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

May 9, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-May-09 (PDF)

L050 - Wed 9 May 2012 / Mer 9 mai 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 9 May 2012 Mercredi 9 mai 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

AMENDMENT ACT (RENT

INCREASE GUIDELINE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION

À USAGE D’HABITATION

(TAUX LÉGAL D’AUGMENTATION

DES LOYERS)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

MINING INDUSTRY

MINING INDUSTRY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MINING INDUSTRY

FAMILY SERVICE ONTARIO

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

EDUCATION REFORM

ONTARIO ECONOMY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

NORTHERN

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

CURRICULUM

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

IMMIGRANTS

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TOURISM IN STRATFORD

POLICE OVERSIGHT

GIVE 2 LIVE CAMPAIGN

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

KEITH AND CECILE HARRIS

COUNT ME IN CONFERENCE

RAIL ACCIDENT

MARGARET HAJDINJAK

CAMERON HIGHLANDERS

OF OTTAWA

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

(LICENCE FOR COSMETIC

PURPOSES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PESTICIDES

(LICENCE À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY DAY

NURSING WEEK

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY DAY

NURSING WEEK

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY DAY

NURSING WEEK

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

LONG-TERM CARE

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

TOURISM

RADIATION SAFETY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

DOG OWNERSHIP

RADIATION SAFETY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

TOURISM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

TOURISM

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

AMENDMENT ACT (RENT

INCREASE GUIDELINE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION

À USAGE D’HABITATION

(TAUX LÉGAL D’AUGMENTATION

DES LOYERS)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 26, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in respect of the rent increase guideline / Projet de loi 19, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la location à usage d’habitation en ce qui concerne le taux légal d’augmentation des loyers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Thank you, Speaker, and thanks to our party’s whip for telling me when to stand up. I appreciate that.

I’m happy to rise again this morning to speak briefly to Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in respect of the rent increase guideline.

Our party believes that there needs to be action that results in Ontario becoming more affordable for the people who live and operate a business in this province. Under the current government, we have seen the exact opposite, Speaker. Life is getting more expensive by the day. The debt continues to grow, along with the deficit, and Ontarians continue to suffer from the mismanagement of the Dalton McGuinty government.

Under this government, hydro rates have increased eight times since 2003, by a total of 84%. If you’re a family with a smart meter at your home, well, you’ve seen your bill go up by a staggering 150%. A sad story out of my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex last week was the announcement of the closure of a retail store in my riding. During the campaign last year, this retail store told me that their hydro bill is $20,000 a month, and three or four years ago, it was almost half of that. There were 75 jobs lost last week in my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex—a very sad day for those families, and this government is to blame for these job losses.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Milloy: A few minutes ago, I had a chance to call the order, as members realize. I’d just like to put on the record that according to my notes here, we have spent 14 hours and 50 minutes debating this particular order, this bill, G19. I think all of us would agree it’s time to move on to committee. But instead, what we’ve heard from the opposition is bell-ringing over and over and over again, not just on this bill but a whole series of bills.

This bill, through the rent increase guideline, the changes that it brings in, will protect tenants. It will actually allow landlords to better manage their planning, moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, there is some urgency in getting this legislation through, which is why we, on this side of the House, would like to see it go to committee. There will be an opportunity at committee for further debate and discussion—and delegations to come forward and speak on it, presumably, if the committee decides—an opportunity to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. As always, there will be an opportunity to amend the bill and send it back.

But again, this is about protecting the rights of tenants but at the same time allowing landlords to operate within an acceptable framework that everyone understands. I really have to call the opposition to task and ask them why they’re not allowing this piece of legislation to move forward. As I say, if the opposition wants to oppose this piece of legislation, that’s their right, but the way to oppose it is to debate it, is to propose amendments in committee, is to put forward reasoned arguments, not to ring the bells over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, 14 hours and 50 minutes—for people who are unfamiliar with the Legislature, they may not realize that is an unprecedented amount of time on a bill that is relatively straightforward, a bill which strengthens rent guidelines for tenants. Again, I ask the opposition why they won’t allow this bill to move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, I’m disappointed that the government House leader would not have addressed the remarks made by the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. In fact, the bill itself, Bill 19, is basically one paragraph long. What it does, actually, is not the dispute. The dispute here today, government House leader, is really, why will you not respond to the call of the order of this House to have a select committee on the scandalous spending at Ornge helicopter? That’s what the procedure’s about. You’re ignoring the real essence of the debate here this morning.

I can only say that the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex laid on the table an example of what this legislation means. We’re quite prepared to go to committee; we’re quite prepared to make sure that this becomes law, to create certainty for both tenants and landlords. That’s all it does, basically: It lays out a calendar such that the rent review guideline would be not less than 1% and not more than 2.5%.

The essence of this discussion this morning is really more importantly about the scandalous, wasteful spending and the call of this House, the unanimous agreement within this House, including the Minister of Health, that you would have a select committee. But what you’ve done is you’ve really obfuscated the whole debate about that and not dealt with that at all. You’ve really not allowed us to have a select committee.

I’d lay out the question, if you get a chance to respond this morning: Why won’t you? Is there something you don’t want to get to the discussion on the public accounts committee? The member from Oak Ridges, Mr. Klees, who has led the discussion here, has made it very clear that there’s evidence by some of the expert testimonial witnesses that said clearly there’s been abuses. The police are investigating. There’s more to this. There are people who were making millions of dollars. There are hundreds of millions of health care dollars wasted. That’s why we want a select committee. Don’t try to play games in this House this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to say generally that New Democrats don’t have an opposition to this bill. We think, in fact, committee time would be in order, for us to be able to deal with this.

I want to make it clear for the record that New Democrats are not ringing bells. I sympathize with my Conservative counterparts in regard to their want to have a hearing on Ornge. I agree with them that, in fact, this is a scandalous situation and that we should be trying to shine the light on what has happened at Ornge so that, quite frankly, we can learn from whatever happened, whatever mistakes were made by the people who ran Ornge, so that we can plug the holes and not let that happen again.

I understand why the Conservatives are ringing bells. New Democrats aren’t participating, and I want to put that on the record. When the government House leader gets up and says the opposition is ringing bells, I just want the record clearly to say that New Democrats are not ringing bells. We have said that, yes, we support the Conservatives in their bid to be able to get the Ornge committee, but we decided not to participate in the bell-ringing, and we do think this bill should go forward.

That being said, I think the government House leader should be hearing what the opposition Tories are trying to tell him, which is that they have a serious concern, as we do, that in fact there should some form of hearing when it comes to the issue of Ornge. The government House leader will say, “Well, that’s happening at public accounts.” That’s true for now, but it is going to come to an end in about three sessions of that committee over the next three weeks. What do we do after that? There’s still the question of Mr. Mazza. Mr. Mazza has sent in a doctor’s note saying he’s not available until June 6. Will he send us another note? Will he refuse to appear on the Speaker’s warrant?

All of those types of things are important to deal with, and I think there are still some people who need to be heard by this committee in order to explain what happened at Ornge so that we’re able to learn and stop that from ever happening again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Speaker, just to add some content in relation to Bill 19, Bill 19 does very little, if anything, to build affordable housing. We have an affordable housing problem in this province, and there is no affordable housing strategy by the Liberal government, God bless—nothing. So while this little thing caps rent increases and will help some people, there are 140,000 people overall on a waiting list to get public housing. Why? Because the majority of these people waiting have absolutely very little money—and that list is growing.

I said 140,000, but I believe it’s 146,000. It was 130,000 under the Conservative government. It’s 146,000 under a Liberal government, because there is no housing strategy, and that’s the tragedy of what we’re debating. So although the Liberals make it appear as if somehow this is a big thing, it isn’t. It’s a tiny, little strategy in the scheme of things, and it doesn’t tackle vacancy decontrol, a strategy left by the previous Conservative regime.

What does that vacancy decontrol mean? It means that when a tenant leaves, rents can be increased. And that continues as a strategy; it hasn’t been dealt with. Landlords can still increase rents above the guideline if they demonstrate that they’ve had extraordinary increases around heating bills and other related stuff, so they could still get more. That doesn’t deal with vacancy decontrol. It doesn’t deal with the fact that landlords can still get more than the cap, based on other extraordinary circumstances. So they’ll be okay. But the real tragedy is the lack of an affordable housing strategy that builds housing for those who are income-poor.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex has a two-minute reply.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to thank the Minister of Community and Social Services and the government House leader, as well as my honourable colleague from Durham and my friends from Timmins–James Bay and Trinity–Spadina. I’d like to thank them very much for the comments. Again, it was good to rise today, I guess for my third time, on Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in respect of the rent increase guideline.

I guess the point I was making was that the government is doing absolutely nothing to create the environment for economic growth in this province. As I was saying a few minutes ago, hydro bills continue to come up on a daily basis when I’m home talking to small businesses in my riding. We had 75 jobs being lost last week in my riding with the announcement of a retail store closing. Their hydro bill is between $18,000 and $20,000 a month, and a few years ago it was about half of that.

Really, that’s the issue: This government is introducing bills that make them appear that they’re doing something, but in fact life is just getting more expensive for families in this province and for businesses across the province, and in particular in southwestern Ontario, where we’re seeing jobs being lost every day, because this government has no plans to get people to work and to get life more affordable for families.

They’re just not addressing the issues. They continue to deal with symptoms. We’ve been saying on this side of the House for a long time that it’s time that the government wakes up, smells the coffee, gets to work for the people of Ontario and works with the other parties in this House to get people back to work and to make life more affordable.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure, as always, to stand here in the chamber and discuss something as important as house rental and the effects that has on everyone throughout the province of Ontario.

This is something that my esteemed colleague from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex alluded to, and that’s the fact that what we’re seeing from the government side of the House is them entering bills, introducing bills, that actually sound good, that actually appeal; they have very nice, flowery wording to them. It makes you feel really good inside and that they’re actually doing something. But the real tragedy here is the simple fact that this bill doesn’t address what Ontario really needs, which is jobs. We need jobs in Ontario. This government is doing very little to create those jobs.

We’ve also come across a debt crisis. We’re seeing the provincial deficit this year grow exponentially—within the next five years, up to $30 billion in deficit. This is going to have an adverse effect on the services that we as a government provide to Ontarians and how we can deliver those services in a timely, efficient and well-meaning manner. So I have certain issues with this bill.

As the member from Trinity–Spadina alluded to, as did my esteemed colleague from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, people are struggling here in the province of Ontario. They’re losing their jobs. They’re trying to find jobs. Housing, obviously, is something that is a necessity. It’s important to have a building around you with a roof where you can actually grow as a family within a community.

This bill does not actually help the residents of the province of Ontario, and this is where I’m concerned, because as you well know, young people, the future of this province, who are not living in housing, who don’t have that opportunity, are finding it very difficult. As my esteemed colleague the member from Durham also alluded to, this bill is being held up not by us but by the government, which is non-compliant with the simple fact that we are calling for a select committee because of Ornge.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Obstruction.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Obstruction. Thank you very much, Mr. Whip.

The health minister herself stood up in this chamber and said that she would comply with the will of the Legislature. My colleague friends to the left here and we, the PC caucus, voted unanimously to form a select committee. That’s how democracy works: the will of the people. We are the voice of our residents, our constituents. Until the government realizes and respects that will, we are going to continue to ring bells. We are going to continue to obstruct any further legislation that comes forward, because that’s all we have.

The will of the people is not being adhered to, so we’re fighting on behalf of our residents, our constituents who want to see progressive movement forward in job creation and a strategy to fight our deficit, which is going to reach $30 billion.

We don’t have to worry about flowery legislation like Bill 19 and rent increases when there’s going to be nobody who can afford to rent or own property because this government is basically destroying the backbone of what Ontario is, what it was: the great engine of Confederation, the economic engine that our forefathers and mothers worked very hard to make, a legacy and a future for younger generations coming up, the young people.

When I was campaigning—and again, the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex alluded to this as well—one of the things I heard very, very often at the door was the exorbitant price of electricity, the skyrocketing price of utilities, and how they were struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month. More and more, it became difficult. People had to choose.

There is an elderly couple in the town of Brighton. It saddened me greatly, because here’s a couple who—actually, the wife’s father built the home in which they resided, in which, when they got married, grew their family; their children grew up in that residence. As I sat at their kitchen table, I felt sorry for the husband and wife, who almost broke down into tears because they had to choose between selling their home—because they couldn’t afford it on a fixed income, because their property taxes were too high and their utilities were too high. They figured that the savings that they had were being eroded under this current government and their policies.

It was a sad day for me, but I realized that I was, therefore, getting involved on their behalf. I was going to be a strong voice at Queen’s Park. That day, I realized these could be my parents. They don’t have a big, splashy pension; they don’t have a large bank reserve. How are they going to make ends meet?

This bill, I have to say, is nothing more than window dressing. People are struggling, and if this government insists on supporting and propping up scandals like eHealth, like Ornge, and lining the wallets of their friends and inner circle—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would ask the member to stick to the script. You’re wandering a little bit. Thank you.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have to say that when the government House leader says that we don’t want to work, that we’re not willing to work on behalf of Ontarians, it’s just the opposite. We’re here to work for them. We’re the strong voice for our constituents who don’t have a voice. For that elderly couple in Brighton, I’m proud to say that I’m here to obstruct what this government is doing to them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Speaker, I agree with the member from Northumberland–Quinte West on a couple of things. The two areas that he speaks about are affordability issues—because we have an affordability crisis that the Liberals haven’t, of course, dealt with—and the other one is that we need to create jobs, and he’s right on that. The question is how we get there, and this is where we have a disagreement with the Conservative Party.

On the issue of affordability, he’s quite correct in speaking to it. Here’s what I say that nobody talks about in either of the two parties, Liberal and Conservative, which is that according to the 2000 census, 45% of Ontario tenant households paid 30% or more of their household income on shelter costs. One in five, or 20%, of Ontario tenant households paid 50% or more of their household income on shelter costs. That speaks to the affordability crisis that we have in this province and in the country, and we are not dealing with that.

The Liberals, should they at some point want to create jobs, could start the building of non-profit housing, co-operative housing. That would spur the economy, that would create jobs, and that would begin to deal with the fact that—and I said 146,000 people are waiting for public housing. There are 152,000, so that list is bigger than I had imagined. That is the way to create jobs, but the government has no strategy around it.

I want to make another point to the Liberals and to the Conservatives: There are exemptions to rent controls and those exemptions are in the Residential Tenancies Act,

section 2, and that was passed in 1998, which means a whole lot of rental units are exempt from rent control. That was intended to spur development in the private sector. It’s not happening. We need to create housing. It would create jobs and raise revenues, and that’s what the Liberals should focus their attention to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I’m glad to add my comments to the conversation here. This is a routine bill, and I think we all agree that it’s a necessary bill. I don’t understand why the opposition has been holding it up. You’re holding up the opportunity for landlords and for tenants to benefit. We’re here to work for our constituents, so we should get on and get this bill to committee and continue to work and make it better, if that’s the intent.

I think we all know that while the rent increase guideline formula has worked well in the past, the recent fluctuations in Ontario’s consumer price index have resulted in a 2012 guideline that doesn’t reflect the economic circumstances of those who rent. That’s why, in response, the government has introduced this bill, Bill 19, that, if passed, is going to amend the annual rent increase guideline formula to ensure that the rent increase guideline will be capped at 2.5% and would never fall below 1%.

The guideline would continue to be based on the Ontario consumer price index, and what it would mean is that by not falling below 1%, it would offer landlords some security, and by not going above 2.5%, the guideline would also offer some reassurance, stability and affordability to renters.

This is something that we need to do for our constituents who are renting. We need to move on past this stage. I would urge the opposition to sincerely consider that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’ve spoken to this bill already on another day, but I’m happy to speak to it again.

I think the issue of real rent control is something that’s extraordinarily important in my community, across the city of Toronto and across Ontario. I remember back in the 1990s when rent control was really gutted by the previous government and the real implications. It meant more people were living on the street in the city and more people couldn’t feed their families. In a lot of ways, we’ve never recovered from that.

We do need, as my colleague from Trinity–Spadina said, to address the affordable housing situation in this city. I don’t feel like we’re having a debate on this. I’m not trying to hold up the debate—just to put it on the record that, as my friend from Trinity–Spadina said, this is a small bill. This goes just a tiny, tiny bit forward in what needs to be. We need to make some big steps around affordable housing in this province.

As he mentioned, the issue about vacancy—there’s no rent control when there is a vacancy in this city, in this province. It’s a huge problem, and it means that there are tenants who get bullied out of their accommodations so that rents can go up. We are living in a housing bubble right now, in a housing crisis. The fact that prices in this city and across the province are going up every single year at a huge rate means that, at some point, we’re going to have a huge problem here for tenants when interest rates go up, and we need to make sure that we’re thinking in advance about this.

We’ve put forward policies around building affordable housing in Ontario. In our last platform, we talked about zoning for new affordable housing, and we need to make real strides on this issue.

It’s interesting that both the government and the official opposition have talked about freezing wages in this province, but they won’t freeze rents. I think that’s really unfortunate, that real wages are not going up but rents continue to go up in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Milloy: I’m pleased to comment on the presentation made by my colleague across the way. Again, just to pick up on the theme of this bill, this bill is about protecting tenants. It’s also about making sure that landlords have the information they need, the framework they need, so that they can properly plan and that we have that equal relationship that we strive for in all our movement towards housing.

Mr. Speaker, I noted earlier that this is a very straightforward bill. It’s a bill that’s very important to a lot of people, yet the opposition party is not allowing it to go through. They’re constantly ringing bells and engaging in delaying tactics.

I do want to put on the record, because I heard my friend the NDP House leader stand up in his questions and comments to an earlier speech, that when I talk about the opposition, I’m talking about the Progressive Conservatives. Certainly, from the New Democratic Party, we’ve seen a willingness to move forward with this.

As I say, this is an important piece of legislation. The opposition has every right to oppose this legislation, but the way to properly oppose it is to enter into debate, to send it to committee and there have an opportunity, if the committee desires, to hear from witnesses and to put forward the types of amendments going forward.

I hear this constant rendition from the PCs that this is about an inability to look into the Ornge situation. Again, I want to put on the record that the government shares concerns about what’s happened in Ornge. That’s why we’ve had the Auditor General look at it. We’ve welcomed his report. The OPP is investigating it, with the encouragement of the Minister of Health.

The public accounts committee, a standing committee of this Legislature, which has all the tools and powers it needs to look into it, is in fact holding hearings into it as we speak this morning, which I suspect is why we’re not having bells from the PCs. At the same time, there’s another piece of legislation before this House with which, if it should pass second reading, there would be more opportunity to look at Ornge and ways to make sure that the framework is strengthened.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West has a two-minute reply.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the government pointed out there, they want things to move along. But really, again, I have to say it’s all talk. It’s background noise, if you will. It’s not really addressing what the heart of the matter is and what we’re doing.

To my NDP colleagues, the members from Davenport and Trinity–Spadina, everything is rosy over there for the NDP—God bless. But the fact of the matter is that if people had jobs, they could afford rent. This government has done nothing to create jobs and address the deficit that we’re facing. It’s a crisis.

Therefore, we want to introduce legislation that’s going to create jobs here in Ontario. We’re going to implement legislation that’s going to address the debt crisis that we’re facing, to get Ontario back on its feet so that people will be able to afford housing, as my NDP colleague really wants to. But it’s our approach, Mr. Speaker. Only the PC caucus has the correct approach on how to get Ontario back to do that. Tim Hudak has laid out the foundation of how we’re going to move forward—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Bill 19, although it talks about rental housing and how it’s going to improve the lives of individuals—as I alluded to, it does nothing. Only Tim Hudak and the PC caucus have that plan. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to join the debate today for Bill 19, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act. I have to give a nod to my colleagues from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex and Northumberland–Quinte West. They have been spot-on with their comments.

We all know this particular bill is the result of the HST, the largest tax grab in Ontario’s history. But before we jump right into this, I want to speak to the fact that my colleague and the member from Timmins–James Bay mentioned that this bill really does very little to build affordable housing.

Much like the member from Northumberland–Quinte West alluded to, this is very much a chicken-and-egg issue. Why are people looking for affordable housing? It’s because they can’t afford the bills. It’s because they do not have jobs. In my riding, jobs are disappearing every time you turn around. They closed the Walkerton jail. They took away the Bluewater Youth Centre, just south of Goderich. We’ve lost manufacturing like crazy over the last eight years due to the exorbitant costs of operating in the Liberals’ Ontario as we’ve come to know it today—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would ask the member to stick to the bill. We’re wandering a little bit. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: The fact of the matter is, because we’ve lost our manufacturing jobs, because we’re losing jobs in our riding, people can’t afford to live any longer. Mr. Speaker, this is very, very pointed. And you know what? It also speaks to a comment that was made by the member from Trinity–Spadina. He said the government has no strategy around jobs and affordable housing and making life easier and more affordable in Ontario today, and I totally agree with that.

That actually expands over to my motivation to seek representation of the riding of Huron–Bruce. Not only does the government not have a strategy for affordable housing and making life easier in Ontario, but this government is totally void of a strategy and a vision for rural Ontario as well.

Interjection: A lack of leadership.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It proves to be a lack of leadership, as my friend here said.

It points to the fact that this bill really doesn’t play into overall effectiveness in the big picture. We know that too many Ontarians, 1.3 million tenant households, are stretched to the limit trying to pay their household bills, including their rents. These bills are exorbitant.

I just can’t say enough about United Way. This past winter, United Way came forward and did their job. They’re a great organization. They helped people pay their bills so that they could stay in their house.

And you know what’s sad? Now that the winter has come and gone, those same people can’t afford to keep their lights on. My constituency offices in Kincardine and Blyth are being called on a regular basis by people who can’t keep the lights on. They don’t have the money. They don’t have a job. Life is unaffordable.

So this issue spans beyond affordable housing; it’s about affording life in today’s Ontario, with the lack of leadership demonstrated by the Liberal government.

We all know that this is a problem faced by those who actually are waiting on affordable housing. There are 140,000 people on a list, and this bill isn’t going to help them. Some 32% of tenants have accommodations that fail to meet standards of adequacy, suitability and affordability. These numbers are up and will continue to rise across this province as Ontario fails to deal with this economic stagnation, the loss of the industrial sector.

Mr. Speaker, I ask, because it’s getting frustrating, when is our government actually going to understand what the root of this whole problem is? Over 600,000 Ontario men and women are out of work, with skyrocketing energy prices, significant increases to—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Folks, there seem to be four sidebars going rather loud. It’s your member who’s speaking, and two of the sidebars of the Conservative members are rather loud. I would like to hear what she’s saying. If you have a problem, take it outside. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure the sidebars are over the fact that this bill really does nothing to address the root cause, which is affordable housing. Bill 19, as I said, does nothing to deal with those core issues that are making life so unaffordable in Ontario.

Affordable housing: There is a crisis out there, and you don’t have to stick to urban Ontario; go right across this province and there’s nothing there for these people except to wait to get into some sort of housing. We have hundreds of thousands of people without work, while the HST and soaring hydro rates, along with increased fees, are eating away at what little disposable income people have.

Under Dalton McGuinty, it’s important to note, hydro rates have increased eight times since 2003, for a total of 84%—totally shameful. If you’re a family with a smart meter at your home, well, you’ve seen your hydro bill go up a staggering 150%. When I knocked on doors in my riding of Huron–Bruce during the past election, I can assure you that the top issues people wanted to talk about were jobs and the cost of living. I ask, when is this government finally going to get it?

Like me, the tenants’ groups note that this legislation won’t really change a thing. It’s an attempt by the government to really be seen as doing something at a time when I believe real, substantive change is necessary. It’s quite ironic that this government has crafted a piece of legislation aimed to narrow-cast a message to such a select group of stakeholders, even as the group they’re trying to appease has called it a failure.

You know what? Speaking about failure, I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to touch on the absolute failure of this Liberal government with regard to acknowledging the will of the people and to follow through on what the Minister of Health said she would do—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member is drifting again. We’re not talking about health; we’re talking about lodging.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you, Speaker. Failures are failures, and we have to take this opportunity to utilize the tools at our disposal to demonstrate the fact that this government isn’t listening. We won’t stop until they do the honourable thing and strike a select committee on Ornge. It is the right thing to do.

Coming back, in terms of the right thing to do, this bill that we’re debating today will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the ongoing maintenance issues that plague social housing units. It’s estimated that there’s a $3-billion repair backlog. When is that going to be addressed? Because it is indeed, again, the right thing to do. This government simply hasn’t made the right investments.

But there’s more when it comes from groups who wish to seek reform. I feel that this legislation is actually the result of the HST. That has had a very significant impact on people who have houses or apartment buildings. It’s obviously an impact on the tenants. It’s that ripple effect that flows down, and at the end of the day, the only shoulders left to carry this burden are the taxpayers’.

Let’s talk about the HST. For an example, I just got the snow removal bill for my office. I was taken aback at how expensive that is getting. We’ve had a warm winter, yet due to the HST and the added cost of operating, those operators have to pass that expense along, so at the end of the day, it hits the end-user. This is what the real problem is.

We can talk about the tenancy act, but it’s about affordability. It’s about maintaining and managing the cost of living. It’s about making life just a little bit easier in Ontario. The fact of the matter is, the PC caucus has warned the government about the risk of the HST and the new costs that it would impose on landlords. Again, those new costs ultimately land on the shoulders of the people who we’re trying to represent here in this chamber. The McGuinty Liberals have ignored the warnings. They have pushed the new cost on landlords, leaving them, as I said, with no choice but to raise rents.

So often, it seems that this government’s attitude is to let somebody else take the blame or to pick up the bill and pay for it. The Progressive Conservative caucus, led by Tim Hudak, has repeatedly warned the government of the risk of Ontario’s rental housing stock deteriorating with the additional costs of the HST, on top of the risk that small landlords might get out of the business altogether. The impact of energy increases—we all know where that’s going. It’s leaving nothing in the pockets of ordinary Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, we have to encourage this government to develop a strategy, take the chips where they lay and understand that we need jobs, we need affordability, and they need to be doing a better job to address the real issues in this province today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions? Comments?

Miss Monique Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to stand, in the matter of the member from Huron–Bruce, and to just comment.

She’s saying that the job creation would solve the issues of the rent increase here that’s happening in the province. You know, the job creation that is happening in this province is part-time jobs, contract jobs, minimum wage jobs, so that’s not going to help with the housing issue.

A rent increase is going to hurt everyday folks. We know that this is happening. For people in Hamilton Mountain, to get a bachelor apartment, it’s currently $510 a month, and that’s cheap compared to Toronto, but a person on Ontario Works is making $599 a month, so figure it out.

We had to beg for a 1% increase for those folks on Ontario Works, but we’re allowing a 2.5% increase on the rent. This isn’t working. We need affordable housing; that’s where this bill has to come back to. It’s not about how much we’re going to allow the rent to increase; it’s about what we’re going to do about the big picture as a whole.

The member also mentioned the HST and how that’s affecting folks with the hydro. Yes, that’s why we brought forward a bill to take the HST off home heating, to make it easier for folks in their homes to be able to deal with everyday life, because it is too hard in Ontario.

Hopefully, when we get this bill to committee, we can make some amendments to make it a little better.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m looking at some of the average rent increases in between 1975 and 2012. Do you know, Speaker, under the watch of which government the rent increases have been the lowest? That would be the Liberal government. And under which government were the rental increases the highest? That would have been the NDP. So I think it’s actually time to call a spade a spade here.

Among the things our government has done, not merely in this bill but in the others—you know, in the last month for which figures were available, Ontario created 46,000 net new jobs—overwhelmingly full-time, high-value jobs. And with the overhaul of Ontario’s tax system, one of the other things that we’re able to see, particularly in my neighbourhoods in western Mississauga, has been the renaissance of high-value manufacturing. These are the things that are helping put Ontarians back to work, and that’s what we’re really here to do.

One of the things that this bill offers people, besides moderate rent increases, is something that they don’t get on the other side, which is hope. We’re offering people hope, hope of a decent future, hope of a great job, the ability to retrain—it’s hope. The rent increases in the last several years are just another manifestation of it. Starting from 2003: 2.9%, 2.9%, 1.5%, 2.1%, 2.6%—none of the increases were in the threes and the fours. It’s moderate, it’s reasonable and it works.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I enjoyed the address by my colleague from Huron–Bruce. Hopefully, I’m going to get a little latitude here, because the government House leader has been given quite a bit of latitude with his dissertations this morning.

I just want to explain a little bit about the standing orders of the House here, Mr. Speaker. When a bill comes before this Legislature, every member has the right to speak to that bill, and the members of the PC caucus are exercising that right that is granted to them by the standing orders of this Legislature. If the government House leader wants to put forward changes to those standing orders, let’s hear about it.

But they also have the right to invoke closure or time allocation motions to any bill. They can do that to this bill, as they can with any bill, just as they did with Bill 13, the Accepting Schools Act. They brought a time allocation motion to the House, and then they subsequently withdrew it because there was a deal made to speak about Bill 14 and Bill 13 at the same time.

Notice I said “Bill 14 and Bill 13.” You might expect me to say 13 and 14, but the reason I say Bill 14 and Bill 13 is that Bill 13 is now in committee, and the government is hearing in boxcar letters from almost every deputant that the bill they want to see brought forward is Bill 14, because it is the one that actually tackles the issue of bullying in our schools.

To the point of the government House leader and why we continue to speak to bills, it is our right, but, yes, we have made it absolutely crystal clear that until this government stands by its word and promises made to this House, we will continue to use what arrows we have in the quiver until they bring forth a select committee on Ornge, or at least accept a change in the terms of reference for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s very likely that the member from Huron–Bruce will agree with me on this: Bill 19 is so minuscule as to be almost utterly insignificant. But that’s what Liberals are good for, and they are exemplary in that regard.

Here’s one of the little problemos: Liberals have created very little affordable housing. That’s why the list of people waiting to get into affordable housing is 152,000. Liberals, in eight and a half years, have not created one single co-op—not one co-op—something that in the accord, of which the member from Mississauga–Streetsville mentioned little—in the accord of 1985 to 1987, we built a huge number of co-ops that a lot of Liberals like, I think.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Scarborough–Rouge River might want to get back in his seat if he wants to make comments.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: So not one single co-op has been built in the Liberal regime.

Secondly, vacancy decontrol as it relates to Bill 19 means the following: When a tenant moves into another building, of all the three million tenants that we’ve got, when they move from one to the other, the landlord can increase rent at whatever level he or she wants. So this bill has practically no effect at all, and none of the Liberals speak to it because I suspect most of you are not aware of it, to be fair—and I say this uncritically.

Thirdly, exemptions: New buildings—and the government doesn’t give figures for this—are exempt from rent control. So your Bill 19 has utterly no effect on those buildings whatsoever. You don’t speak to that, because I suspect most of you are not aware of that, and I don’t say that critically, but you’re not aware of it. So this bill has no effect on that either. It would be good to speak to that, and I wonder whether the member from Huron–Bruce agrees with me on that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Huron–Bruce has two minutes to reply.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: To my colleague from Trinity–Spadina, I do agree with you that this bill really is minuscule, and at the end of the day with regard to the big picture, it really doesn’t have a big impact. In terms of affordable housing, again, I talk about the fact that this is a chicken-and-egg issue. The fact is, people need affordable living. The cost of living is going through the roof. Again, when people come calling in our constituency offices in Blyth and Kincardine, it’s about being able to pay the bills. That concept and that worry completely is missed by the government of the day, and that is sad.

Because of that, I totally agree with the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke as well. Because of that, because the government is totally void of a strategy and totally negligent in terms of listening to the will of the people, we do have the right to stand up and express what really matters. To that end, I find it interesting that the member from Mississauga–Streetsville spoke to the fact that in terms of what matters to him, he had to realize that the highest rent was actually realized by the NDP government. It’s interesting to learn.

But what struck me most was a comment made by our colleague from Hamilton Mountain. She referenced the cost of rent. She made me think of my nephew, actually. He’s a recent graduate in the film industry, and he wants to move downtown. You know, the cost of living is just exorbitant. Think of those young people who are just trying to get started. This young gentleman by the name of Kyle Detzler, from Teeswater, Ontario: His short film has been nominated to be marshalled at the Toronto International Film Festival—incredibly proud. But do you know what?

Life is going to be so expensive for this young gentleman of 23 years of age. How is he ever going to get started? At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we need affordable living, and that’s how he and others will get ahead.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I rise today to speak to the government’s Bill 19, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, 2012. This is a simple proposal by the minister to limit yearly rent increases for tenants across the province to between 1% and 2.5%. No matter what the consumer price index indicator is in a given year, the guideline would have a floor and a ceiling as mandated by the ministry.

This is a proposal that is both unnecessary and detrimental to the rental housing sector. I speak today against this bill, and my comments will outline why I think this bill is a bad bill that should not pass second reading.

In Carleton–Mississippi Mills, the riding I represent on the west side of Ottawa, which includes the fast-growing community of Kanata, we have many tenants. Since I was elected in October, I have worked on behalf of tenants who are constituents. The system can be very difficult for them navigate, so I’ve been there to help them a bit, as I would help any constituent. Government has become too large and cumbersome, and government has too much control over the private relationship between a tenant and their landlord. I’m also in contact with landlords who have to deal with the government in the way tenants do.

There is much that can be done to improve the situation for our privately owned rental housing sector in Ontario. As I mentioned, I’m opposed to Bill 19. I cannot support the minister’s proposal for the following reasons: (1) this is a bill by a government trying to give the appearance they’re doing something substantial for tenants at the expense of landlords; and (2) this is a bill that attempts and fails to roll back some of the negative effects of the HST on the rental housing sector in Ontario for both tenants and landlords.

Bill 19 comes at a time when the cost of living is going up for tenants. Bill 19 comes at a time when the cost of running a business is going up for landlords. Bill 19 is the wrong bill at the wrong time. I will outline later what the government could have done to improve tenant-landlord legislation.

First, this is a bill by a government trying to give the appearance that they’re doing something substantial for tenants at the expense to landlords. To put a floor and a ceiling into the province’s yearly rent increase guideline calculation will not help tenants. The last time the province’s rent increase guideline was above 2.5% was in 2007, and for the last 18 years, it has never been over 3%. In historical context, this is very low. In the 1970s, the average increase guideline was 8%, quadruple what it has been recently.

Nowadays, a tenant’s ability to pay is well protected by the fact that the guideline is now legislatively tied directly to the consumer price index. Further, Bill 19 would result in a false economy. This move proposed by this government bill would not produce substantially lower costs for tenants, only a few dollars saved per year. This government wants to appear to be on the side of tenants, however hollow the results.

In contrast to any small, positive effect a tenant may feel, the landlord would feel negative effects on a much larger scale. Running an apartment building as a business is a large-scale, costly operation, particularly if the building is older. A landlord whose cost recovery would be restricted by this bill would start to reduce his or her costs to adjust for this new law. The landlord would be tempted to postpone annual maintenance work.

Bill 19 is a proposal for more over-lawing, an extension of McGuinty’s nanny state: over-regulation of a private business, over-regulation of the free market, expecting landlords to be charitable when they are running a business. It’s a business, not a charity. It’s the free market economy, not an extension of social housing. The market is either free or it’s not. Under this government, it is not nearly as free as it should be. They habitually pass out taxpayer money to subsidize what the market doesn’t support.

The rental housing sector and its dwindling housing stock are part of our free market, regardless of the government’s policies. It’s a part that is particularly over-governed. The province’s stock of rental housing will continue to dwindle as long as it is not a full part of a free market economy. If the market sees over-regulation and does not see reasonable profit to be made, it will not invest. Landlords provide a private service. Landlords don’t provide a public service, and should not be treated as such.

Second overall, this is a bill that attempts and fails to roll back some of the negative effects of the HST on the rental housing sector in Ontario for both tenants and landlords. The HST has increased the cost of many things by 8% that used to be only subject to the 5% GST. The Progressive Conservatives tried to steer this Liberal government clear of the HST. We told them it would hurt tenants and landlords alike. Costs have gone up for both tenants and landlords, just like we said they would. This is a government that won’t listen.

This government could have helped businesses streamline their tax reporting in a way other than harmonizing sales taxes, a way that would have protected businesses and consumers from increased costs due to taxation. But they chose to continue with their spinoff scheme to reap even more taxes from you and me. The HST is nothing more than a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic measure that hits consumers where it hurts, and at the expense of business owners. People can buy fewer things if they have less money in their pocket. This government has become good at extracting after-tax dollars from our pockets.

When the Liberals don’t get enough from our income taxes, they slap on special taxes. This has been the story since the Liberals were elected in 2003. The HST is the latest chapter.

The overarching, overlying effect of this bill is wrong. I will not be voting for this bill, and neither will my caucus colleagues. Tampering with and hampering private business affairs should not be encouraged and, if possible, left out entirely.

Instead of Bill 19’s focus, I know government could have brought forward other amendments to the Residential Tendencies Act, 2006. This bill seems to be a political move, one that is more smoke than mirrors, but one that plays well to their base of support. The government could have focused on streamlining how the Landlord and Tenant Board works by changing the administrative and legal regime and having proper recordings of the proceedings so cases could move faster and there is less room for error.

Another amendment could have been to reduce taxes on money a landlord puts into a capital reserve fund for his or her property. What about eliminating the HST for a landlord’s business costs and a tenant’s housing costs? These other measures would help reduce government’s involvement in the privately owned rental housing sector. These measures would get government out of the way of the business of providing goods and services for a fair cost.

In closing, I remain opposed to this legislation, Bill 19, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, 2012. It is a bad apple and should be thrown out. In support of both tenants and landlords, I add my voice against overregulation, against false hope by false economy, and I add my voice against government interfering with the free market. I will be voting against this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: What I like about the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills’s speech is that it is undiluted Conservative ideology. It’s clear and it’s clean, and I disagree with it completely, but at least it’s clear. The point is that he supports this free market system: there ought not to be any regulations as it relates to the rental market. We disagree with that. There are times when, if we do not impose regulations on the free market system, they collapse the whole economy. They collapse countries, as we’ve seen in the US, with the ripple effects across the world. Free markets don’t work.

We cannot let them do what they want, and that’s why regulations are a big part of who we are as government.

I want to say this: Rental landlords have been getting—let’s not call them “caps”—the increases of 2% or 3%, whatever CPI existed, for a long, long time. It doesn’t mean that landlords spent that in maintenance. I always believed that wasn’t the case. If they were using those regular increases for maintenance, those buildings would be well maintained, but they don’t use it for that purpose, one. Secondly is my argument—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Some may but many do not. They use that as further investment in other rental buildings or now condo buildings.

They are allowed to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for extraordinary expenses. So when you’ve got increases—heat, increases of this kind, hydro or heating bills—they can apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board and they probably will get those increases. The market still works for them, and the law allows them to get those regular increases.

This bill is a little bill. It doesn’t do much. It’s better than nothing, and we’ve got to do more.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I’m pleased to just add a few comments to the speech made by the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, and I listened to him very attentively. To be honest with you, I was not surprised at his comments, because he has been very consistent since he arrived here with his tone of voice in terms of the free market and less regulation and no government. Probably, if you asked him if he supports democracy, he would probably say no.

But regardless of that, we have a bill in front of us—I’ve been here just over six years; every year this particular piece of legislation comes forward, and we routinely adopt it. But this year, for some reason, we’re sitting here debating it, and I think we’re almost close to 15 hours and we’re just going in circles and circles. Our friends across the way have rang the bells consistently over the last couple of weeks, and we’re not getting the job done that the public sent us to do.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: The public wants an inquiry.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My friend across the hall is shouting at me that they want an inquiry. Fair ball, you want an inquiry, but why should you hold up what the public is asking us to do? We should do it.

To be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, tenants out there need this piece of legislation so that they can benefit from the actions that are being taken by this bill to limit rent increases in our community to help those who are in need. It also helps landlords so that they know what they can expect in rent increases so that they can carry on their business. But unfortunately, we sit here and we debate this bill over and over because the opposition party is ringing the bells on a continuous basis. But you notice this morning it’s Wednesday; they did not ring the bells.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’m pleased to stand and speak to the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, and I do support much of what he says.

I was a child of the 1960s. When I graduated from college in 1968, I had a job to go to before I even got out of school. And I actually do remember most of the 1960s, which is something I’m very proud of. Anyway, when I graduated, I had a job to go to, which a lot of people don’t have right now. We have somewhere around 600,000 people unemployed in this province, and that’s the core of this problem. People need to have an income to pay their rents.

We have introduced ideas to the government, and they just flatly rejected our ideas, such as changing the apprenticeship system. We feel there are 200,000 jobs available there. We also want to change the energy policy to make it more affordable for people and businesses to flourish in this province. But again, we keep being rejected by them.

I’ve been lucky all my life. I’ve only been unemployed I think for a total of three months in my whole lifetime. When I stopped farming and started to work with my wife in her business, we were fortunate to raise three sons, and they are all on their own and doing quite well, thank you. But there’s still the 600,000 people that don’t have that opportunity.

We’ve always taken great pride in that we’ve always been able to pay our rent, if we were renting, or our mortgage payments. That’s what people want; they want a sense of pride in what they’re doing. I think the real problem here is that the opportunity for real, meaningful work in this province has eroded—just too many people. I think that’s the real crux of this problem.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Milloy: I just want to put on the record again the fact that this is a very important bill for tenants, this is a very important bill for landlords, when we’re talking about their ability to manage their relationship and manage as they move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that we’ve heard from the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, as well as the NDP, about the brevity of the bill, about the fact that this bill just incorporates, really, a small piece of the larger puzzle. They say it over and over again, yet, according to the notes that I’ve been given when we began debate this morning, we have spent 14 hours and 50 minutes, nearly 15 hours, on a bill which all parties are indicating is a small piece of the puzzle. Instead, what we’ve been subjected to for most of that 15 hours has been constant bell-ringing and procedural tactics.

As I’ve said a number of times this morning, the simple fact is that members of this Legislature may oppose a piece of legislation. They have every opportunity to speak about that during debate. They have an opportunity at committee to put forward amendments, to hear from deputations if the committee decides on that. But instead, Mr. Speaker, we’ve been subject to this procedural wrangling. You’re not seeing it—for those of you watching it at home—this morning because in fact there is a standing committee of this Legislature which is looking into the very serious Ornge situation.

So when the opposition stands up and says, “This is a minor bill,” well, then I’ll say, “Fine, then let’s pass it; let’s send it to second reading.” When they say, “We want to engage in this procedural wrangling because of the need to investigate Ornge,” I point out, as we speak this morning, a standing committee of the Legislature is looking into the Ornge situation, something that was agreed upon by all sides of this House.

After over 15 hours, it’s time to get this bill—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I think this bill does nothing, as many people have already talked about. It’s a 1% solution; it solves nothing. If we ever actually got to a point where some landlord was legislated to have a 1% rent increase, that means, compared to where we are today, where we have approximately 2% in consumer price index growth—and we’re in terrible shape. We have high unemployment, huge debt, huge deficit, the worst we’ve ever had. If we ever actually get to 1%, that’s designed failure. Can you imagine how it would be in this country?

There would be higher unemployment, less reason to invest in new housing, and there would be greater need for new housing. When we have people that take money out of rent and put it towards building new houses, that’s a good thing. That would be an incentive for investors to build more, which would reduce the number of people standing on the street looking for a house.

The 2.5% would be even worse, because that would indicate that when the consumer price index goes above 2.5%, when our economy starts to thrive and there are jobs and things do go up and there are profits, debts start to disappear, deficits disappear—we’re going to limit that to 2.5% for a rent increase? No investor in his right mind is ever going to build a rental house again in that scenario. They would take their money and invest somewhere they could make a much higher rate of return.

I think we’re up to almost 16 hours now, and I’m glad to do that because we have a government here who’s not giving us an Ornge committee, and that’s what we need to do. We need to fix that problem and get democracy working, and we need to have our Board of Internal Economy revisited and reworked. These things need to be done, and then we will co-operate with you. That’s up to you, sir, to fix the problem.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome today Tony Doyle, joining us in the members’ east gallery, from my riding of Durham. He and his wife, Sandra, must be very proud: Their son Brady, who is a page here, is captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m pleased to welcome here today members of the Ontario Environment Industry Association, who are holding their annual Queen’s Park day here at the Legislature. ONEIA will be holding a reception in the legislative dining room from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. this evening. I encourage all of my fellow members to attend. We welcome them to Queen’s Park, and I know they’d be interested in knowing that the St. Catharines Junior B Falcons defeated Brantford to win the Sutherland Cup.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I believe that was out of order.

The member for Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce, from the Northumberland Community Counselling Centre, Patricia Hollingsworth, the executive director, and Janet Irvine, the board chair.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to introduce Shelley Watt Proulx, the executive director of the Counselling Centre of East Algoma, who is here today for Family Services Day.

Mr. Bob Delaney: It’s my pleasure to introduce two outstanding optometrists from western Mississauga. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Sabrina Ahmed and Dr. Suleman Remtulla, who are visiting us here in the Legislature for the first time.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my great pleasure to welcome today to Queen’s Park Mr. Don Pitt, the executive director of the Family Counselling Centre, from Sarnia, here to take

part in Family Services Day.

Hon. John Milloy: I would like to welcome Leslie Josling and Paul Rossi from KW Counselling, along with Sue Gillespie from Mosaic Counselling. They are joining us from the beautiful riding of Kitchener Centre for Family Services Day here at Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Good morning. I stand today to welcome a friend and constituent of mine—I’m looking up at the gallery—Joyce Zuk, who is the executive director of Family Service Windsor-Essex, who’s here for Family Services Day. Thank you for the work that you and your staff do each day, and welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Family Service Ontario is here today. Welcome to you all, specifically Alex MacDougall, the board chair; John Ellis, the executive director; Sandra Savage, the executive director from the London Family Service Thames Valley; and Bev Noble, the board chair of Family Service Thames Valley.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Our community has a friend in the House today: Allan McQuarrie, the executive director of the Community Counselling Centre of Nipissing. Welcome, Allan.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature today, for Family Services Day, from Thunder Bay and the Catholic Family Development Centre there, Carol Cline, as well as to acknowledge the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre and their executive director, Nancy Chamberlain.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome Alex MacDougall, past president, and Ray Houde, the executive director, for our Family Services Day. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to welcome guests from Peel-Dufferin Catholic Family Services, including Mark Creedon, Ehsan Khandaker, Valerie Anderson, Angelica Lopez, Carol-Ann Drinkwater, Theresa Koutzodimos and Stacey-Ann Brown.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for allowing me to welcome Syed Warsi, from the wonderful riding of Markham–Unionville. He’s visiting his daughter and page, Safa Warsi. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to welcome friends of mine, Nancy and Steve Rastin. Steve’s here today with the Ontario Trial Lawyers’ Association. He runs a thriving practice, Rastin & Associates, in Barrie and Midland and—okay.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: It’s my pleasure to introduce Asquith Allen. He lives in the riding of York South–Weston, and he is with York University and the Ontario Young Liberals association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome Elisha Laker, Mariana Benitez and Susan Warren, from Family Services York Region, to the House today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery today, from the riding of Oxford, we have at Queen’s Park today students, parents and staff from the Oxford Reformed Christian School as guests of the Speaker. The member from Oxford and I will meet on the grand staircase for a photo. Welcome to Queen’s Park on your adventure in Toronto.

And other guests of mine, from the great riding of Brant—even though we didn’t beat St. Catharines—we have joining us today at Queen’s Park the principal of St. Leo School, Dr. Dale Petruka, and her students Hannah Puckering and Sofia DiFelice. Welcome.

On a point of order, the member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for introducing the class from the Oxford Reformed Christian School, and I do think that they are as important that they should be introduced by the Speaker, but I do want to add my personal welcome to them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not a point of order, but I would expect that you would stand and say so.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, yesterday you said, “We ... must achieve 0%.... We have built those numbers into the budget.” You also pointed out that it’s important to freeze wages.

Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly agrees we need to freeze wages, the Premier agrees we need to freeze wages; the charter allows you to do it. In fairness to Ontarians, why won’t the minister join this party and commit to an across-the-board legislated public sector wage freeze?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The charter allows it under certain conditions and meeting those conditions, which include full discussion and negotiation. I would refer the member opposite to the British Columbia Supreme Court ruling. We have a number of legal opinions that share the same point of view with respect to how we proceed.

It’s not a question, as I say—your leader pointed out yesterday page 171 of the budget: $6 billion over the next three years. We have laid out mandates with four of the agreements that are up this year, all of which contemplate, frankly, more than net zeros, but real zeros, and we want to move forward with our partners in the public and broader public sectors and avoid the constitutional traps that are there, as well as avoiding the kind of name-calling and bringing down working people the way your government did 10 years ago.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, both the Premier and this minister have indicated that there are constitutional impediments to a legislated wage freeze in one breath, but in the next breath they’re saying they’re prepared to take those steps if necessary. They can’t have it both ways. Either it’s one way or it isn’t, and I’m sure that the minister’s legal advisers have advised him that it is possible to take the step and to legislate a public sector wage freeze when there are pressing fiscal circumstances.

Clearly, we’re facing a $30-billion deficit. If there are pressing legal circumstances other than that, I can’t imagine what they are. Minister, why won’t you take these steps and take action right away?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The risk associated with moving in the way the opposition wants to move is quite high from a court challenge perspective. We have to rely on the best advice available to us.

The most recent example where that risk is high is British Columbia. I remind the member opposite that the federal government in fact didn’t legislate a wage freeze; they legislated a 1.5% increase, but they did that after thorough discussions, and they are still before the courts. There are a number of challenges going on.

The worst thing we could do is proceed in haste and not get it right, because if we don’t get it right, we will not be able to achieve the goal. There are elements of risk in this, and we have sought both internal and external advice. We look forward to working with the official opposition as we move to achieve the wage freeze undertakings in the budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, the British Columbia case to which the minister is referring has largely been overridden by other cases, as he would know. I would refer him to the Fraser case, which indicates that where there are pressing fiscal circumstances, there are situations where governments can take action.

We’re looking at a $30-billion deficit. We’ve had three downgrades. We’ve actually had our bonds downgraded by one international credit rating agency. This is a time to take leadership on this file and to take action. It’s urgent. Why won’t the minister take action and legislate a public sector wage freeze now?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, just to correct the record, Ontario is not faced with a $30-billion deficit. At a minimum, I would suggest that the member opposite speak to facts. Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, don’t add after I get quiet.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The public accounts next year will show that, and we can compare what is said in here versus what reality is at that time.

So no, they’re wrong. I’m not going to risk this situation based on very poor advice from the opposition. We will proceed, trying to work with our partners to achieve balance so we can continue to make the investments in education and health care that we think are very important.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question this time is to the Attorney General, and it concerns again the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries.

Minister, in addition to the financial concerns that have been expressed with respect to this group, a legal opinion from McCarthy Tétrault regarding the group’s board states that the appointment of all board members appears to be invalid. The opinion goes on to state, “This is presumably a matter of considerable interest and concern to the government, to the relevant regulatory bodies” and to the group itself. “In such circumstances, immediate administrative investigation and intervention appears to be warranted.”

Minister, this is a very serious concern expressed by a well-respected law firm in 2009. Why hasn’t this compelled you to investigate this group’s rogue activities?

Hon. John Gerretsen: We respect the opinion of the various law firms that may be involved in this, but we respect an opinion of a court even more. If there are issues that are to be worked out between the Mount Pleasant Group and all those people who don’t agree with what they’re doing right now, there is one avenue to deal with that, and that is to bring a court application so that the issues can be dealt with by a judge, as is always done in our system in any dispute that is a private dispute between individuals and an entity like this. That’s where it should be dealt with.

There are many opinions out there. I respect this opinion, but there are other opinions as well that are contrary to that opinion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: With respect, it’s ridiculous to expect that parties should have to go to a court when the jurisdiction to act lies with the Attorney General’s office to begin with. The minister will know very clearly that the Charities Accounting Act gives you the ability to investigate, through the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, the activities of any charity.

Numerous red flags have been raised with respect to the activities of this group. You can no longer abdicate your responsibilities. Instead of telling us it’s not your jurisdiction, that people should go to the courts, will you undertake your responsibility, request the financial records of the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries, and make those records available to the public, as they should be?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, it’s my understanding that the Mount Pleasant Group has just issued a statement in that regard which I’ve only just received. I’ll have to take a look at that to see how it affects this particular situation.

But what’s interesting is that there are no public funds. There are no government funds involved in this whatsoever. This was done under a statute—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order.

Hon. John Gerretsen: The corporation was set up under a statute that well precedes the existence of the province of Ontario.

Unless there are some allegations with respect to some criminal activity that would be—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order—second time, same question.

Hon. John Gerretsen: —that would appropriately be dealt with by a police investigation, there is not very much that the government of Ontario is going to get involved in this case, without it being taken to the proper authorities, which is to take the matter to court.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again, with respect, the fact that this group has never received any public funding is completely irrelevant. It’s like any other charity. The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee can investigate any charity, and you well know that, Mr. Attorney General.

This is not a private dispute; this is something that involves the public. This is money that was established as a public trust for the benefit of the people of York, now the city of Toronto. They have assets of over $1 billion under their administration. It’s alleged they’ve made hundreds of millions of dollars, and no one knows where it’s going. I cannot for the life of me understand why you do not accept that it is your responsibility to investigate this. Mr. Speaker, why won’t the Attorney General do his job and look into this matter?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, the Mount Pleasant Group complies with all the requirements under the Cemeteries Act. That’s number one. As far as I know, there have been no allegations of any kind of criminal activities. If there were, then the proper investigations would be taking place by the police.

The amount of money that was actually invested in 1827, the way I understand it, was $300. A dollar was put into a kitty by 300 different individuals. It’s a corporation that looks after cemeteries, not only at Mount Pleasant but in other areas as well.

There are other ways in which the private dispute between this organization and the group of individuals that don’t like what’s going on can be dealt with, and that proper place is the court system. The member, who’s a highly respected member of the legal profession, well knows that.

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today’s announcement about Cliffs Resources proves what New Democrats have been saying for quite a while: Ontario has the skilled workforce and the ability to process natural resources and create prosperity and good jobs right here in Ontario. But there are still questions we need answered, Speaker. Can the Acting Premier tell us whether all processing will be done here in Ontario, or will Cliffs still be shipping away partially processed resources to create jobs somewhere else?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Today, Cliffs Natural Resources announced a $3.3-billion investment in northern Ontario. You said it wouldn’t happen. They announced that they’re going to build a chromite mine. They’re going to build a new transportation corridor and, yes, a $1.8-billion processing facility in Capreol, near Sudbury. You said that wouldn’t happen. This government is delivering for northern Ontario over your objections, over your inappropriateness. But most importantly, 1,200 aboriginal Ontarians will work in this facility as part of the deal.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Be seated, please.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Earlier today, the Minister of Northern Development said the government hasn’t quite worked out the details about the processing of the materials. Over here we think that’s a pretty important detail to be worked out, and thousands of good jobs rely on that detail. If the government doesn’t know today, when exactly will they know?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The leader of the third party will be aware that because of the large nature of this, because of what the economists and accountants call the material nature of this, Cliffs had to disclose their $3.3-billion investment in northern Ontario. With processing of the natural resources happening in Ontario, with 1,200 First Nations Ontarians working at the site, Mr. Speaker, this is a big announcement for northern Ontario.

We will finalize those negotiations. Full transparency and accountability said we had to put this out, and Cliffs did. This is good news. You ought to be celebrating instead of nitpicking about something that is probably the most important announcement in northern—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, New Democrats have been very, very clear. If we’re going to build a prosperous and sustainable future, we need to be smart and focus on creating those good jobs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Peterborough, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario’s natural resources should be used to create those good jobs and prosperity here in Ontario, not somewhere else—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —and the government support should be tied to that job guarantee. Do the McGuinty Liberals share that commitment, yes or no?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, second time.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the member opposite about the mining sector in Ontario: $3.5 billion in capital investment in 2011, the highest in Canada; over $1 billion in mining exploration—for the first time ever, last year we hit $1 billion; 27,000 direct jobs in metal mining; 50,000 related processing jobs; one quarter of all Canadian mining jobs.

This is a great day for northern Ontario. You ought to be celebrating a good deal for northerners, for aboriginals, for all Ontarians. It’s about a brighter future. It’s about confidence in our economy and the confidence that the private sector has as well in the future of Canada’s greatest province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. New question.

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is back to the Acting Premier. I think he needs to actually be clear about the fact that there’s not quite a deal yet. We just want to make sure it’s the best deal that we can get for northern Ontario.

The support of First Nations is going to be absolutely vital if the Ring of Fire development is going to proceed, yet we learned today that yesterday, some First Nations were caught completely off guard by this announcement. Why didn’t the government engage in proper consultations with First Nations, Speaker?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, 1,200 jobs for First Nations—First Nations have been involved in those discussions. I don’t know where she gets her information. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: She ought to be celebrating this. It is good news for the north. It’s good news for aboriginal Ontarians. It’s good news for all Ontarians.

We’re getting the processing in Capreol: 450 construction jobs, 400 permanent jobs. We’re processing one quarter of all the minerals found in Canada, right here in Ontario. Our mining sector is leading the way as we move back to balance in this province, as we move back to a stronger and better future for all Ontarians, most importantly aboriginal Ontarians, who have an important role to play not only here but in Mattagami, in all the great developments in the north. We pledge to continue to work with them for a better future for their children as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Earlier today the Minister of Northern Development said that First Nations must be “front and centre.” Does the Acting Premier think that refusing to talk to First Nations until the day before an announcement is the definition of “front and centre”?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, that is just simply not correct. There have been numerous discussions. This is a large opportunity for all Ontarians. We’re particularly proud that our aboriginal communities in the north have the opportunity to share in this enormous development, share in its prosperity. We’re proud of our government’s record in sharing resource revenues. I think of Mattagami, Mr. Speaker. We’re proud of our record in sharing of gaming revenues. I think of the new accord we came to terms with. There are always issues to be dealt with.

Instead of celebrating this, the third party wants to denigrate the deal, undermine it. Mr. Speaker, northerners are celebrating today. They see this as a great opportunity, and they know it was this government that delivered on the commitment to jobs and investment for northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If we want to bring prosperity to the north, it needs to be there for everyone. If proper consultation does not happen, the jobs promised today could be lost to drawn-out disputes, and those people on that side should know that very well. They’ve had to deal with a lot of those drawn-out disputes. People who need the opportunity most in these situations could be the exact ones who end up falling behind.

Will the Acting Premier admit that they should have engaged First Nations from the very start? And are they ready now to roll up their sleeves and engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations to ensure their full participation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What I can say to our aboriginal brothers and sisters is this government is prepared to work with them day and night, as we have. This announcement today is great news for aboriginal Ontarians, it’s great news for northerners and it’s great news for all Ontarians. It’s about a brighter future for their children and our children. We need no lesson from that party on dealing with our First Nations, Mr. Speaker. We are proud of the relationships we have.

We have more to do, and we’ll continue to build on the success we’ve achieved, because there are still too many First Nations communities that don’t have adequate services, still too many First Nation children who aren’t getting an equal education. We pledge to continue to build on the successes we’ve announced today, to build a better—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You’ve been in government for almost a decade and you’ve done nothing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

New question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. For months, we’ve been warning the minister about the staffing policies at Ornge that leave bases understaffed and incapable of responding to emergency calls.

It’s now been four months since the minister’s leadership team has been in place, and ensuring proper staffing policies surely should have been a priority. I ask the minister to listen to this transcript of a call that was monitored on the emergency frequency this morning:

“One person trapped. Extrication under way. EMS on scene, asking for air ambulance. Dispatch telling them they are unavailable until after 7:15 due to downstaffing.”

The person in question had to be transferred by land ambulance. He died.

I ask the minister, if ensuring proper staffing levels was not a priority for her leadership team, what was?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The first thing, I need to acknowledge that this is a tragic vehicle accident, and my heart goes out to the loved ones of the family. I do want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the first responders, the firefighters, the police, the paramedics for all the work they do on the front lines in this case and in others.

I know that Ornge is called when there is a very serious accident, when a patient is in critical condition, and I know, Speaker, that along with all the other first responders, they work very, very hard to save lives every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, we want to express our condolences to the family as well. But this is a matter of responsibility that goes directly to the Minister of Health. She had a responsibility to ensure that her new leadership team was prioritizing patient care. She knew full well that there were far too many incidents, already 13 investigations of incidents where calls could not be properly responded to.

I ask the minister this: Why has she not been monitoring the performance of her new leadership team to ensure that staffing levels, above all else, were there to ensure that any emergency call could be properly responded to?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can assure the member opposite and the people of Ontario that staffing is a very, very high priority for the new leadership at Ornge. They are working very hard to get the right staffing in place so that they can provide the best possible care for the people of this province.

I can assure the member opposite also that the new performance agreement that we have put in place compels Ornge to provide us with information on the requests they have received, the percentages that they have serviced, and the reasons why the balance of the calls were not in fact responded to.

This is the highest priority for the people at Ornge. It is a tragedy. I urge the member opposite not to politicize this tragedy.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Michael Mantha: The question is to the Acting Premier. Mr. Bartolucci made an announcement this morning that Cliffs Resources is planning a smelter in Sudbury. This morning, the minister has refused to indicate how much of the ore extracted in Ontario will be processed in Ontario, and he also mentioned an exemption. Why won’t the government say whether Cliffs has been granted an exemption to ship resources out of Ontario for processing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A quarter of all metal resources in Canada are processed in Ontario. This is good news for Ontario; it is good news. We are locating a processing facility in Capreol. I wish the NDP would celebrate that. So we have a processing plant that will create 450 jobs in construction, 450 permanent jobs, and we are proud to celebrate this announcement today.

We look forward to Cliffs. Because of the material nature of this, they had to go public, as we did, to disclose just how important this is for Cliffs, to Ontario, to the First Nations of Ontario, to all Ontarians.

You know what? This is good news. We’re processing in Ontario, something we’ve delivered and you haven’t.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Let me be clear about where our position is. We support good jobs in Ontario, but we want to make sure that we’re getting good jobs in here furthermost for all Ontarians.

Although Cliffs announced a smelter in Sudbury, the company is still in talks about getting exemptions to shift the semi-processed ore overseas for processing. Our communities need resources mined in Ontario to stay in Ontario for processing, to create stable jobs and take full advantage of the opportunities that the Ring of Fire presents. Why won’t this government say whether it plans on granting an exemption to the company to allow it to ship raw exports outside of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me remind the member opposite just what the NDP campaigned on, Mr. Speaker. In their last platform, the NDP said they would put a moratorium on development north of 51. That would have stopped the Ring of Fire. That was in your platform.

With respect to First Nations, let me read a quote from this morning: “Webequie First Nation acknowledges Ontario’s commitment to support the directly impacted First Nations and to engage the federal government in the trilateral process. It is important for all levels of government, including local impacted First Nations governments, to work ... towards a co-operative framework.” That’s what they say, Mr. Speaker.

We’re working towards a co-operative framework. We’re working for more jobs for aboriginal Ontarians and all Ontarians. This is great news for Ontario. This is great news delivered by a government that puts northern Ontario at the front of the train, not at the back, the way the third party would.

FAMILY SERVICE ONTARIO

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Today in the Legislature, we’re joined by members of Family Service Ontario. This organization represents 44 not-for-profit member agencies that provide community-based mental health services and programs to over 250,000 individuals and families annually. They have agencies throughout Ontario. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting with Elisha Laker, executive director of Family Services York Region, and was most interested to learn about the various mental health support programs, which provide assistance with emotional, psychological, social, physical and financial struggles.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Please tell the members of this House how our government is working to support the important work being undertaken each and every day across our province by Family Service Ontario.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It is great to have so many people from Family Service Ontario here today. I want to say thank you for what you do in your communities. Thank you for your dedication and the difference you make to the people in your communities. You make a real difference, particularly for those suffering with mental health and addictions issues.

Family Service Ontario offers a wide range of mental health services across the province, including substance abuse programs, domestic abuse supports and family counselling, just to name a few. I can tell you that these initiatives are absolutely in line with our 10-year mental health and addictions strategy. Our recent budget reflected our commitment. We are committed to a 4% annual increase to the community sector, and that includes community mental health. We’re able to do that because we have taken a real wage freeze with the doctors of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you for the good news on funding, Minister. As the minister noted, Family Service Ontario provides valuable services to families across Ontario, and I know my constituents in Oak Ridges–Markham benefit greatly from their efforts.

In addition to their provision of valuable mental health services, I know that FSO agencies also offer other services, such as relationship and financial counselling, programs to address substance abuse, as well as services for victims of domestic violence and those with developmental disabilities.

Minister, could you please tell the Legislature what our government does to support Family Service Ontario’s work with those who are victims of domestic violence?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m pleased to answer from the perspective of my ministry and echo the welcoming of the members of Family Service Ontario who are with us today. As I mentioned in introductions, we have two outstanding agencies here from my riding.

I’m proud to say that in terms of the violence-against-women issue and the funding that we provide to combat that, we provide funding to 30 agencies that are members of Family Service Ontario. This includes funding for counselling programs, the Transitional and Housing Support Program, as well as the early intervention program for children who witness violence.

I’m happy to know that my ministry’s annualized funding to Family Service Ontario has more than tripled since we first came to office in 2003. In fact, in 2009-10, MCSS increased annualized funding for VAW counselling agencies across the province by some 3.29%. I look forward to our continuing work with Family Service Ontario.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is for the Minister of Health. Speaker, the minister has repeatedly invoked the Auditor General in defending her failures, but she knows that the auditor’s mandate is to investigate value for money, nothing else. He did this admirably, delivering a scathing indictment of her failed management.

But, Speaker, the Auditor General is an auditor. He’s a numbers guy, and his report is being considered by the public accounts committee, a numbers committee. What he and the committee do not do is investigate adverse patient outcomes that have surely resulted from the minister’s complete abdication of her responsibilities.

So I ask the minister: When will she show concern for the thousands of patients and families who have come into contact with Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m actually quite disturbed by the question that was raised that called into question the good work of the Auditor General of Ontario, an officer of this Legislature. The Auditor General had a chance to examine the Ornge situation with great detail, and he came forward with a report, which right now is being looked at by the public accounts committee. I would remind members that that committee has sat for over 20 hours, close to 21 hours, and has heard from 29 witnesses.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, they’ve had a chance, as I mentioned, to look into the Auditor General’s report. The Auditor General’s report highlighted the fact that there were weaknesses in the performance agreement and the relationship between the government and Ornge, and the minister has rectified that through a number of steps, including a very important piece of legislation in front of this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Again to the minister—I’m not sure where to look now. However, Speaker, the government’s true colours are showing. To them, this is merely an exercise in issues management. They’re clearly indifferent to the countless patients and paramedics who have contacted the PC caucus seeking answers.

The Minister of Health has argued in this House on no less than 61 occasions that she takes the word of the Auditor General. Now, if that’s true, she’ll be aware that the auditor has, in fact, identified 21 incidents of adverse patient outcomes—21 incidents. And now, today, a death due to a lack of staffing; an unfortunate situation that could have been avoided.

So I ask the minister, given that she’s invoked the auditor’s name over 61 times in defending her failures, will she finally show his report the respect it deserves by supporting the expansion of the public accounts committee’s terms of reference?

Hon. John Milloy: Will the honourable member show respect for the good work of the Auditor General and the fact that the public accounts committee is undertaking very, very important work?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the opposition party about knowledge that was had on this side of the House, but I think what we found in the public accounts committee is the deep ties between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Ornge situation. We’ve heard from Kelly Mitchell, who was paid $400,000 in order to lobby opposition MPPs—Progressive Conservative MPPs—a well-known Conservative activist. We heard about the work of Guy Giorno and other prominent Conservative lawyers and the advice they gave Chris Mazza about how to hide his salary.

I think the public accounts committee is seized with this issue. They’re coming forward with some very interesting facts about that party and Ornge, and I think we should allow the committee to do its work.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, you used declining revenue at border casinos as justification for eliminating the slots-at-racetracks program in order to protect jobs at the casino in Windsor. Yet, yesterday, Caesars Windsor sent layoff notices to 27 workers there.

Would the minister care to revise his rationale for his decision to put hundreds of Windsor racetrack employees out of work?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No. We’re not going to subsidize the horse racing industry any more.

I’ll remind the member opposite that 10 years ago there were 5,000 employees at Caesars Windsor. Today, there are under 2,000. Casinos are coming on stream in Cleveland, in Toledo, in Columbus. We simply had a saturated market. We had the choice: Keep two facilities competing against one another, give $350 million to an industry, or work to protect the market. Mr. Speaker, that is our commitment.

The member opposite forgets how many have been laid off at Caesars due to increasing competition, including the fact that we had two casinos working within seven kilometres of one another, in fact spending money to compete against one another. That’s not the way to go. I reject his thoughts on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Hundreds of people are losing their jobs in the Windsor-Essex community after this government closed down the slots and ended the agreement with the horse racing industry without any consultation. And this week we learned that Caesars Windsor has been sending out promotional materials, one of which I’ve provided to the minister, enticing Ontario residents to spend their gaming dollars at the Horseshoe Casino in Cleveland, Ohio. The fact that Caesars Windsor, which is owned by this government, is mailing a flyer to its patrons, encouraging them to take their entertainment dollars to the US, is salt in the wounds to the workers of our community.

Mr. Minister, why is this happening? Please, answer the people of Windsor. Why is it happening?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d just remind the member opposite that in the last week of racing at Windsor Raceway, more than half of the horses were American; 106 horses were scheduled to race and 54 were owned by Americans. That money went to the United States.

The member opposite may want to diminish and try to undermine the viability of Caesars Windsor—which the third party, in fact, created in Windsor way back in the early 1990s—but he’s playing games with hundreds of jobs. I would urge him not to easily succumb to the notion that we could support two casinos working within seven kilometres of one another, with a market that’s saturated with slot machines and other gambling opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, we have moved to protect our investment in that facility: a billion dollars just four years ago, with new convention facilities—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

EDUCATION REFORM

Ms. Soo Wong: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Minister of Education.

The government has made some tough choices, given the current economic climate. But as the economy continues to recover, serious steps have been taken to ensure the budget is brought back to balance by 2017. That’s why we have worked with the NDP on a budget that puts education on a sustainable path forward.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can she tell this House how she will protect the important gains we have made in our education system, given these tough economic times?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you to the member for Scarborough–Agincourt for her constant commitment to public education.

The commitment of our government is also constant to public education. We’re committed to a strong, publicly funded education system, and that commitment will never waver. That’s why we have worked very hard to restore public confidence in our schools after years of neglect under the previous PC government.

Our work in education is now recognized, and we are being recognized around the world as being a leader in educational excellence. Our grade 8 students are leading the country in math, reading and science, and the Ontario students are the only ones who scored above the national average in reading.

That’s why, despite a challenging economic time, we’re very committed to protecting the gains that we’ve made in education, protecting the classroom experience, protecting small class sizes, keeping teachers in our classrooms. Education is the best investment in our future and that’s why our commitment to it is constant.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Minister, for that response. My constituents in Scarborough–Agincourt consistently tell us that good schools in their neighbourhoods are among the most important things to them. I’m proud to be a part of this government, which the OECD has called a successful education reformer. But I have heard some concerns about the effectiveness of smaller class sizes in boosting student success.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell this House how individual attention in classrooms helps Ontario students?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you to the member. We’ve been committed, as I said, to protecting the gains Ontario has made in education: full-day kindergarten, smaller class sizes and more teachers in our classrooms. That’s because we know that those investments set our students up for success.

Let me be clear: What we’re giving our students in Ontario is an opportunity to compete in a high-skills world, in a new economy. Young students in small class sizes get the individual attention that they need to master the basics. Literacy and numeracy in grades 1 to 3 are so critical. I know that as Minister of Education; I also know it as a mum of two boys who are in grade 1. Some 90% of primary classes now have 20 or fewer students, and that compares to 2003, where one quarter of all primary classes had 25 or more students.

It’s important that our students get the time and attention of their teacher in a small class size so that they can succeed, and that’s what our focus is on.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Todd Smith: To the Minister of Finance: In April, last month, Ontario’s small business confidence experienced its sharpest decline since August of last year. After good numbers in March, small business lost confidence in April when faced with the realities of a lacklustre Ontario budget. The analysis is simple: The numbers for March are because Drummond acted; the numbers for April are because Duncan dithered.

Ontario’s small businesses have joined Moody’s and S&P in what’s becoming a chorus of rejection surrounding the budget. Minister, when will you actually show some leadership and come up with a real plan for Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: March: 46,000 net new full-time jobs in Ontario; the unemployment rate’s at 7.4%, the lowest level in three years; more than 555,000 new jobs since 2003, in spite of the largest contraction since the great downturn. Ontario runs one of the lowest-cost governments in Canada, according to every source, relative to GDP, according to Don Drummond. We’re number one in Canada in mineral production, valued at $11 billion, and today we announced a new project that will employ 1,100 people directly in northern Ontario.

This government has taken strong action to build a better future for Ontario. Part of that strong action is a strong education and health system. Those are our priorities. We reject the ideas that they put forward and want to build that better future for our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Minister, your bluster is embarrassing, and it’s insulting to the hundreds and thousands of people who are out of work in the province of Ontario. Just last week, there were hundreds of jobs that were eliminated in Peterborough, Mississauga and North York at Norampac plants. There’s hundreds more that could be gone in Trenton if you don’t act soon.

According to the CFIB, 73% of small business owners list energy as a major cost concern, and your government has increased their hydro bills again this month. Some 57% say that taxes are a major cost concern, so you brought in a budget that drove up their taxes even higher. CFIB stats show that this will cost businesses $350 million this year and over half a million dollars next year. Ontario’s small businesses are now working half the year just to pay the government.

Minister, when will you stop standing in the way of small businesses in Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We cut the small business tax rate by almost 18%, and that party voted against it. When we brought in red tape reduction legislation, that party voted against it. When we brought in the most progressive reforms to our sales tax system, which were endorsed by small business, that party rejected them.

We need no lesson from them on building a strong economy, with good schools and good health care. That’s what this party is about. That’s what this government is about. We’re going to continue to fight for small business the way we have up until now, working with the CFIB and others to continue to build that economy of the future, with the right investments for a strong and bright future for all of our children.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Minister, as you already know, today there was a fatal accident in York region and Ornge, the agency that provides air ambulance, was called to the scene. Their response? “We have no resources. We cannot send an ambulance to the crash scene.”

Minister, we’re talking about the Ornge core mandate. This is what they’re there to do; this is why they exist. With all the spotlight being on Ornge right now, how can things go so wrong? What’s going on at Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said in the earlier question, my thoughts are with the family affected by this terrible tragedy.

I can assure the members of this House and the people of Ontario that the new leadership at Ornge has, as their number one priority, patient safety. That is the very first and highest priority for the new management team, and I know that Dr. Barry McLellan, the CEO of Sunnybrook Hospital, a former coroner of the province of Ontario, is on the board at Ornge. He is heading up the patient safety responsibilities of that organization, so I would urge the member opposite not to politicize and not to prejudge this incident.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, the minister talks a lot about new management, new structure, new performance agreement, but there is nothing in the new performance agreement that talks about quality of care. It talks about a performance indicator that should be in an annual operational plan; that still does not exist and probably won’t exist for months to come. This is very troubling.

I want to assure the people of Ontario that we have a strong and robust air ambulance, but I’m starting to doubt this very much. I think the way to restore confidence would be to reflect the will of the House and put forward a select committee, so that we can look into this issue and restore confidence, because right now, my confidence is shaken to the core. I’m worried, Mr. Speaker. What does the minister have to say?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do think it’s unfortunate that members of this Legislature are using this tragedy in a political way. I can assure you that I will be speaking to Dr. McLellan later today. I will get the facts of the case. I know that they will be very concerned about this situation.

I can also actually correct the member opposite. The new performance agreement does include quality improvement plans, like we have at our hospitals, so Ornge will be measuring and will be publicly reporting on quality improvement. Compensation to senior executives will be tied to quality improvement, just like they are in our hospitals.

I urge the members of this Legislature to support our legislation, Bill 50, to entrench oversight and responsibility at Ornge.

NORTHERN

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. We need to ensure that northern Ontario residents have improved access to more post-secondary education and training opportunities. All Ontarians have the right to benefit from a post-secondary education, regardless of their geographical locations.

The minister, in his previous portfolio, visited Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute to launch an innovative technology company called XLV Diagnostics. The minister is well aware of the talent that exists in Thunder Bay, but we need to continue to foster this talent through our post-secondary institutions. This announcement showed the fruits of our government’s commitment to education, innovation and creating prosperity for northern Ontarians.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s not a question.

Mr. Bill Mauro: Speaker, through you to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities: How is the minister helping our northern and rural post-secondary institutions?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan, and contrast it to the member from Pembroke etc., who said, “That’s not a question.”

Mr. Speaker, what was very funny to me is we haven’t had a question on northern education in years, opposite, while the members on this side of the House have fought for the following things: an additional 5,266 places in our northern colleges and universities, bringing them to over 31,000; a 65% increase in funding to northern colleges, from the member from Sault Ste. Marie, who led the creation of Algoma College to the establishment of an architecture school in Sudbury, a medical school and a law school in Thunder Bay.

As to the Ring of Fire, after this great announcement today, we now have the educational facilities in northern Ontario to make sure the high-value jobs from the Cliffs investment stay there—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Your mike is off. Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: Speaker, thank you. Northern Ontarians need to be able to access post-secondary education to ensure that the manufacturing and natural resource processing industries continue to see a long-term future in our province. Northern Ontarians need improved access to more post-secondary education and training opportunities through enhanced distance learning services. There are more than 200,000 northern residents who do not have direct access to post-secondary classrooms in their communities. Many northern Ontarians see the distance to access post-secondary education as a barrier to their future.

Speaker, through you to the minister, how is the minister going to ensure that all northern Ontarians have access to post-secondary education like every other student in our province?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The member for Nepean–Carleton as well made the comment that nothing has happened in 10 years. On top of all that massive investment, the first law school in 42 years in the north; not only that—Contact North, $2.5 million in infrastructure. We’re upgrading the expansion information technology to provide Contact North with the necessary equipment and bandwidth for its audio conferencing and video conferencing in e-learning—$5 million for information technology enhancements, and 90 small and remote communities and First Nations now have access to Contact North. Mr.

Speaker, this essentially means that there is a college and a classroom in every small community in the north. That has happened over the last eight years. This is the greatest level of access we’ve had, and we’re now seeing the biggest investments in the history of this province in the north. These are good times for northern Ontario.

CURRICULUM

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. As a former educator myself, I’ve long believed that a teacher’s role is to teach the curriculum that is outlined by the government of Ontario in a manner that allows students, particularly young students, to develop and foster skill sets such as critical thinking, so that when they leave their formal education and enter the workplace they can be prepared to make sound, individual choices based on those skills. A teacher’s role is not to brainwash children to further political causes under the guise of an alternative education model.

Minister, what are you doing to ensure that children as young as eight are not exposed to the abusive authority demonstrated by this group of teachers at the Grove alternative—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Education?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Ontario Liberals have invested in schools to give our children the education that they need to be tomorrow’s leaders. We know that every kid deserves a world-class education, and that’s why we have worked so hard over the past nine years to rebuild public confidence in our schools, to bring peace and stability into our classrooms, to get our class sizes down, to get our test scores up and our graduation rates up. We are very proud of what is happening in our schools across the province, and we believe that our students deserve the very best.

I know that in the supplementary I’ll have an opportunity to speak more directly to the Grove Community School, but at its heart, it is a school where community and volunteerism is highlighted, and we believe that is a critically important issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I’m proud to say that over the 13 years that I was a high school teacher I did not once impress upon my students my political, personal or professional opinions or views. What occurred at the Grove alternative school was an abuse of power by those entrusted in a profession that moulds the minds of our most precious and impressionable resource, Mr. Speaker. As a teacher, I’m appalled that a fellow educator would take advantage of our children. Minister, what are you doing to ensure our children are safe from the abusive learning environment that occurred at the Grove alternative school?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The member opposite would know, as a teacher and someone engaged in the education process, that locally elected school boards are responsible for developing the programs and policies that suit their unique communities. The Ministry of Education works with those school boards to make sure that specialized schools meet our curriculum requirements and our high standards of achievement, so we need to support boards.

If parents, trustees and others have concerns about what is happening at the Grove Community School, it is the elected trustees that are best positioned to examine this issue, and the member, as someone in the teaching profession, would know that.

But I do encourage parents to talk to their school boards and share their concerns. That’s the appropriate avenue to do that, Speaker. Local voices in the school boards are critically important because they know their local community, and that is the structure that we have had in place for many years.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Finance. I’ve recently been hearing from many of my constituents about the challenges they face now that your government has cancelled your partnership with the horse racing industry. The Sparling family has three generations who have never work