Sep 13, 2011- 11:22 AM
The debate, organized by the Social Planning Council of Sudbury, YWCA Sudbury and YMCA Sudbury, took place in the council chambers at Tom Davies Square.
Although all four Sudbury candidates were invited, Progressive Conservative candidate Gerry Labelle did not participate.
In his own closing statement, Bartolucci said his government had brought “incredible investment” of $7.3 billion to Greater Sudbury over the past eight years.
However, Green Party candidate Pat Rogerson reminded Bartolucci that this money comes from taxpayers.
“I know that Rick sometimes forgets, and says that he brought it, but we all know that this money came from the provincial government, the government of Ontario, funded by Ontario taxpayers,” she said. “We would have gotten it anyway.”
Throughout the debate, Bartolucci spoke several times about how the NDP and Progressive Conservatives had voted against various programs to improve social conditions.
“It's easy to recount what the PCs and NDP have voted against,” NDP candidate Paul Loewenberg said, in his closing statement.
“Well, we were in opposition. I would say we often vote no because we take exception to the method of delivery, not that the ideas are bad. There just needs to be accountability.”
Before an audience of about 100 people, the candidates answered questions about a wide range of social issues, including homelessness, poverty, mental health, child care, replacement workers and post-secondary tuition fees.
Loewenberg started his response to a question about his party's stance on reducing homelessness and increasing affordable housing by citing several grim statistics. He said one in five Ontario tenants pay half of their wages to rent, and there are 150,000 households on affordable housing waiting lists, representing an 18 per cent increase from 2009.
Loewenberg proposed a number of solutions, including building more affordable housing, repairing existing substandard housing, better tenants' rights and licensing landlords.
Bartolucci, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, said that “what Paul forgot to tell you is that homelessness is not mentioned in the NDP platform.”
As part of a partnership with the federal government, the province has spent $2.5 billion on affordable housing in recent years, with more investments planned for the future, he said.
“That only touches one part of the homelessness problem,” Bartolucci said. “We have to ensure that we couple homeless programs with housing programs. We heard from the stakeholders from across the province of Ontario that it's not good enough to just have programs, they have to be co-ordinated programs. And that's what we've done.”
Rogerson, who has a background in working with local non-profits on homelessness initiatives, said homelessness has been reduced in the city by 20 per cent in recent years, but that was the “easy 20 per cent.”
“The chronically ill, those with mental illness and those coming out of abusive relationships cannot afford to be dropped into an apartment where they're (on Ontario Works), and be expected to live,” she said. “They need a support system, and it's just not there.”
She said the $120,000 the province provides to build each affordable housing unit is not enough “to get a unit up.”
A member of the audience asked the candidates to speak about their parties' stance on legislation around the use of replacement workers during labour disputes.
Bartolucci said while his party does not believe in banning replacement workers, he disagrees with this policy.
“I voted against the use of replacement workers on three occasions in the Ontario legislature,” he said. “My party does not agree with me. You see, in the Liberal party, we have the right to disagree.”
He said his government “believes the best solution is a negotiated solution,” and provincial-led mediation is what eventually resolved the 2009-2010 Vale strike.
Loewenberg said it's clear where the NDP stands on the issue of replacement workers, as Nickel Belt NDP incumbent France Gélinas has introduced legislation to ban their use.
“(Using replacement workers) divides the community, and it stops the ability for a group of people to collectively bargain for the best deal possible with the company,” he said. “We have to ban them, and we have to get this legislation through.”
Rogerson said her party supports passing legislation to ban replacement workers.
“Basically, I guess, my party and I are in agreement on this,” she said. “We don't want replacement workers.”
-Posted by Heidi Ulrichsen
