbitration, through a system that's in place. Ultimately, if the person is unhappy, they can go to court and deal with it that way.

Any time you make a change, the question you have to ask is, what are the costs of that change? How much more will it cost to make that change? That's my concern. Certainly, as I said, there are some bad condo corporations—I wouldn't say they're bad, but they've had problems dealing with some of the issues in their building and have caused some of the owners in the building to be unhappy, and they end up coming to me as their local elected representative to try to resolve their problems. You know, somebody could get hit with a bill saying they have to pay 10%, 20% or 30% more on their condo fees and they feel it's unjust.

Those are my concerns: the cost and the fact that a condo owner in the building could perhaps take advantage of the new tribunal and try to use it as a way to get back at or to try to hold hostage either the condo board itself or all of the owners in the condo building. That just might be the way things work.

But all in all, I think the intention is good. I wait to see how others speak on the issue. Again, I look forward to—

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Further debate? The member for—Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Marchese: From Trinity—Spadina, because you're not allowed to name me. Thank you, Speaker.

Just a couple of things in response to what people have said: The members from Oakville and Mississauga West mentioned my newfound interest, as they say. I understand what they're saying. The newfound interest is based on the fact that I have a lot of condominium owners in my riding. We consulted them last year, and as a result of that consultation we got a lot of feedback. Based on that feedback, we thought it was a very timely and useful thing to introduce this bill. If that's a newfound interest, then it's a newfound interest. I'm not sure how you find a new interest when you bring forth new suggestions or proposals and new laws, but that was my newfound interest.

Mr. Flynn: We're okay with that.

Mr. Marchese: I'm glad. I'm glad the member from Oakville just spoke to the young people about how other people do politics but he doesn't. It is amusing to see how you can do that, member from Oakville. For someone who can switch parties that easily, I suppose—

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member take his chair just for a moment. For the benefit of those watching, I will remind our members that we debate through the Chair.

Mr. Marchese: Through you, Speaker, the member from Oakville just scared the kids away. I can't believe it. Then he raises the issue about who will fund this review board. He doesn't talk about whether or not this review board is useful, is an important body to have. His main question—including the member from Scarborough Southwest—is the cost; not the usefulness or the importance of such a review board, but the cost. He doesn't worry about the condominium owners, who at the moment, when dealing with

definitions around declarations where the owners have no clue about declarations, which is the constitution of the condominium corporation, have to go to a lawyer and pay $3,000, $5,000 to understand what the definition is of a declaration. He's got no problem with that cost. So when the condo owner has to pay that kind of legal fee, that's okay by way of a cost because the condominium owner should absorb that cost.

The point is that condominium owners pay incredible amounts of money to understand the declaration contained within that building. We think it's undue, excessive pressure and cost that you put on a condominium owner. It's not necessary. You can deal with the cost. I understand the member saying he doesn't want to pick it up as a government. So clearly, there is only one other option: that condominium owners pitch into it. That's the other way to do it. It was proposed in 1978 and there was obviously no agreement with that, so it never happened; the review board never happened.

But is the member willing to discuss the possibility of a review board as being a good thing and having review officers deal with differences with condominium owners and the developers, or is he in agreement that these condominium owners should go and litigate and pay legal fees and go to court? Because that's the only other option that's left: Leave it as is and force the condominium owner to go to the courts.

We are trying to propose a body of people, with review officers, who could solve problems faster and cheaply. Could some individual condo owner take this board hostage? I don't see how they could do that. The member from Scarborough Southwest raises this as a spectre, as a fear of sorts. I don't understand how it could happen. Some condominium owner takes this issue on, a review person deals with it, and it's done. I don't know what more might happen. I don't know how they could take hostage such a review board or review officers. I don't see it. He is a lawyer. Maybe he sees something I don't.

The point is that declarations vary from building to building and they are expensive, time-consuming, and condo owners feel they have no one to turn to.

Tarion is not the answer for condominium owners. They are not there to defend condominium owners. They don't deal with that kind of problem. That's not, historically, what they have done. But the member from Mississauga West proposes that as a solution, including other consumer organizations. They do not exist. Condominium owners are looking for someone, a review board—I was going to read what a review board does.

"(

a) advising and assisting the public in matters relating to condominiums;

"(

b) establishing a panel to mediate or arbitrate disputes between

"(

i) a declarant and a corporation

"(

c) disseminating information for the purpose of educating and advising corporations and unit owners concerning condominium matters and the financial, operating and management practices of corporations."

That's what the board does. It's not complicated. It's easy. You can easily take this issue to a committee and debate it. If you didn't discuss it in your caucuses—because we all do—if you didn't get that chance to discuss it to your caucuses, we can discuss it in committee.

As to the issue Mr. Tascona raises around the right to damages,

section 133, this is what it says, because I've had a chance to get it:

"A corporation or an owner may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice to recover damages from a declarant for any loss sustained as a result of relying on a statement or on information that the declarant is required to provide under this act if the statement or information,

"(

a) contains a material statement or material information that is false, deceptive or misleading."

We believe that should stay. We believe that

section should stay because our bill reinforces that particular section.

This is an attempt to deal with some of the questions that were raised, but we are dealing with three matters: making sure that the declarations are standard across the board so you don't have to have a declaration. The constitutions of a corporation vary from one building to the other. It's shouldn't be that way. We should have good-faith disclosure, duty of fair dealing. That's a legal obligation of lawyers, and that's a good thing. We should have a review board with review officers to settle disputes cheaply and faster.

This is useful for condominium owners. It isn't something that I think we should be opposing outright. Take it to the committee and debate it, then bring the condominium owners and developers to the committee so we can hear their views. It shouldn't be something that should frighten the members, for God's sake. I'm urging some of you Liberals to take an independent position on this matter and support this bill.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE MOIS

DE L'HISTOIRE DES NOIRS

Mr. Balkissoon moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 182,

An Act to name February in each year Black History Month / Projet de loi 182, Loi visant à désigner le mois de février de chaque année comme Mois de l'histoire des Noirs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough—Rouge River): I'm extremely proud today to rise and speak to Bill 182, Black History Month Act, 2007.

February is universally recognized as Black History Month, a month dedicated to celebrating the contributions made by African-Canadians. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, a riding formerly held by Mr. Alvin Curling, the first African-Canadian provincial cabinet minister and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I'm pleased to put forward this legislation.

The origins of Black History Month can be traced back to 1929, when Harvard-educated black historian Carter G. Woodson founded Negro History Week to celebrate this history, contributions and culture of African-Americans.

Fifty years later, during the American bicentennial celebrations in 1979, it was expanded to become National Black History Month. The official recognition in Canada came in the early 1950s, when the Canadian Negro Women's Association successfully petitioned Toronto city council. It was not until the 1970s that the council declared February to be known as Black History Month, in part due to the lobbying of the newly formed Ontario Black History Society.

In January 1993, provincial recognition was given when Lieutenant Governor Hal Jackman issued a proclamation to recognize the 200th anniversary of the passage of legislation prohibiting the importation of slaves into Upper Canada and providing for the gradual abolition of slavery.

December 14, 1995, marked national recognition when Dr. Jean Augustine, the first African-American woman elected to the Parliament of Canada, and subsequently the first African-Canadian federal cabinet minister, requested and received unanimous consent to recognize February as Black History Month.

African-Canadians have had a presence in Canada that dates back further than Samuel de Champlain's first voyage down the St. Lawrence River. However, this part of Canadian history has largely been untold.

According to the 2001 census by Statistics Canada, over 593,000 Canadians identify themselves as black, with the majority of them living in the GTA, Montreal, Ottawa and Halifax.

Today's African-Canadians are largely of Caribbean origin, but also include a growing population from the African continent and smaller numbers from the Latin American countries.

In celebration of Black History Month, a replica of the historic Underground Railroad Buxton Liberty Bell has been on display since February 14, 2007, for the first time at Queen's Park. In the 1800s, the Buxton settlement represented safety and freedom for hundreds of American slaves escaping through the Underground Railroad.

With 2007 being the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, I believe it is fitting that we make a point of recognizing February of each year as Black History Month. It provides an opportunity for all Ontarians to celebrate the rich history, culture and heritage of the black community. Ontarians can recall with pride that the first legislation in the British Empire to limit slavery was introduced and passed by our first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe. In 1851, at the First Convention of Coloured Freemen held outside the United States, at Toronto's St. Lawrence Hall, Canada was declared to be the best place in the world for black people to live.

It is important to remember individuals such as Mary Anne Shadd, an educator, newspaper publisher and abolitionist who started the first racially integrated school in Canada, and who was the first female editor, establishing the Provincial Freeman in Windsor, Ontario; and Henry Bibb, a black abolitionist who co-founded the anti-slavery society in 1851 at the St. Lawrence Hall, who established the first black newspaper in Canada, called the Voice of the Fugitive.

There was also William Peyton Hubbard, who in 1894 became the first black council member elected to Toronto city council and was re-elected as a council member for 13 successive elections. He served on the board of control and as acting mayor on several occasions.

There have been many distinguished members of the African-Canadian community who have represented their constituents in this chamber, including: Leonard Braithwaite, the first African-Canadian provincial member of Parliament, after being elected in 1963; Alvin Curling, the first cabinet minister and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly; Zanana Akande, the first female African-Canadian cabinet minister; our own Mary Anne Chambers, presently the Minister of Children and Youth Services; and the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, the first African-Canadian Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

Other community members to be noted are Dr. Alexander Augusta, Anderson Ruffin Abbott, Thornton and Lucie Blackburn, Violet Blackman, Wilson O. Brooks, Elder Washington Christian, Harry Ralph Gairey, Wilson Head, Richard Lloyd Lawrence, Kay Livingstone, James Mink, Donald Willard Moore, Eva Smith, Grace Price Trotman and Lloyd Perry.

I would like to take a moment to also recognize the local efforts of black history celebrations in Scarborough—Rouge River, my riding. In February, several different events were held in my riding to highlight African-Canadian achievements and to teach our youth about the African-Canadian experience that has shaped the society we live in today.

These events include performances by the Scarborough Caribbean and Youth Dance Ensemble and guest speakers at the Malvern Public Library; a youth essay competition on the black experience; discussion groups on black history; and Friday night dinners of traditional Jamaican, African and Caribbean foods at the Malvern Family Resource Centre. Local schools such as Malvern Junior Public School and Lester B. Pearson Collegiate Institute held black history assemblies, made daily announcements on black history facts and even raised $1,000 to donate to a group working to fight AIDS in Africa.

Black history is a part of every Ontarian's history. I am truly happy to share these tremendous efforts in my riding during February. For all the many reasons stated this morning, let me conclude that I am pleased to table this bill and move second reading. I am sure that all members will join me in supporting Bill 183, a bill that gives official recognition in the province of Ontario to February as Black History Month on an annual basis.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe—Grey): I'm pleased to rise this morning and support my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River in declaring February Black History Month. Blacks arrived as slaves to Canada as early as 1608, with more than 1,000 black slaves living in Canada by the early 1700s. Many loyalists emigrating from the United States after 1763 brought their slaves with them.

In 1834, the largest early migration of people of African origin into Canada was sparked by changes in British law making all enslaved people free, and the overwhelming response which ensued was the Underground Railroad. The Underground Railroad, as we all know, is not a means of transportation but the name given to a freedom movement relying upon the bravery of free and enslaved Africans and the many actively opposed to slavery, the abolitionists, whether of native, European or African backgrounds.

Today much of what we know about the history of black people in Canada can be found in secondary sources and survives because of the significance the black community has placed on their history. Since its formation in 1990, Sheffield Park Black History and Cultural Museum in Collingwood has celebrated that migration and explores black settlement in the Collingwood area. Sheffield Park is a registered not-for-profit charity established, as I said, in 1990. It's located on a nine-acre site on the shores of Georgian Bay, approximately two miles west of Collingwood, and is open to the public from July 1 to Thanksgiving and to school groups year-round. It's a beautiful site in my riding.

Like many other stories of black Canadians, the stories of those who settled in Collingwood have been pieced together through oral histories passed down through generations and are contained in documents created by a variety of groups, individuals and official sources. Despite the challenges in getting there, which could often take a year, blacks arriving in Collingwood through the Underground Railroad found support, acceptance, housing, employment and a standard of living that made it possible for the descendants of those in slavery to become citizens of a society that protected their freedoms. The community developed largely around the Heritage Church on 7th Street in Collingwood.

Although considered as free, many Collingwood blacks still had to deal with racism, far more subtle but entrenched in the culture of the day, including denial by design to certain courses of education, jobs and promotion. But despite the barriers, early Collingwood black families were a vibrant, hearty group who lead the way and became part of the local mainstream business community.

Lead by dynamo and educator Carolynn Wilson, Collingwood's Sheffield Park Black History and Cultural Museum has formally recognized and developed an awareness of the significant accomplishments of the black community in Collingwood through presentations, museum exhibits and educational programming. The key exhibit themes include the African heritage, pioneer life and times, military and the community, and Great Lakes. Many Collingwood blacks worked on the ships built out of the Collingwood shipyards, typically as cooks.

I think Black History Month was best summed up by Rosemary Sadlier of the Black History Society when she wrote, "When the contributions of people of African descent are acknowledged, when the achievements of black people are known, when black people are routinely included or affirmed through our curriculum, our books and the media, and treated with equality, then there will no longer be a need for Black History Month."

Finally, I'd congratulate Carolynn Wilson for all of her work at the Sheffield Park Black History and Cultural Museum, and I encourage all the members watching and the people at home watching to visit the museum and learn more about black history in Collingwood. Again, it's located two miles west of Collingwood on Highway 26.

Mr. Paul Ferreira (York South—Weston): I'm glad to rise this morning to speak in favour of this bill that has been put forward by my colleague from the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River. I happened to reference yesterday, during my comments on the motion commemorating the 200th anniversary of the abolishment of the transatlantic slave trade, that I come from a riding where approximately one third of my constituents are of African-Canadian heritage. Certainly, upon my election in February, I had the opportunity to attend a number of events in the riding celebrating Black History Month.

It's an important occasion for the community. It's also an important occasion for all Ontarians, I believe, for us to acknowledge the wonderful diversity that makes Ontario, and indeed all of Canada, a special place. Certainly, an initiative like this to formally recognize February as Black History Month would promote a greater awareness and understanding of the diversity that we all cherish and embrace.

I would, however, suggest that a symbolic bill such as this does not quite go far enough. Certainly yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking to Rosemary Sadlier of the Ontario Black History Society, who said that while symbolic measures like this are important, more needs to be done to ensure that Canadians of African ancestry are given equal access and equal opportunity, to ensure that they are able to get ahead and advance in society.

We've been talking about some of those measures in this House, certainly over the past few days and in the fall sitting. If I may address some of those, I want to bring up the issue of a living wage, of a minimum wage. We know for a fact that of the 1.2 million Ontarians who presently toil away for an $8 minimum wage, and in some cases less than the $8 minimum wage—for example, in the hospitality industry—in proportion, a significant number of those 1.2 million Ontarians come from our ethno-cultural communities and from the African-Canadian community.

When we talk about real measures to enhance equal opportunity and equal access and an opportunity to get ahead, we have to look at a real living wage, and that means enhancing the minimum wage to $10 per hour. There's also the issue of access to affordable post-secondary education. In my riding I speak with, on a regular basis, young people who come from families that work very, very hard, but post-secondary education is priced beyond their means. That's not right. Everyone, regardless of their financial circumstance, should be given the same opportunity to advance themselves through post-secondary education.

So when we talk about real measures to ensure that all of us are able to get ahead, it needs to go beyond the symbolic, and the symbolic is what this particular bill is all about.

In my discussions yesterday with Dr. Sadlier, we also talked about what I think is a rather exciting initiative. There is a movement led by the Ontario Black History Society to establish an African-Canadian cultural and history centre. Obviously, that requires some investment.

I would say to my colleagues from all parties in this House that that is a project we should all be supporting to help further this movement, this agenda to provide Ontarians of African heritage with the opportunity to reflect on their history, on their shared experiences, but also to give them an opportunity, a place to come together to look towards the future. I would say that that is a noble undertaking that the community has brought forward. Certainly I am prepared to support them in that effort, and I would encourage those here to follow suit.

I want to go back to my riding. I had the distinct pleasure over the course of the recent campaign, and of previous campaigns in my riding where I wasn't as successful as the last time, to receive tremendous support from members of the African-Canadian community in my riding. I do want to take this opportunity—this is my first opportunity to rise in this House to speak for a more prolonged period of time—to thank those members of my riding who supported me and were certainly instrumental in helping me achieve the success that I was able to achieve on February 8. I wanted to ensure that that was put into the record as we discuss this particular motion.

In closing, again, I want to certainly applaud the initiative. But I want to stress upon this House that we need to go further; that we need to do more to have a truly lasting impact on the lives of those Ontarians who are of African heritage. Thank you very much for your attention.

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Today, we have a most significant private member's bill by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. I know some people may underestimate the importance of this bill, but it is critically important because just as recently as last year there was a motion put forward by a member of one of the school boards in Ontario to get rid of Black History Month. We therefore have to support this bill to reaffirm our commitment to honouring, learning, understanding and appreciating our black history. It's Canada's history; it's Ontario's history.

So I commend the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for introducing this bill, because all of us around this Legislature know how difficult it is when we have basically just one private member's bill to put forward. He has chosen to use this bill for his private member's bill. I commend him for doing that, and I totally support his efforts in reaffirming that Black History Month will be recognized every year in February for years to come, and that will be his legacy.

I want to support this incredibly important initiative because this year especially it matches the remarkable point in history when we recognize the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. All over the world, jurisdictions like Ontario are going to take time to set up a permanent legacy to include the history of slavery, the perils that blacks all over this world went through for hundreds of years. That is being done for the first time in Ontario. We are following the lead of Great Britain, Scotland, Trinidad-Tobago and Jamaica in reaffirming that slavery was an atrocity beyond words.

Hopefully, throughout the course of this year, as we go across Ontario to engage Ontarians, whether they be in Collingwood, in Buxton, in Amherstburg, in Owen Sound, in St. Catharines, communities across this great province will engage in a learning experience on the history and the legacy of slavery to ensure all of our citizens understand more about our history and certainly about our black history.

There are incredibly talented people who have written books that all of us should read that are adding to our wealth of knowledge. I mention Karolyn Smardz Frost, who has written a remarkably captivating book about the Blackburns. I mention the book of Dr. Afua Cooper, The Hanging of Angélique—the burning of Montreal. It makes us recall the fact that slavery was practised here, in Upper and Lower Canada, for over 250 years.

That is why recognitions like Black History Month are so critically important: because it is not black history, it is Canadian history. As Dr. Afua Cooper says, this is untold history, this is silent history that has to be told, because the adage is so true that when we do not respect or know history, we are condemned to repeat the mistakes of history.

Just last night I was at Hallelujah Church on Pacific Avenue in the great city of Toronto with members of the Toronto Police Service, with Inspector Heinz Kuck, who again demonstrated the activities that Torontonians and the people of Ontario engaged in in reflecting on black history and racial discrimination.

Earlier this month, we unveiled the Buxton Bell, which is right here at Queen's Park, which connects the history of the Underground Railroad with Ontario's history. That bell, which is in my colleague Pat Hoy's riding, will be displayed here. On Sunday, it will be up at York University in a significant presentation about the bicentenary, where the Governor General of Canada, Michaëlle Jean, will come to again reflect on the history of slavery in this country.

So there is rich activity, considerable activity taking place academically, culturally and socially that drives up our consciousness. That's why this is significant. It's not just symbolic. This is a statement of legislative force that we need to reaffirm that Black History Month will be part and parcel of Ontario's history for generations to come. That is why we just can't go beyond it and say we need something better. We always need something better, but this is a significant stand that the member from Scarborough—Rouge River has taken to make this an annual recognition.

I fully support his leadership on this issue and his long-standing commitment in Scarborough, when he was on council for all those years, to walking the walk, to supporting minority rights, to supporting equity in Scarborough as he has done and as he continues to do here in this Legislature. I commend him for showing that kind of leadership.

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham—Kent Essex): First of all, I want to thank the member from Scarborough—Rouge River and congratulate him on this thoughtful and very important piece of legislation, this bill that he has brought forward to recognize February each and every year as Black History Month. As persons in this place would know, he could have picked any subject that he wanted to, but he has picked a most significant and important one that deals with the history of Ontario, and I commend him for that.

We must always remember and pay tribute to the contributions that African-Canadians have made to the history of our province. We can always focus on what will happen in the future as well, because with this bill we will be provided with the opportunity to remember, celebrate and educate. I think it's just an excellent initiative, and I know that the members in this Legislature will want to support it. I look forward to that.

Minister Colle mentioned the Liberty Bell. There is a replica of this historic Underground Railroad Buxton Liberty Bell on display for the first time here at Queen's Park; it's down on the first floor. I invite you all to have a look at it if you have not done so already. I thank Minister Colle, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, for his fine work in having this bell brought from Buxton to Queen's Park. The bell has been out of sight for 150 years. At Queen's Park, this means that for the first time members of the public will see this replica.

"During the 1800s, the Buxton settlement represented safety and freedom for thousands of American slaves escaping through the Underground Railroad." That's a quote from Mr. Colle. "For the first time, here at Queen's Park the Liberty Bell and its significance in our history will be shared with Ontarians."

The bell was a gift to the inhabitants of Raleigh Canada West—which is in my riding—from the coloured people of Pittsburgh in 1850. By 1861, an estimated 30,000 slaves had escaped to Canada through this underground railroad.

The Liberty Bell was rung every time a slave reached freedom in Buxton, which was the largest planned fugitive settlement in Canada. The Buxton Museum and the Buxton National Historical Site will be the future home of this bell.

"Black History Month is our time to remember our past and recommit to a future where all people are accepted," said Mr. Colle.

Recently, I attended Road to Freedom, a celebration of Black History Month presented by the Buxton National Historic Site and Museum. It is home to a rich collection of artefacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad and to early African-Canadian history. As well, the Underground Railroad takes us not only through North Buxton but Amherstburg in the county of Essex and Uncle Tom's Cabin in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

The fugitives, most of them penniless, many of them illiterate, carved out new, independent lives. They built homes, schools and churches. They became teachers, business owners and writers.

It is important to recognize the achievements and contributions of the original settlers. Black Canadians play an important

part in Ontario's and Canada's unique heritage. Our diversity has made us a model of co-operation and fellowship admired around the world.

I commend the member for bringing this very important piece of legislation to this Legislature.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto—Danforth): I want to start, as others have, by thanking the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for introducing this piece of legislation.

It's true that more is needed than recognition, but recognition in and of itself contributes to a change in our culture and our thinking and contributes to a change, ultimately, in the status of the people in this country, the people in this province, who are of African-Canadian heritage.

February is a time for remembering history that too often is simply buried or set aside.

I grew up in Ontario. I grew up with the standard history textbooks that are used in this province, and quite honestly, when I grew up, the contribution of black Canadians, African-Canadians, was not particularly written in. It was an invisible piece, other than the Underground Railroad, which was mentioned in passing. That has been changing in Ontario, but the change has been slow.

Frankly, the member is quite correct: We are going to have to use that yearly opportunity in February to refresh people's memories; not just refresh them, but put new facts into those memories.

Yesterday we talked about the anniversary of the bill that initiated the abolition of the slave trade. Frankly, it's very important for us to recognize that the agitation in Britain that eventually led to the abolition of the slave trade rested on a number of pillars. It was not simply

an act of generosity on the part of the British Parliament. It reflected, in part, agitation in Britain by former slaves who spoke energetically, strenuously, continuously, to people in Britain who had not understood all that was going on in their name. These were people who took substantial risks by speaking out, substantial risks that they would be kidnapped and sent back into slavery.

What also is generally not recognized about the abolition of the slave trade which is important to understand is that it was the acts of the Africans themselves in the plantations in what is now Haiti and in Jamaica, rising up and seizing what freedom they could—and they rose up in horrendous conditions. They lost lives. Many died terribly. It was the success in Haiti of that revolt, it was the loss in Jamaica of that revolt, that convinced the slave owners who dominated politics in the British Parliament that the jig was up, the time had come. They could no longer hold on to these possessions and expect that the world would continue as it had continued.

Britain, Europe, the white people of the Americas, grew rich from the toil of those African slaves. Sugar in the early 1800s was to the world economy in many ways what oil is today: universally needed, universally used—grown and extracted very cheaply by slave labour. People became wealthy.

Britain, which is graced with beautiful buildings, many beautiful sections of cities and the leisure at the time to develop the arts and music, benefited from the free labour that was provided by people kidnapped in chains, ripped from their families, forced to work until their death.

They rose up. They made the British Parliament give them their freedom, because if the British Parliament had not, they would simply have seized it. That is a reality about black history that has not been commonly taught in schools, not commonly thought about. That whole approach to the African continent, the African populations, African-Canadians, has got to shift in our minds and culture. We have to understand all that has been given and all that has been taken so that we actually will have a free and equal and just society.

I appreciate what has been brought forward. I appreciate the bill that has been brought forward by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, because it is part of that ongoing cultural shift. Too often, I will read in newspapers stories about people engaged in crime, "suspects described as black." Very rarely do I see "suspect described as white." We need a cultural shift in this province. We need a cultural shift in this country. In part, it is going on, but it needs to be continuously pushed forward, and this bill will help to do that.

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): Yesterday members of this Legislature rose to recognize important events in the history of people of African descent: black people. They recalled some of the atrocities committed against black people over the centuries and recognized the bicentennial of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. For the most part, we heard about depressing and distressing acts that made victims of people whose primary misfortune happened to be the colour of their skin. And yes, that was the life, those were the experiences, of my ancestors.

It is said that the members of the Ashanti tribe were dropped off in the Caribbean on islands like Jamaica, the land of my birth—dropped off first before the ships would arrive in North America because the Ashantis had a reputation for being less compliant than their traders wanted them to be. The Ashantis are known even today as a very proud people.

But, today, as I have risen to speak in support of my colleague's private member's bill,

An Act to name February in each year Black History Month, I need the members of this House to understand that black history goes well beyond the atrocities that characterize the era of slavery and black history goes well beyond the more recent atrocities of apartheid and other manifestations of discrimination on the basis of race.

Indeed, my black history includes reconciliation. As Desmond Tutu, winner of a Nobel peace prize in 1984, declared, "There can be no future without forgiveness." Because truth, that is, the willingness of those who have victimized others to acknowledge their wrongdoings, and reconciliation, that is, the willingness of those who have been victimized to forgive, together make it possible for humans to move forward as more enlightened members of civil society.

My black history also includes resilience—the remarkable liberating strength of a people who were stripped of their identities but refused to forget who they were; a people who by any definition have overcome what at times have appeared to be insurmountable odds; a strong, confident and often, by necessity, defiant people; people like Rosa Parks, a woman who became the mother of the American civil rights movement when she refused to be subjected to racial segregation when she used the public transit system. She refused to allow dominant society to treat her as a lesser person because of the colour of her skin.

For me, the recognition of Black History Month is about the celebration of a people and their remarkable achievements, achievements that have changed lives and nations forever and for the better. I encourage black youth to be ambitious and to set high expectations for themselves. I tell them that with the opportunities they now have, I should expect to see them chronicled in books like Millennium Minds: 100 Black Canadians, published by Grenadian-born author Patricia Holas, a graduate of the University of Ottawa.

I should also be seeing them in future editions of Who's Who in Black Canada, a directory of black success and black excellence in Canada, by Dawn Williams, a graduate of York University, Jamaican by parentage, British by birth, who grew up in Canada. I should also be seeing them in Who's Who in Canada, because our black youth are also Canadians who will be contributing to Canada's history as time goes by.

The people they can read about in Millennium Minds include Mathieu Da Costa, a free man of African descent who in 1608 was contracted to work as an interpreter by Pierre Dugua de Mons, who spearheaded French settlement and trade in areas of eastern Canada. Mathieu Da Costa is recognized as the first person of African origin to have made important contributions to the building of Canada. They can also learn about William Hall, who was the first Nova Scotian, the first seaman, the first black man and only the third Canadian to be awarded the Victoria Cross. The year was 1859.

James Robinson Johnston enrolled at Dalhousie University at 16 years of age and became the first African-Canadian born in Nova Scotia to graduate with a bachelor of law degree. The year was 1898. Elijah McCoy, of "the real McCoy" fame, was born in 1843 to two slaves who had escaped to Canada via the Underground Railroad. He became the inventor of automatic lubrication systems for a variety of industrial and locomotive machines.

Black history is rich with the achievements of amazing people.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale—High Park): It is an honour to speak on this. It is an honour to support, as I know all New Democrats do, this private member's bill from the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

I wanted to particularly mention a name that is near and dear to all Canadians, or should be, and certainly near and dear to New Democrats, and that's the name of Rosemary Brown, who was the first woman of colour to be elected to any electoral post. That was in BC; she was an MLA. She also ran for the leadership of the New Democratic Party. And so I would just honour Rosemary Brown on this day.

This is symbolic, but it's an important symbol. It is symbolic, but it's a symbol that we should all support.

I want to speak very briefly about something else that we should all support in this House. As I have had the privilege of touring around the greater Toronto area and around the province on Bill 150, the $10 minimum wage, not in three years but today, I have spoken to rooms full of people of colour. The vast majority of those in the GTA and from all our ridings who have turned out to these public forums are people of colour, and they've turned out because it's their issue. They need a $10 minimum wage, and they need it today.

We know that of the 200,000 people in Ontario who earn minimum wage, two thirds of them are women, and two thirds of those women are women of colour. This is where the community can really be helped, Mr. Speaker. This is where we can give teeth to this important symbolic gesture.

We can also give teeth to it by building housing, because again, people of colour are the ones hardest hit by the lack of affordable housing. This government has only provided 285 units between $300 and $500. We think that needs to change for the people in our midst.

So we ask all parties to be non-partisan about this, to address the concerns of all of those of African-Caribbean and African heritage in our midst, and to build affordable housing and also pass Bill 150, a living-wage bill, today.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to participate in this debate today and will say on behalf of John Tory and the PC caucus that we most certainly support this bill and appreciate the member for Scarborough—Rouge River bringing this forward.

As has been said, it is, of course, symbolic, but it is important that this House take the time to consider not only black history but what the future holds for those who continue to feel the pain, in many ways, of their history. I want to say at the outset that we feel very strongly that we should in fact go beyond acknowledgment and recognition.

I was pleased to see the announcement yesterday by the Minister of Citizenship to recognize, by way of forming a committee, the work that will be done. He has commissioned to ensure that due recognition is given in various ways throughout the province, and has in fact appointed the committee, chaired by Dr. Jean Augustine, to mark the bicentenary of the abolition of slave trade. That was a very positive step. We look forward to seeing the very practical recommendations that will be made by this committee, so that throughout the province we will see in our communities various ways in which young and old can be reminded, can in fact be educated, about this important issue.

What I also want to discuss this morning is the role of the Ontario Black History Society in our province. It, as we all know, continues to promote and foster Black History Month through its programs, increased public awareness of African-Canadian history and the celebration of that rich and living legacy of African-Canadian culture that is an integral part of the Canadian multicultural mosaic.

The Ontario government has recognized Black History Month. It did so in 1993, and every Ontario Minister of Citizenship has acknowledged it ever since. It is thanks to the work of the current Ontario Black History Society president, Dr. Rosemary Sadlier, that Black History Month was recognized nationally by the House of Commons in Ottawa on December 5, 1996. This national declaration went into effect in February of the following year. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Rosemary Sadlier and the Ontario Black History Society for that achievement as well as for all of the work that Dr.

Sadlier and her team do throughout the entire year, and every year, to promote black history in this province, and indeed across Canada.

Now perhaps the member for Scarborough—Rouge River could ask his minister why it is that while, on the one hand, the one-time fund of a million dollars was allocated to the committee that I mentioned previously to mark the anniversary of the act of 1807, the Ontario Black History Society, which does such good work and promotes a large variety of educational programs and informational resources to increase public awareness about all aspects of black history, is, in a word, underutilized by the province and suffers, frankly, from a decided neglect of provincial support for its unique mission?

I mention that because I believe that it may be timely for the member to challenge not only the minister, but his government caucus, to consider this as a priority as they go into a new budget year. I would strongly suggest that it may be time to move beyond symbolic gestures, as important as they are, and move beyond proclamations of this respect, especially given the fact that Black History Month has been formally celebrated across Canada for years now.

If this bill's passage is simply to affirm what already is the rule of annual practice in this province, then what does this bill indeed add to our work or to the work of promoting Black History Month, its goals and objectives? So I submit to the member that together with this bill there really should be a commitment to provide the necessary funding for organizations such as the Ontario Black History Society. I call on the member to consider making an amendment to the bill, to make it more comprehensive and to simply do the right thing.

I would ask the Ontario Ministries of Education, Citizenship and Immigration, and Tourism to partner fully with the Ontario Black History Society to promote the excellent programs of the society and to support the society in its important work in this regard. If we truly want to honour our province's history and culture, I would then ask the member, and all members of the House, to promote an African-Canadian centre for the study and preservation of Ontario's African historical and cultural legacy for future generations of Ontarians.

In response to the question, "Why have Black History Month?" Rosemary Sadlier has said:

"African-Canadian students need to feel affirmed; need to be aware of the contributions made by other blacks in Canada; need to have role models; need to understand the social forces which have shaped and influenced their community and their identities as a means of feeling connected to the educational experience in various regions in Canada. They need to feel empowered.

"The greater Canadian community needs to know a history of Canada that includes all of the founding and pioneering experiences in order to work from reality rather than perception alone.

"As a people with roots dating back to 1603, African-Canadians have defended, cleared, built and farmed this country. Their presence is well established but not well known.

"We need a Black History Month in order to help us arrive at an understanding of ourselves as Canadians in the most accurate and complete socio-historical context that we can produce. As a nation with such diversity, all histories need to be known, all voices need to be expressed. Black history provides the binary opposite to all traditional histories. One needs traditional history to engender a common" understanding.

It's a pleasure to participate in this debate. I look forward to seeing this bill come forward and be adopted by the House and want to thank the member for bringing it forward. We look forward to seeing the desired results of this symbolic gesture today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? Mr. Balkissoon, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Balkissoon: I want to thank my colleagues Minister Colle, Minister Chambers and MPP Pat Hoy for their statements of support. I also want to acknowledge the other speakers in the House today for their shared sentiments of support and suggestions: the member from Simcoe—Grey, the member from York South—Weston, the member from Toronto—Danforth, the member from Parkdale—High Park and the member from Oak Ridges.

Let me say that I'm pleased to see so much support in the assembly today for Bill 182,

An Act to name February in each year Black History Month. The introduction of this bill is very important, and especially fitting in 2007, as this year marks the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. With the passing of this bill, all Ontarians can share in the celebrations of African-Canadian achievements in February of each year. I am pleased to introduce Bill 182, so that the Ontario Legislature will formally recognize black history as part of Ontario's history each and every year in the month of February.

Once again, let me say thank you to those who did their part this February to promote black history in their communities in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you to all members. The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

CONDOMINIUM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 71, standing in the name of Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Marchese has moved second reading of Bill 185,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 1998. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. It's carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Marchese, the bill is referred to the standing committee of the whole House.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity—Spadina): No, the standing committee on general government, please, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Marchese has asked that it be referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE MOIS

DE L'HISTOIRE DES NOIRS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 72, standing in the name of Mr. Balkissoon.

Mr. Balkissoon has moved second reading of Bill 182,

An Act to name February in each year Black History Month. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough—Rouge River): I wish the bill to go to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Balkissoon has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. Agreed? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1156 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): We have a crisis in our justice system. On numerous occasions I've raised the issue of backlogs in our courts, be they criminal, family or civil courts, and the Attorney General has no answers except to blame others.

I bring yet one more example of the Attorney General's mismanagement to his attention. I have here an e-mail from a constituent. I will read it into the record:

"I work for the Ministry of the Attorney General courts in Newmarket. They owe me over 100 hours since January 1, 2007. The Attorney General needs to address this ongoing issue and get employees paid on time and stop holding back our money, which has to be illegal. No other employer would get away with holding back pay for months while people lose their homes. I wonder how many of Michael Bryant's staff would appreciate having nearly half of their paycheque held back for months."

I don't know what's going on, but what I do know is that people who are working for this Attorney General, working as people who are doing their best, day in and day out, apparently are not even getting paid for the work they do.

I'm calling on the Attorney General, on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of these employees and their court system, to immediately investigate what is happening here and ensure that these people get paid. It's only right.

CABINET MEETING

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I rise today to celebrate a monumental event which occurred last week. In recognition of the tremendous role Hamilton has played in the history of Ontario, the McGuinty government chose to hold the first-ever cabinet meeting outside of Queen's Park in Hamilton. The cabinet listened to our concerns, made presentations and let the people of Hamilton know that they have friends at Queen's Park.

Hamilton has been working hard to revitalize and re-energize our wonderful city despite our many current challenges. So on behalf of Hamilton, I want to thank Premier McGuinty and all the members of cabinet who met with Hamiltonians. Thank you to Minister Caplan, who met with SISO. Thank you to Minister Chambers, who met with the youth at the YMCA. Thank you to Minister Gerretsen, who met with our mayor and councillors. Thank you to Minister Watson, who celebrated the Heather Crowe Award. Thank you to all the members who attended the Hamilton round table for poverty reduction, and thank you to everyone else who made this cabinet meeting so special.

Hamilton does face difficulties, but we're a strong city with a mighty past and a vision for the future. We thank the cabinet for working with us to turn those obstacles into opportunities. Yes, we have a lot of work to do, but working together we can get it done.

We do not say "thank you" enough to those who demonstrate leadership, so I want to say thank you to Premier McGuinty and to all of the cabinet for joining us in Hamilton for this monumental event.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe—Grey): I rise in the House on budget day to remind Ontarians of the McGuinty government's $2.5-billion tax grab that they've been paying since the 2004 budget was passed in December of that year. This tax hike represents the largest tax increase in the history of this province.

Since this tax is being poured into the consolidated revenue fund, taxpayers aren't convinced that it's going directly and exclusively to health care.

When the tax was first introduced, the Progressive Conservative opposition asked the McGuinty government to set up a special purpose account for this tax so that where the money actually goes could be tracked. Dalton McGuinty refused to set up this account and be accountable and transparent to all Ontarians for the extra money he's taking out of their pockets.

Since this government has such a poor record of keeping its promises, why should we believe this money is going to health care? Maybe it's being used to pay the $5 million that McGuinty is doling out to Tom Parkinson, former head of Hydro One. Perhaps it's going towards the over $300,000 fee being paid to former Liberal cabinet minister Jane Stewart for doing nothing in Caledonia.

Almost every day, the health minister stands in this House and literally brags about his government's $2.5-billion tax grab, as though a tax increase is something to flaunt. If you're so proud of this tax, prove that it's going to health care. The onus is on you to do that, to provide clear and direct evidence of exactly where this money is going. Ontarians deserve nothing less, because it's their money.

SUDANESE COMMUNITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I rise in the House to share with all members the warm welcome I received from the Sudanese community in Hamilton at their International Women's Day celebration on the weekend. I had a wonderful evening and learned much about Sudan itself as a nation and the various regions and what makes them unique. I was also given the privilege of observing some of their cultural dances, hearing music that hails from their country and sampling some of their wonderful food and sweets.

I was even honoured with the opportunity of partaking in their coffee, which is so important to their culture that a whole ritual is in place for brewing and serving it. How fitting that it's this week, with the United Nations Day to Eliminate Racial Discrimination, and in my first member's statement after the break I am able to relay the warm and wonderful welcome I received from the Sudanese community in Hamilton.

Thank you to the members of the Sudanese League of Hamilton who took time to explain the many things about the home they left and the one they are trying to make in Hamilton. The great honour I feel in sharing their celebration is matched by my desire to work with and for the Sudanese community on their concerns around poverty of immigrant refugee women, ESL for their children, recognition of their international credentials, obtaining the ever-elusive Canadian experience that they need to get a job, affordable child care, and a $10 minimum wage. These issues are front and centre for all Hamilton's diverse communities.

On March 13, some 30 people met with myself and my leader, Howard Hampton. We talked about all of those same issues at the Modern Indian Buffet Restaurant on Main Street East in Hamilton. It was an excellent afternoon.

New Democrats know how Ontario can do better, and we're going to keep pushing to make sure it does.

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I rise today to thank Minister Meilleur for the recent investment in my riding of Northumberland and Quinte West of more than $577,000. This almost $600,000 represents the most significant investment in social service infrastructure that my riding has seen in well over a decade.

Chris Grayson, executive director of Campbellford-Brighton Community Living, and Linda Perkins, administrator of Northumberland Services for Women, joined me in celebrating the disbursement of these funds across the riding. These funds will benefit organizations supporting those living with intellectual and physical disabilities and women and children fleeing domestic violence.

I'm proud of our government's commitment to the social fabric of this province and the shift we've seen in fundamental supports for those who are underprivileged, vulnerable or ill. It's about dignity for all, not just for those who can afford it.

The money was well received. That was for those things that those folks could never do out of their regular budget, whether to fix a leaky roof or to pay somebody or look after something. As I said before, this is the first money of this kind those agencies have ever seen.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): On Tuesday, the Minister of Health, trying to defend his wait time claims, said in this House that past governments "could not even measure what the wait time was." The Premier said that past governments "wouldn't even measure wait times."

People in my riding do not need a history lesson. They care about how your government is failing today.

Let's look at what impartial commentators think about your wait time numbers. Last December, the Auditor General's report called the wait time numbers "misleading," saying that they should be taken with "a grain of salt."

Also, in December, Advertising Standards Canada, an independent agency, ruled that the Ontario Liberals' television and newspaper ads made "inaccurate claims and omitted relevant information."

Independent agencies have said that large parts of your wait times statistics are worthless. As far as I'm concerned, they are all worthless.

You need to take real action, just like our PC government did when it created the after-hours cancer treatment centre at Sunnybrook Hospital.

Stop using the wait-list crutch. Start taking real action to reduce wait times.

ROBERT DICKSON

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I was recently saddened to receive the news of the passing of Robert Dickson in Sudbury.

Avec votre permission, Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais lire ce chef d'œuvre qu'est « Au nord de notre vie ».

Au nord de notre vie

ici

où la distance

use les cœurs pleins

de la tendresse minerai

de la terre de pierre de forêts et de froid

nous

têtus souterrains et solitaires

lâchons nos cris rauques et rocheux

aux quatre vents

de l'avenir possible

Je ne crois pas qu'il soit nécessaire d'offrir d'explication supplémentaire. C'est un poème qui louange le nord de notre majestueuse province et qui rend hommage aux pionniers qui l'ont développée. Il va sans dire que M. Dickson compte parmi ceux-ci.

GARY ALLEN WILSON

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): It's with a heavy heart that I stand here today to inform the House of the passing of one of my constituents and a member of the Toronto Fire Service, Mr. Gary Allen Wilson.

Gary sadly left us on March 16, 2007, succumbing to metastasized colon cancer in the liver and lymph nodes, also known as carcinoma. Survived by his wife, Daniela Nolano, daughter, Christina, and mother, Beatrice, Gary bravely served our community as a captain with the Toronto Fire Service. While visiting Daniela at the funeral home visitation on March 20, I was touched, and so were my colleagues Brad Duguid and Minister Kwinter, by the way she recounted their courageous battle during the final days of his life and all the treatments he went through.

Firefighters put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. This work is very dangerous and the repercussions can take years to manifest.

As someone who gave so selflessly to make sure that residents in my community and throughout all of Scarborough and Ontario were kept safe, I would like to take this opportunity for all of us here to remember the life of Gary Allen Wilson, someone who will be sorely missed, and to pass condolences to his family, especially his wife, Daniela.

SHANE BERNIER

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh): There is a special little boy in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh named Shane Bernier. Shane, who was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia when he was nearing the age of five, will be turning eight on May 30 of this year.

Shane has one birthday request. He would like to receive as many birthday cards as possible and is hoping to break the world record. As Shane continues to undergo treatment, this birthday wish has become something he and his whole family look forward to realizing, and indeed thousands of cards have already poured in from around the world.

As the Premier has already done, I would like to encourage every member of this Legislature, their staff and everyone who hears these words to join me in sending a special birthday greeting to Shane. Cards can be sent to Post Office Box 484, Lancaster, Ontario, K0C 1N0.

Part of what makes Ontarians special is our ability to rally together to face difficult situations, whether it is as a community, as was certainly the case during the ice storm of 1998, or for individual causes, as with the thousands of Ontarians who participate in the annual Terry Fox "Run for the Cure." I invite all Ontarians to once again demonstrate that community spirit by helping to make Shane Bernier's birthday a special one for him and his family. Once again, P.O. Box 484, Lancaster, Ontario, K0C 1N0, for those who would like to send a card.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): We have with us in the Speaker's gallery the Honourable Chaudhry Amir Hussain, Speaker of the National Assembly of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and a parliamentary delegation. Accompanying the delegation is Mr. Tassaduq Hussain, Consul General of Pakistan in Toronto. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests.

APPOINTMENT OF CLERK OF

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing Deborah Deller as the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly commencing March 21, 2007.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO HEATH CARE

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): My question is for the Premier. It's been a week now since the news first broke that the Don Mills Surgical Unit had presented the Dalton McGuinty government with a proposal to alleviate the pain and suffering of Ontarians by performing 1,500 knee replacements. It's also been about a week since the Dalton McGuinty government rejected the proposal out of hand, even though there's potential to save the taxpayers $1.6 million. My question for the Premier is this: Why is he condemning 1,500 people to stay on wait lists that are in some cases as long as over two years?

Why won't you even entertain the notion that there is some merit to this proposal, Premier?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): First off, I think the news that is very important for all Ontarians to know is that wait times for hips and knees are down in the province of Ontario; that through the actions of this Premier leading the nation forward on wait times, we've invested considerable resource, and the public health care system is responding with tremendous new capacity and tremendous new ways of bringing their work about. They do this on behalf of patients and they do it in community after community across the province.

We will not stand by and support a private model of care which at the end of the day is more expensive—and we'll talk about that—and, most especially, which deprives our public health care system of the capacity to renew itself and find even better ways of delivering service for people. We've made good progress so far. We will continue with our nurses and our doctors to deliver even better performance for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Yakabuski: The Premier is going to have to answer the questions eventually because it's not just us asking. Today alone we've got the Sudbury Star, the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, the Globe and Mail and the National Post, and they all want to know how Dalton McGuinty can claim it's sound business principles to dismiss out of hand a plan that could save the taxpayers $1.6 million.

The Whig-Standard writes: "The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The Ontario government, apparently deeming its vague principles more important than alleviating pain for suffering Ontarians...."

I will point out that the Don Mills surgical unit already gets money from this government to perform other procedures, including arthroscopic knee surgeries and cataracts. Why the contradiction?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: First off, we want to say to the people from Kingston, Kitchener-Waterloo and Sudbury that our government believes that the capacity for hips and knees must be created in their communities, not that they should be subjected to a bus ride or an airplane ride to downtown Toronto to have their knee or their hip fixed. We believe in the public health care system that's doing that work.

On the issue of cost in one of those stories, Sharon Sholzberg-Gray, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Healthcare Association, said the following: "Some joint replacements are more routine than others." The proposal that came from the Don Mills Surgical Centre was to do the cream of the crop, the easiest procedures. When we look at the apples-and-oranges comparison that they're working on, we conclude easily that providing these services in the public domain is indeed less expensive.

Fundamentally, we believe that it is our public health care system, deployed across the province of Ontario, not just in downtown Toronto, that must find even greater capacity to do an even better job for wait times on hips and knees, which are already down 30%.

Mr. Yakabuski: Your responses are weak-kneed, to say the least.

Here's what they're saying in Kitchener. "We await [your] explanation of why Ontario's public health care system would suffer if this clinic received public funds to provide knee replacements. Let's hear why he rejected a plan to cut wait times and save Ontarians money. And in the absence of a solid explanation, he should review his decision. In the meantime, Smitherman should stop wrapping bad policy decisions in a Canadian flag. It makes for an exceptionally poor bandage."

Why won't you consider the proposal and get grandparents back to their grandkids' hockey games and help thousands of Ontarians get back to work and enjoying life again? Why won't you help these people instead of cutting them off at the knees?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member from bluster is here today in full force, but where was he for eight and a half years when that government was unwilling to even measure wait times, much less do anything about them? In three years, under the leadership of our Premier, the line has moved on wait times and wait times are down in Ontario.

Don Mills Surgical Centre's proposal is to pay more and get less. They want to cream off the crop and do the easiest work. We believe, fundamentally, that we must invest in the public health care system, continuing to move forward in Kitchener, in Kingston, in Sudbury, in dozens of locations across the province, unlike the Conservative Party.

It will not be the view of our party that people who need a hip or knee replacement should be shuttled on a bus to downtown Toronto. We will continue to work to invest in local communities, with our nurses and with our doctors, to make even more steady gainful improvements on behalf of the patients who were long-forgotten on your watch.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, I recently met with representatives of six student councils in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka. These parents expressed concern about supervision of students during lunches and recesses. They are so concerned that they wrote to you at the ministry three times, the last letter dated January 25, 2007. So far, they haven't had a response to any of their letters. So I'm asking you today: What are you going to do to ensure student safety during lunches and recesses?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): I think the member opposite must mean school councils. You're talking about the parent groups? That's right.

I want to assure the member opposite that we've been in conversation with the Ontario Principals' Council and we're very aware of some of the concerns that have been raised. But the fact is that there are thousands more adults in our schools. There are more teachers in every one of our elementary schools. There are 7,800 new support workers in our schools.

One of the things we have done is we have restored the number of adults in our schools. What that means is that 80% of the schools across the province have established supervision schedules. They have schedules in place that the principals have signed off on, and I am absolutely confident that the teachers and the administrators in our schools are keeping our students safe.

Mr. Miller: Let me relate to you an incident which took place in one of the schools in my riding. A sick student was being attended to by another student. The child began to have convulsions. Mom arrived at the school within minutes of being called to find her daughter lying in her own vomit, convulsing and in the company of a 10-year-old child. No ambulance had been called and no adult was with the child. This circumstance has caused parents in my area to ask what commitment you are making to ensure that staff at all schools are certified in CPR and first aid?

Hon. Ms. Wynne: I don't know the details of the individual case. What I do know is that every school and every school board in this province is required to have supervision schedules signed off by the principals in the schools so that there are qualified adults involved in the supervision of the students. Eighty per cent of the schools in this province have already got supervision schedules in place and we are working on the others. But I can tell you that there's not a principal in this province who isn't concerned about the safety of his or her students in the school. I have every confidence in the adults in our system to keep those students safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Final supplementary. The member for Oak Ridges.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): You're right, Minister: They are concerned. Here's what Blair Hilts, the president of the Ontario Principals' Council, has to say on the issue:

"There has been a reduction in supervision at both the elementary and secondary levels, creating a supervision gap that has not been adequately filled. That gap has negatively impacted student safety and the learning environment in our schools."

On Monday at John McCrae Public School in Markham, an eight-year-old boy died after collapsing in a stairwell. An investigation into this tragedy is underway.

Minister, will you undertake to report the findings of that investigation back to this House so that we will be able to clearly determine whether that tragedy and other future tragedies like it can be avoided with proper supervision and safety standards, as the Ontario Principals' Council is calling on you to implement?

Hon. Ms. Wynne: I am not prepared to take the profound tragedy of one family and make it a political ping-pong ball. That is absolutely not the way I do politics and it's not the manner we do politics on this side of the House.

I just want to read from Lou Rocha, who is the executive director of the Catholic Principals' Council of Ontario, who says:

"There is no doubt that the current government has brought many positive changes to education. The validation comes from those outside Ontario who see the province as a place where government, school boards and schools are aligned for the same moral purpose of improving teaching and learning. There has never been a time in Ontario's history when such a singular goal as been articulated so clearly and consistently across the sector."

I believe that the principals in the schools in our province know what we have done for education in this province. They are working with us, and I look forward to continuing to work with them.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity—Spadina): A question to the Premier: Premier, you often claim that education is a priority for you, yet under your general legislative grants for school boards released this past Monday, funding for school operations as a percentage of overall funding will decline to 9.36% in 2007-08 from 9.7% in 2005-06. How can you present yourself as someone concerned with the education system when you won't even ensure that there is adequate funding for school operations?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): What we did this week, on Monday, was put $781 million of new money back in education, and we did that across the board. We put more money in for transportation. We put more money in for special education. We put more money in for school ops. We put more money in for new teachers. We created new grants to respond to the needs that boards had said to us they were facing. We put in a program enhancement grant for music and arts. We put in money for native education.

The reality is that across every part of the funding model we have made changes; we have put in more money. School boards have more money to work with, and kids are better off in our schools.

Mr. Marchese: Hundreds of striking support workers from the Durham public school board came to Queen's Park today to send you the message that your cuts to plant operations are not acceptable to them. Education assistants, custodians, secretaries and technical staff