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

May 16, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-May-16 (PDF)

L054 - Wed 16 May 2012 / Mer 16 mai 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 16 May 2012 Mercredi 16 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

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

MINING INDUSTRY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

GO TRANSIT

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

AND HYDRO ONE

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

CANCER TREATMENT

CHILD PROTECTION

PENSION FUNDS

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GODERICH ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

GILFORD AND DISTRICT LIONS CLUB

URBAN FORESTRY

WINDSOR WEST INNOVATION

WIND TURBINES

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

GO TRANSIT

NORTH GRENVILLE CHAMBER

OF COMMERCE AWARDS

IT’S ALL ABOUT KINDNESS DAY

VISITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC SECTOR

COMPENSATION FREEZE ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE GEL GLOBAL

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

(SERVING LIQUOR

IN CERTAIN PLACES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D’ALCOOL

(SERVICE D’ALCOOL

DANS CERTAINS LIEUX)

ADDRESSING ONTARIO’S DEBT

THROUGH ALTERNATIVES

TO PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

AND PROGRAM CUTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT À S’ATTAQUER

À LA DETTE DE L’ONTARIO

SANS RECOURIR À DES MISES À PIED

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

ET À DES COMPRESSIONS

DANS LES PROGRAMMES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO /

ASSOCIATION DES POLICIERS

DE L’ONTARIO

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

DOG OWNERSHIP

RADIATION SAFETY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

HYDRO RATES

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

WIND TURBINES

SCHOOL FACILITIES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

SERVICES DIAGNOSTIQUES

RADON

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

DOG OWNERSHIP

MARKDALE HOSPITAL

SCHOOL FACILITIES

WIND TURBINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG ACTION FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR UNE ACTION

ÉNERGIQUE POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): 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 May 9, 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?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to speak this morning on Bill 19,

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Say something nice, Laurie.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I don’t know if I can.

Over 1.3 million Ontario families live in rental accommodation of one kind or another, which is quite a large number. Many of these tenant households are struggling to meet their household bills, and I don’t think there’s a member of the Legislature that hasn’t got calls in their constituency office about the struggles that their constituents are having. One in five of these households is paying more than 50% of their income on rent, leaving barely enough for sustainability.

The guideline that people used to be told was that your housing cost should not be more than 25% of your monthly income. I remember when I sold real estate in one of the many jobs that I had before entering the Legislature, when I was helping people qualify and they were looking at houses, that was kind of a guide: 25%, 30% of your monthly income for your housing. Unfortunately, in Ontario that no longer reflects reality. In addition to the difficulties which half of these households are having in paying their bills, nearly one third of them are living in accommodation that fails to meet the basic standards of adequacy, suitability and, of course, affordability, as I mentioned.

Some 142,000 Ontarians are currently on the waiting list for affordable housing units, and that list is growing. I know it’s certainly a large, long list in the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. With the price of hydro, how could they afford to stay in their houses? This bill does nothing to address any of this, and these are really serious issues. But this bill does not address it.

I think since the government was first elected in 2003 we’ve seen a staggering array of tax increases which have deeply affected all Ontarians. It has just been compounded and compounded and compounded. We all remember that within a few months of its election in 2003, the government broke its first promise of “I will not raise your taxes” by introducing the health levy, which turned out to be the largest single tax grab in Ontario’s history.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Wasn’t that a scandalous thing?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes. The imposition of the HST at a time when the Ontario economy was so fragile—people were already struggling and suffering. They introduced the HST when people could least afford it. As my colleague from Leeds–Grenville so aptly pointed out in his remarks on March 28 when he addressed Bill 19, there was a time, not so many years ago, when rent geared to income or some other forms of affordable housing were considered temporary measures until a family got back on its feet. Now it can take families many years to even hope to improve their residential standard of living, and more and more of them are losing hope that they can.

Under this Premier and this government, Ontario has become unaffordable to an ever-increasing number of our citizens. We have hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed, while the HST increased fees, and soaring hydro rates have eaten away at what little disposable income is left. I hear it every day in my riding. A frightening number of these families are living paycheque to paycheque, and I certainly know that money left at the end of the month is a dream for them. The reality, for more and more people, is that money left at the end of the month is not a dream that they can realize.

My food banks are overwhelmed. In January I was up to Haliburton, to the FoodNet up there, which is a great group of people—Barbara Davis with FoodNet, Rosie Kadwell from the Haliburton health unit; the United Church in Haliburton, who have a food kitchen. They give me updates every once in a while, and they almost cry on the phone, they’re so overwhelmed. There are so many people they need to help, and they just can’t meet it.

This current legislation, Bill 19, limits annual rent increases in accordance with a guideline which is linked to the consumer price index for Ontario as reported by Statistics Canada. The bill would amend that to provide a guideline that rent increases would not be less than 1% and not more than 2.5%. We ask, why did the government feel it was necessary to amend that formula? Over the past 10 years, the average rent increase in Ontario was 2.1%. Over the last five years, the average rent increase has been just 1.8%. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the current formula has been working just fine.

The government obviously reacted to this year’s increase of 3.1%. However, last year, the increases were 0.7%, for a two-year average of 1.9%, well within the range of the current legislation that we’re discussing here today.

There is no question that parts of the Residential Tenancies Act are broken and are in desperate need of attention. However, the government has chosen to go after low-hanging fruit and focus its attention on a part of the act which is easy to deal with but has been working fine and doesn’t need the attention. As I’ve said before in this House, this government has mastered the art of illusion, projecting an aura of activity. There’s an aura of activity where there is no substance. The Liberal side wanted me to say a compliment, so I congratulate them on being masters of illusion on actually doing something for the people of the province of Ontario.

This government brings in a bill like this, trying to present it as a boon to Ontario’s tenants. I don’t see them jumping up and down outside, saying, “Yes, pass this bill.” It doesn’t seem to be happening out there. But the McGuinty government certainly has no reservation about wiping out over 60,000 jobs that are dependent on a healthy horse racing industry. They don’t seem to care that those people are going to be unemployed, that they can’t pay their mortgages, can’t find a place to rent, let alone pay the rent if they do find one.

You have no reservations, in the Liberal government, about perpetuating the disastrous green energy experiments that have driven up our hydro rates to an insane level—and I say that, an insane level—forcing people out of work, out of their homes, looking for affordable housing which isn’t available. It has no reservation about ignoring our appeal on this side, the PC Party appeal, to modernize the apprenticeship system, bringing it in line with other provinces in order to generate thousands of new skilled jobs that are actually needed. They could make changes, because our young people want to get into skilled trades, but they’re not making that easy, for sure.

It has no reservation about its relentless pursuit to have a $30-billion deficit and a $411-billion debt on the backs of hard-working Ontario families of today and tomorrow—and it goes on for more than a generation, which is very sad. And it has no reservation about its blatant lack of oversight that led to the appalling and disgraceful goings-on at Ornge, and its continued refusal to accept responsibility or permit a full investigation and accounting of this scandal.

This government fritters away billions of dollars on various boondoggles, and who picks up the tab? Who does pick up the tab? I think we all know the answer to who picks up the tab: It’s the generous people of Ontario. The buck always stops there. We have millions of them living in rental accommodations that are inadequate or that they simply cannot afford, and this bill, Bill 19, does nothing to address those problems. It’s a vicious cycle, and it has been created by this very government that now wants to present, again, this window dressing of a bill to prove that it’s actually doing something.

I don’t think you can fool the people of the province of Ontario much further. This bill does absolutely nothing to make rent more affordable. It will do nothing to shorten the waiting lists for affordable housing. It does nothing to alleviate the pain that Ontarians are experiencing from the weight of the financial burden this government has placed on their shoulders. It does nothing to stimulate jobs so that the people who are forced to live in or at least seek affordable housing can hope to better the lives of themselves and their families.

The bill does nothing to alleviate the distress caused to so many of our citizens who are forced to choose between paying their heating bill and putting food on the table.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Attorney General.

Ms. Laurie Scott: People in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock—they’re hurt. Whether it’s the high unemployment rate, which is higher than the provincial average; the lack of doctors in their communities; inadequate transportation infrastructure, which stifles investment; the threat to the horse racing industry and its multitude of spinoffs and jobs that they’re going to lose; or the unacceptable child poverty levels in Haliburton county, none of this will be eradicated by passing Bill 19.

As my colleague from Sarnia–Lambton said the other day in his remarks, “There’s such thin gruel in this bill, I couldn’t even find anything to talk about.” I really couldn’t agree more, Mr. Speaker. The present government has put their head in the sand—it seems deeper every day—ignoring what hard-working Ontarians are saying out there. They can no longer afford to live in their houses. They literally are leaving their houses in my riding because they can’t afford to pay the bills. So when a piece of legislation like Bill 19 comes up, it’s not helping them at all.

Mr. Speaker, you can gather that I’m not going to be supporting Bill 19. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I agree with a lot of things that the Conservative member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock says. In fact, many are saying the same thing, God bless. What does she say? She says rents are very high, which is true. All the three million people who live in rental accommodation earn a third of those who own homes, which suggests there’s an income problem. Wages are very low—at least for those who live in rental accommodation—and the list of people who are waiting to try to get into affordable accommodation is 152,000 long and getting longer every year.

I agree with the member from Haliburton that the HST has added an additional burden on that whole income-level category of people who are facing a very difficult time, particularly in an economy where wages are very low.

I agree with her as well that the cap on rent is simply not going to do anything for anyone, because there’s still vacancy decontrol, which allows the landlord to increase the rent as soon as somebody moves out—the Conservatives don’t speak to that point—and it still allows the landlord to apply for above-guideline increases, which means that they will still get the money they’re looking for, and the Conservatives don’t speak to that. There’s no new housing stock, which is equally true—the Liberals have been quite bad on this front—and the bill doesn’t tackle that.

But here’s where I have difficulty with the Conservatives. Their solution to all the problems we face is privatizing our hydro agenda, which will increase prices as opposed to decreasing them, and reducing corporate taxes, which is not going to help us at all.

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

Mr. Mario Sergio: I’ve been listening to the remarks by the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Let me say, Speaker, that you weren’t here, but I was here. The member wasn’t here and I was sitting in her place, and I could see Minister Leach on this side here. The day after they came into power, they stopped every building, every construction. Therefore, under their government not one unit of affordable housing was provided.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The Liberals are better.

Mr. Mario Sergio: My friend Rosario Marchese from Trinity–Spadina—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member knows that we don’t use names; we use ridings. He almost got it right. Secondly, we don’t have cross-dialogue. You go through me, okay? Thank you.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Thank you, Speaker. Trinity–Spadina—is that the right—

Interjection.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It is?

Interjection.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Yes, absolutely.

We have a special relation with my colleague from Trinity–Spadina, Speaker—through you—and I have to say that their record doesn’t even come close to the record of the Conservatives when they were in government. Let me say that if it wasn’t for our government, a lot of people would be without reasonable accommodations. We have done a lot.

The reason why we have this particular bill at this time is to give tenants in the province of Ontario peace of mind, so they know now that for four years, they know what their rent increase is going to be. We don’t leave them stranded like you did. Therefore, now they can look at things other than concentrating on paying their rent.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. She always delivers a reasoned and thoughtful address here in the Legislature.

I’m a little more concerned about the comments from my friend from York West. He likes to talk about other people’s records. He doesn’t like to talk about the Liberal record. Well, in that Conservative government, 1.088 million net new jobs were created in that eight-year term of office.

Yes, this bill establishes a floor and it establishes a ceiling for rent increases in the province of Ontario. Whoop-de-do, because people will know that the rent increase won’t exceed 2.5%, I believe it was. However, that’s not what they’re concerned about. They’re concerned about 150% increases in their hydro under this government. They’re concerned about the bevy of new taxes that have been foisted upon them by the decisions of this government. Oh, wonderful, the rent increase won’t exceed 2.5%.

What about the millions of seniors who happen to live in their own home, I say to the member from York West, who own their homes but can’t even afford the property taxes because when they pay for their hydro and they pay the other taxes that you’ve put on them—rent increases are immaterial to them.

Whether this bill is passed or not, we still have legislation in place, and by regulation, the government can set the rent increases based on the CPI in the province of Ontario. So they’re going up and down, like this is the best thing since the wheel, when in reality they’re doing nothing to lessen the burden on struggling families in this province, and that’s shameful.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: Good morning, Speaker. Good morning, folks. It feels like Wednesday breakfast club here in the Legislature. We’ve been debating this bill, Bill 19, for weeks now, it seems, and I feel fortunate to be one of the folks in Ontario who has a job, who had breakfast this morning. I’m really actually concerned that there are too many people who are going to work today without breakfast, going to school without breakfast, or in fact don’t have jobs, don’t have employment, and won’t be eating this morning.

I would like to make sure that we get this bill into committee and bring in folks who are concerned about the high cost of rent, the high cost of their bills in this province, because we need desperately to have that debate. In fact, we need to have that debate with people who are actually struggling, with people who can’t pay their rent each month, who can’t feed their families every day. They need to be part of this conversation because all of us had breakfast this morning.

This bill does not go nearly far enough. The Metro federation of tenants says that in the last two years, this bill would only have saved families $3 per year, and that’s simply not enough.

We need real legislation. We need things that do more than make people feel good in here. We need bills that make people feel good in Ontario, that put food in their stomachs. We’ve had wages frozen in this province, and now we have both sides of the House, the Liberals—the government—and the opposition talking about freezing wages, but we don’t talk about freezing rents in this province.

Yesterday, our party brought forth a motion to cap gas prices each week, to provide a bit of reliability on the cost of gas, and both the government and the opposition voted against that. Ontario needs a government, it needs advocates in this House, that are going to make life more affordable for people in this province, and we can’t get started soon enough. So I’m hoping that this debate will end soon, we’ll send this to committee, and we’ll bring people in to talk about this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has two minutes.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I want to thank the members from Trinity–Spadina, York West, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and Davenport, who responded to my comments.

The only reason that we’re discussing this bill, as I mentioned earlier, which is Bill 19, is that the minister noticed the 3.1% increase in this year’s rent. I mean, she said that’s the only reason. The reason the ceiling and the floor have changed to 2.51% is because of this year’s rent increase.

The members of the opposition have highlighted the fact that people are struggling in the province of Ontario. It does nothing to address the burdens that they’re facing, which I have mentioned: the hydro rates, the HST, the health levy. They’re being forced out of their houses because they don’t have jobs for various reasons, mostly because of bad government legislation over there.

It’s ironic that this government has tried to portray itself as kind of the benevolent overseer of its subjects, who unfortunately are the taxpayers of Ontario, while at the same time it does everything in its power to make their lives more difficult and oppressive through this misguided and paternalistic approach to governing.

This bill, Bill 19, is window dressing, as I said. It is nothing more. It has no substance. It doesn’t address any of the real problems associated with residential tenancy in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: They don’t want to address the real problems.

Ms. Laurie Scott: “They do not want to address the real problems,” my colleague from Northumberland said. It does not. You know, we have a responsibility to our constituents to address the real problems in the province of Ontario, and we stand up here in opposition and fight every day to make this government aware of them and to say, “Create some substantial legislation that is going to help people in the province of Ontario.”

One person in my riding said to me, and I think it summed it up very well, that we are creating a poorer and a meaner province of Ontario under this Liberal government’s leadership.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 19,

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

I just want to point out, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, that in fact, really, this bill does very little except put a cap on any particular year based on the consumer price index. As you know, currently, the annual amount that a landlord can increase the rent is based on the consumer price index of Ontario, which is a measure of inflation, calculated by Statistics Canada. The consumer price index includes items like food, shelter and transportation. I want to point out that an important part of this is the shelter, and obviously the cost to people who have to pay for that shelter.

One of the problems that the McGuinty government is facing is that their policies have resulted in a rapidly increasing consumer price index. For 2011, the consumer price index was 3.1%, so as a result, landlords can increase the rent in 2012 by that same amount—and I think that’s very important: why it went up so much that year. There are two ways that the government could have addressed the situation. They could have chosen to address the problem by looking at the cause of the consumer price index going up, or they could ignore the problem and just cap the increase, which, of course, Mr. Speaker, you know is what the government chose.

This bill doesn’t solve the problem, it just creates a new one. The consumer price index isn’t just a number; it is the percentage that the cost of living is increasing for the people across Ontario: for seniors on fixed incomes and young families who are struggling to make ends meet. These are the people who dread receiving their hydro bills in the mail. These are the people who had to decide what to give up when the government introduced the HST and eco fees and raised the cost of government fees like drivers’ licences and other licence fees.

If you went to a tenant in Ontario and said, “I’m going to give you a choice. Option A is I’m going to drive up the cost of items you use every day, but I’ll put a cap on your rent increase so at least the landlord can’t pass their costs on to you. Or option B: As a government, we are going to look at the impact of our legislation before we pass it, to ensure that we aren’t recklessly increasing prices for things you use every day, and driving jobs out of the province.

That way, we will make sure that not only will your rent increase stay low, but we will stop the spiralling increases of hydro costs and the extra government taxes and fees.” Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, the tenant would choose option B, lower costs, every time. So would the Progressive Conservative caucus. The Liberals, on the other hand, would clearly choose option A. They have shown that, by doubling provincial spending, by signing unrealistic contracts through FIT and microFIT, and by introducing the HST.

The calculations of the consumer price index include sales tax, because obviously taxation levels can have a significant impact on prices in the consumer index, when you add the 8%. This government’s decision to introduce the HST resulted in provincial sales tax being applied to hundreds of items and services that had previously been exempt, items like electricity, home heating fuel, gasoline, newspaper advertising, haircuts, magazines, postage stamps, dry cleaning, snow removal and legal fees. It was an immediate 8% increase on the cost of hundreds of items. That’s a huge impact on the consumer price index and the budgets of families across Ontario.

Just over a year ago, the McGuinty government released the fact that hydro rates are forecast to increase by 46% over the next five years—46%, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the most recent increase went into effect on May 1. That’s a huge cost for the consumers of Ontario. It is a huge cost for seniors on fixed incomes, and for families. It’s also a significant impact on the consumer price index.

Statistics Canada breaks down the consumer price index in a number of ways, including calculating it without taking into account energy costs. Last year, the rate in Ontario would have only been 2%. That means more than one third of the increased cost of living in our province last year was due to the increased cost of energy. The government wants to cap rent increases at 2.5%. If it wasn’t for the increase in energy costs, the consumer price index would have been well below that 2.5%.

Government documents are quite clear that the majority of the increase in hydro rates is due to green energy projects. Taxpayers understand that you can’t sign contracts to buy energy for 80 cents, or even 40 or 50 cents, a kilowatt hour without driving up the cost of hydro for everyone and, as a result, driving up the cost of living.

It’s clear there is no real plan for energy, Mr. Speaker. We saw that with the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants that the government insisted had to be placed in those locations, only to cancel them later for political reasons, at huge expense. Think of what we could have done with that money: the hospitals we could have built, the schools; the debt we could have paid down. Instead, it cost taxpayers billions of dollars and resulted in lawsuits against the government.

The increasing costs don’t just impact consumers; they also impact businesses and landlords. The government is creating problems for landlords that will eventually impact the tenants. The government is increasing costs for landlords, then telling them they aren’t allowed to increase the rent to cover the costs, and instead they just have to accept it as a loss. I think protecting the tenants is important, but the government is going about it in the wrong way. To keep rents lower, the government should be addressing the spiralling costs of operating and maintaining buildings, not putting arbitrary caps on increases.

A few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to speak to a landlord who operates a number of apartment dwelling units in Oxford. He said that if this bill is passed, he would be forced to increase rents by the maximum allowable every year, just to protect himself against the years when cost increases are higher than the allowable rent increase. I don’t think that’s what the government intended with this legislation. We’re also going to have landlords who can’t afford to invest in upgrades or even perform proper maintenance on their buildings, because the costs are increasing faster than their rents.

Again, I don’t think that’s what this government intended with this bill. If landlords are losing money, there is no incentive to invest in new buildings to ensure that we have sufficient rental properties available; eventually, that will lead to rent increases.

I wonder whether the government side even tried to talk to landlords about solutions they could introduce in this bill. I worked with the Federation of Rental-housing Providers when I did my private member’s bill, Mr. Speaker, and I found that they were a great source of information and very helpful in dealing how it would impact the people that were involved.

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. It’s a little like taking your car to a mechanic because the engine is making a strange noise and he fixes it by modifying your radio so you can turn up the volume louder so you don’t hear the noise. Well, we know, Mr. Speaker, if you don’t deal with the problem in the engine, it will get worse; just making the sound go away will not fix it.

If the government doesn’t address their policies that are putting extra costs on consumers and businesses, there are going to be consequences—like seniors who can no longer afford to stay in their homes, like parents who have to make a choice between buying themselves a winter coat or letting their kids play on a sports team, like businesses relocating to less expensive jurisdictions and taking their jobs with them. The McGuinty government needs to be honest about the impact that their legislation is having on the people of Ontario.

It isn’t enough to have a piece of legislation, a great-sounding name and have a couple of photo opportunities. The government needs a real plan to get this province back on track. They need well-researched and thought-out policies that will encourage economic growth and jobs. They need to take real steps to fix the financial problems facing this province.

Yet this government seems to be doing the opposite. They introduced a budget that actually increases spending. They don’t have a jobs plan, and they aren’t addressing the problems, like the increasing cost of hydro, that are driving businesses out of the province. They need to stop treating taxpayers and Ontario businesses like bottomless piggy banks.

Whether it’s increased taxes, new fees or driving up the cost of essentials like hydro, it all comes from the same place, the same taxpayers who are going to be stuck with the fiscal mess this government is creating, and simply capping rent increases isn’t going to fix the problem. I think that we need to be much more involved in making sure that the impact of the legislation is acceptable in dealing with the cost. I want to point out that when the cost of living goes up more than 2.5%, the cost to run the establishment goes up more than 2.5%. What are the landlords going to do to deal with that?

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s my pleasure rising this morning, as I did in the past, to talk about G19, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act. I talked a little while ago about the fabulous young lady from here in the Toronto area—her name was Claire—and the challenges that she faced as a single mother with the concerns with rent, and the challenges that she faced as a single mother not only to find affordable rent, but actually find good care for her child.

But let’s put this into perspective as far as what this bill will do. Basically, this bill puts a small dent into—it’s a good initiative. It will help some, but it will definitely not help the masses, and that’s something that I’ve said repeatedly on many of the government’s bills that have come forward through this Legislature.

We really need to look at improving affordable rents for all of our tenants and protecting their rights. This is something that is essentially missing, but let’s just put this into context. How many individuals are affected by it? Over 1.3 million tenant households in Ontario and 125,000 residents living in housing co-ops, accounting for almost one third of the province’s population. That’s a huge number. When you’re actually looking at this bill and what it actually is going to do, for an individual paying $1,000 a month in rent, we’re looking at a $3 savings at the end of the year.

If we’re going to do something, do something serious. Put some teeth in this bill. Really look at some of the proposals that have been coming from across the way. Look at maybe eliminating the HST and how much that is going to be saving. Look at what we proposed yesterday in regard to capping gas prices. That is an immediate savings for these individuals that would help them. Please, I urge this government, put some teeth into what you’re proposing.

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

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: It is my pleasure to speak today in support of Bill 19, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Rent Increase Guideline), 2012.

Our government has consistently shown a strong commitment to protecting tenants across Ontario. We’ve proved that commitment with our Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, which was established to provide strong rent regulations and to keep rent affordable for tenants. We’ve afforded tenants across Ontario the lowest year-over-over increase of any government in recent memory, at 1.9% on average. Last year’s guideline increase was 0.7%, the lowest on record.

The legislation, as written, worked well in the pre-recession period. However, it no longer reflects the current economic circumstances for those who rent, and that’s why our government is stepping in to address that. We believe we have to revisit the legislation so that future increases are in line with what’s happening in the real world for tenants in Ontario. That’s why we introduced Bill 19. If passed, Bill 19 would ensure that the annual rent increase guideline would be capped at 2.5% and would not fall below 1%.

I must say, in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East, this is becoming increasingly important. It’s a riding that didn’t have a lot of apartments and condos, but that’s changing. We have a new development called San Francisco by the Bay on the Frenchman’s Bay harbour. So this is becoming increasingly important to folks in my riding and in Durham region.

The proposed changes, if passed, will provide stability and affordability for renters during these uncertain economic times, while continuing to recognize that moderate rent increases allow landlords to maintain their rental properties.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important bill today.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I stand today in total support of my colleague from Oxford and my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, because when you take a look at this bill and you think about the real world that was referenced earlier, the fact of the matter is, people in Ontario are drowning. They’re sinking in water, and Bill 19 is nothing but a rock skimming the surface of the water. It isn’t comprehensive; it does not go far enough. The fact of the matter is, people are getting their hydro shut off. People just can’t afford to live any longer in Ontario as it stands today.

We need a government that’s ready to take some bold steps, that’s listening to the folks in Ontario and is prepared to do right by them. Doing right by them means making life more affordable; it means lowering the cost of heating their home, making sure life is affordable so that families can enjoy a quality of life that everyone deserves in Ontario.

We’re in a sorry state of affairs. I thought it was very interesting to hear that a constituent from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock referred to this province as being meaner. We don’t want that. Ontario used to be the economic engine of this wonderful nation, and we’re spiralling here. As I said, people are drowning in debt. This province is drowning in debt. It’s a sorry state when our government chooses just to skim across the surface.

We need to have policy. We need legislation that will take us in the direction of recovery. We need affordable living under a government that listens, consults and fully understands that we need a comprehensive approach that benefits all Ontarians, as opposed to picking winners and losers. This just doesn’t go far enough, and I support my colleagues.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: The United Nations has declared that all people have a right to decent and affordable housing, and that’s a principle that our party, the NDP, stands firmly behind. Canada has ratified this treaty, but the Liberals, in their recent housing strategy, voted down an amendment to make housing a human right, and that’s hugely problematic. We have so far to go to create affordable housing here in Ontario.

I was talking to folks from ACORN this weekend. There’s real concern about the growth in slum housing in Toronto and across Ontario. Too many landlords are getting away with delaying repairs. They’re treating tenants unfairly. They’re renting out units with bedbugs—and we need a bedbug solution here, but I don’t hear any talk about bringing that forward.

Interjection.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Yes. The Liberal government has absolutely failed to stand up to slum landlords in Ontario.

So we’ve got tens of thousands of Ontarians who are stuck in rundown and unaffordable apartments because they’re waiting for years for affordable housing. During the election, we said we’d build 50,000 new affordable housing units over the next 10 years. The Liberals have promised and not come through with an affordable housing plan. We need to make rent more affordable in this province. We have one in five tenants who pay more than half of their income in rent, and this is why we see a huge growth in food bank use across this city and across this province.

Members here have mentioned it today, but bills keep on going up. The HST on people’s home essentials, on their heating and electricity costs, is adding to their expenses. I feel like we have a government that’s content to let everyday, regular, low-income and moderate-income people continue to pay extra for the bare basics to live.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Oxford has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the members from Algoma–Manitoulin, Pickering–Scarborough East, Huron–Bruce and Davenport for their comments.

I think it’s rather interesting that the comments are generally about the challenges we are facing in the rental market, shall we say, or rental accommodation in the province of Ontario, but that’s not what this bill is about. As I mentioned in my original presentation, if it wasn’t for the government’s actions, this bill would not be needed because, in fact, the rent increase under the present legislation would have been less than the 2.5% that’s being proposed in this bill if it hadn’t been for the increased cost of the things that government controls.

The challenge that I think we face is that that challenge, what the government is doing to the people of Ontario, is not restricted to people who rent accommodation; that same problem exists for the people who own their own homes. Their cost of energy goes up; their cost of heating oil and everything that they buy, their property taxes, are all going up at the same rate that the consumer price index is going up, and this bill does nothing for them, Mr. Speaker. It just does one small thing, which will have very little impact on anyone, because that’s not where the prices are going as we speak.

What we need is a government that stands up and looks after all the people.

Mr. Speaker, when I get calls in my constituency office from people who can’t pay their hydro bills, it’s just as likely to be a senior living in their own home as it is someone who is renting accommodation. The challenge is not the cap that’s going on there; the challenge is what the government is doing in increasing the cost of living in this province for people who can’t afford it. That’s why I made that presentation based on that.

I don’t object to putting that there. I don’t think the 2.5% will have much impact. If you look over the past five years, there would be absolutely no impact. It’s a PR bill, as opposed to a government action bill. That’s what I think is wrong with this.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join this debate this morning on Bill 19, because, as has been the habit of the government of late, they don’t want to speak to their own legislation. Oh, they do what we call a “hit.” For those out in TV land, that’s when you have a two-minute question or comment on the speech of another member in the House. But they don’t seem to want to speak to their own legislation, yet they’re calling this a priority piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock earlier today referenced my colleague from Sarnia–Lambton, who described this as pretty thin gruel. Well, this is not a prop, because this is the actual bill. It’s one sheet of paper. I’d have to fold this many times to level my chair, Mr. Speaker. There’s not much to it, yet the government is calling this a priority piece of legislation.

Priority: They’ve got the first two letters right, as my colleague from Oxford referred to. Priority: the first two letters are “PR.” This is a PR piece. It’s not about rental increases. It’s not about low-cost housing. It’s not about tenants. It’s not about landlords. It’s another public relations exercise on the part of this government. Each and every time they bring in a new bill, particularly in this Parliament, it is designed by the politicians in the corner office.

The message is sent down to the bureaucrats to write a bill that is going to knock off one more of the dominoes, as they say, one more check in the box, to say, “We’ve now done something to get this group of people on our side.” That’s what this is about, Mr. Speaker.

All this bill does is establish a floor and a ceiling. Rent increases cannot be less than 1%; rent increases cannot be more than 2.5%. Based on the rent increases of the last five years, the bill would be irrelevant. But one thing that it does do, and it does actually cause me some concern, is that it codifies this for the next four years.

I know that economists make a living forecasting what might happen in this province and any other jurisdiction over a longer period of time. Sometimes they’re right; many times they’re wrong. It isn’t just in that, it’s the forecasting business. The guy who’s right sometimes gets his articles published in the Wall Street Journal. The guy who’s wrong finds out that there’s another career out there other than as an economist. And even the ones who are wrong—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, if you’re here, you’re likely to become the finance minister. I thank my colleague from Northumberland–Quinte West for that witty insertion into my speech this morning. He’s not far from the truth.

Speaker, what if, in year three, something happens in our economy and the inflation rate is 4%? Is anybody going to be building new housing if they’re legislated at 2.5%? Is anybody going to feel that there is an incentive to fill the gap in the amount of housing that is required versus the amount of housing that is in the queue or that is in the roster that is available? At 2.5%, if the inflation rate exceeds that, there is no incentive. I don’t think they’ve really considered that possibility. I’m not suggesting that the rate will be exceeding 2.5%, but it could. I don’t have a crystal ball; I don’t know what it’s going to be like in three years.

Having said that, it’s like they want to take this issue off the table for four years and hope that they don’t have to deal with it. But I never heard from anybody in the province of Ontario clamouring to say, “You know what we need here? And I hope this is a priority of the government. We need a bill that sets the rental increase guidelines on a four-year basis, not an annual basis.” Because we have a CPI that in fact is based on a year-to-year measurement, it would seem only practical and sensible that the rent increases would be determined on a year-by-year basis.

But this government—it’s hard for me to explain what goes on in the cerebral areas in that corner office there. I don’t even want to risk going there, Speaker, because it’s a bit like an old Vincent Price movie: It scares me at times. But there are those who may want to—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m dating myself a little bit, eh? Anyhow, it is what it is. They brought it forth and they consider this a huge priority.

What scares me, Mr. Speaker, is what they don’t consider a huge priority in this province, and that is the ability of a family, the ability of a small business, the ability of a widowed senior to get by in this province. Could they have put a little PR—and I don’t mean public relations, but priority—on to that issue? Maybe that’s where their priorities should be, because all we’ve seen from this government is a constant—just one issue after another, one bill after another, one regulation after another, for eight years, that have made it more expensive and, as a result, more difficult to live in the province of Ontario.

I just think of one of the first things they did when they got elected: They brought in—I think they called it the health premium. They called it the health premium and refused to consider that it was further taxation, but you know what? It went to court, and the court says, “You can call this whatever you want, but we’re calling it a tax. It’s a health levy; it’s a tax.” You know, it’s that age-old saying that I heard from my father on occasion, but it still rings true: “You can slice it and dice it in any way you want, but baloney is still baloney,” and a tax is still a tax.

You can call it what you want, you can give it a fancy name, you can try to make it sound easier, you can try to make it sound compassionate, you can try to make it sound soft, but at the end of the day, it’s a tax. And there’s one thing common about a tax: It means that when I put my hand in my pocket after the government has put their hand in it first, there’s going to be less in it. There’s going to be less in it than there would otherwise have been.

But we don’t get to say very much, as a citizen in this province, about how that government spends those tax dollars, so let’s see how they have spent it or how they’re about to spend it. How about the legal challenges to the gas plants in Mississauga or Oakville? How much is that going to cost those people, and whether they do it through a taxation or whether it goes on to the hydro bills, the energy bills—and my good God, don’t get me started there, Mr. Speaker. I’ve only got 42 seconds left. But can you just imagine how much of the hydro bill that people are paying in this province is as a result of mismanagement and misdirected policies of this government?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to remind the member that he’s drifting from Bill 19, and to get back to Bill 19, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: In the 16 seconds—I wish I had 19 seconds, because it would have matched the bill. Nineteen seconds is about all you would have needed for this bill, but I can do it in eight: What an unbelievable, thin piece of gruel, as my colleague from Sarnia–Lambton said.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: You know what? There is one good thing that I can agree with my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke about: This is a feel-good bill. It makes you feel good. It gives you the headlines that are supposed to be out there. An esteemed colleague of mine, and a benchmate from Hamilton–Stoney Creek, referred to this as a feather bill, and that’s exactly what it is. It’s something that looks good.

Let’s go through the bill. I’ll go page by page. So Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act—

Interjection: It’s only one page; that’s it.

Mr. Michael Mantha: So I’m done. So if this is the long-term plan that this government has in order to address affordable housing—I’m sorry, I don’t mean to laugh about this, but it is almost laughable. If this is the long-term housing strategy that this government has—well, wait a second. I’ll go through it again. Let me go through it again.

Okay, so there is no funding, there are no targets, and there are no timelines. There’s really nothing in this bill. There’s not a penny in it. If this is what’s going to rescue us and stimulate jobs and give us the structure that we need to really help communities and go through—wait a second. I’ll go through it again.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Take your time.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Take my time? Okay.

Okay, let’s stop this. Let’s get this to where it needs to go. Unfortunately, in the entire one page of it, it’s difficult to go back home and say, “This is really going to save you.” We need some substance. Put some teeth behind your bills.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: This is a routine bill, and I believe that we all believe it’s a necessary bill. Our government has consistently shown a strong commitment to protecting tenants across Ontario, and I believe we have proved that commitment by establishing strong rent regulations to keep rent affordable for tenants. We have afforded tenants across Ontario the lowest year-over-over increase of any government in recent history and in recent memory, at 1.9% on average. Last year’s guideline was 0.7%, the lowest on record.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Wow, that’s an accomplishment.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: That is. However, the legislation, as it was written, worked well in the pre-recession period; it no longer reflects the current economic circumstances for those who rent. We believe that we have to revisit the legislation so that future increases are in line with what’s happening in the real world for tenants in Ontario.

That’s why our government has introduced Bill 19. If passed, Bill 19 would ensure that the annual rent increase guideline would be capped at 2.5% and would not fall below 1%. The guideline would continue to be based on Ontario’s consumer price index.

What does this mean? It means that in years when the current guideline formula results in a guideline below 1%, the guideline will be determined to be 1%. In the years where the current formula results in a guideline above 2.5%, the guideline will be determined to be 2.5%. This will give stability and affordability to renters and moderate rent increases to landlords. Thank you.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s always a pleasure to join in the debate when my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has provided this Legislature with a presentation. I think all members would agree that he adds a great deal to the debate whenever he discusses any topic in this chamber, and we certainly appreciate his efforts on Bill 19.

As my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke stated, this bill is “thin gruel,” to steal a line from our colleague from Sarnia–Lambton, Mr. Bailey. We expected that this government would take significant action on the economy so that we could actually ensure that there’s affordable housing for everyone, because they could actually afford to live in a rental apartment or to own their own home.

There have been a lot of suggestions on how to improve this piece of legislation. My colleague from Toronto—what’s your riding, Mr. Schein?

Mr. Jonah Schein: Davenport.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —from Davenport talked about a local issue that he is concerned with in his community, in his city of Toronto. In the city of Ottawa, I represent one of the fastest-growing communities in all of Canada, where home ownership is a very significant and important investment in one’s life, yet at every step of the way, this Liberal government is making it much more difficult for people to either own their own home or rent a suitable living environment. That, my friends, is what is at stake here. This Liberal government, with their one-page Bill 19, certainly does not do that.

We are facing job losses each and every month here in Ontario. That should be the focus of that government. That should be the focus of how we help the people of this province. And that is why I stand with my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: I was listening to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and listening to him talk about who picks the pockets of folks in Ontario. I think we have a small—well, a rather large—disagreement about this. To him, it’s government. I would hope that we would become a government, and that’s not what we would do. But when I look around, I see people whose pockets are feeling light, who feel like they’ve been robbed, and they’re being robbed by big oil companies. They’re being robbed by insurance companies. They’re being robbed on their hydro and electric bills.

These are things that we’re standing up, defending here, as the third party, to make life more affordable, and yet the other two parties here refuse to stand up for Ontarians. They like to call them taxpayers; I like to call them residents or citizens of this province. We need to make sure that we stand up and make renting an apartment not a luxury but a human right in this province.

Last year, we had a one-time commitment from the province to work on the bedbug strategy in Ontario. This is the kind of thing that we need. We cannot continue to have bills introduced that don’t have a dollar of resource put behind them. So, when we talk about bullying in this House, there’s not a dollar of support for a teacher or a social worker to support that bill. When we talk about rent control, there’s not a dollar put towards fighting bedbugs. This is about people’s health. This is about people’s mental health. This is about the prosperity of Ontario, because nobody is going to want to come to this city in a few years if we allow bedbugs to run this province.

So I would like to see a housing discussion that included real resources to make sure that tenants and folks across the city and across this province have safe, affordable, decent housing. That’s something that we haven’t heard, and we need to hear some bills that have real substance behind them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has a two-minute reply.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to thank the members from Algoma–Manitoulin, York South–Weston, Nepean–Carleton and Davenport for their comments. Some of them spoke to what I said, and some really didn’t.

But what I didn’t have a chance to—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Is that unusual, John?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not totally; totally not unusual, I say to my friend from Trinity–Spadina.

But let’s talk about the non-rental population in this province, those who do own their own homes. Home ownership is something that most people aspire to. Particularly for those people who do not live in the downtown core of major cities, home ownership is something that they cherish. Some, of course, in the cities become homeowners in a condominium building.

But the homeowner in this province feels like they’re under siege by the McGuinty Liberals. To my friend from Davenport who thinks that it’s the private sector that picks the pockets of the residents of this province, it’s the government that legislates what you pay them. You don’t have a choice but to pay your levy to Caesar, as they say in the Bible.

It is the decisions of government that have made it so difficult and uncomfortable for those homeowners to live in this province, and particularly the decisions of this government. If you look at the government side of the cost of living, when you’ve taken your spending in this province from $68 billion to $126 billion in this term of office, you know you’re taking an awful lot more money out of the pockets of those homeowners.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: A great pleasure to enter debate on Bill 19 today. I would respectfully submit that we change the short name of this bill to “Oops, I did it again.”

This bill is a result of the Liberal acknowledgement that the HST has had a catastrophic effect on everyday Ontarians. Families, seniors, small businesses and, in this case, renters, people who live in downtown Ottawa, who live in downtown Toronto and who live elsewhere in rental units, have seen that it’s become very difficult to manage their everyday budget, and it’s become very difficult for landlords as well. So this bill is really an acknowledgment that the Liberals failed when they implemented the HST.

Let’s just have a little history lesson on how we brought in the HST here. Well, I shouldn’t say how “we” did; we fought it, Mr. Speaker. This Liberal government took about six weeks to bring in the single largest sales tax increase in Ontario’s history. Let’s talk about why they did that. They saw a greedy $3-billion tax grab opportunity. They felt that it was within their right to look at Ontarians as an ATM—cha-ching, cha-ching—because they have a spending problem.

What happened then was that they brought in the HST—they harmonized the provincial sales tax with the federal sales tax—and when every other single province in Confederation either brought in substantial changes to what would be covered or brought in exemptions, these guys kept that on everything, including home heating.

They also decided to raise the tax increase. Where most provinces, when they harmonized, effectively decided to reduce a number of the costs that would be associated with the HST, this greedy government over here decided they were going to raise an extra two points. So they actually took in $3 billion more than any government would have because of harmonization. It wasn’t tax-neutral, it wasn’t revenue-neutral, and it hit people. It hit, for example, landlords who had to deal with things like snow removal, landscaping, home improvement services—I’m talking about plumbing and electrical.

All of those service sector arrangements then saw the HST come into play. That has then gone on to be passed on to consumers. This is simply an acknowledgement that they got it wrong with the HST and how they implemented simplifying the taxation process.

I actually believe, as a result—in the last election, we saw several Liberal cabinet ministers go down to defeat, and I would humbly suggest to you that many of those seats were lost as a result of how they implemented that greedy 13% HST tax grab without making it revenue-neutral. It had a significant impact on the people they represent. In this case, they have left landlords no option other than to raise the rent because of that snow removal, because of that plumbing and electrical work that needs to be done on top of that landscaping work.

There needed to be someone to pay for that extra percentage as a result of the HST, so who better to pay it than to let it trickle down? What this government has done is forced landlords, and then of course their tenants, to pay for the additional costs as a result of the HST.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is yet again an “Oops, I’ve done it again,” because this is the first time that they’ve acknowledged that the HST has had a very negative impact on Ontario constituents, particularly as a result of the high HST rate, that 13%. They did it with home heating, remember? They brought in that 10% benefit. They said that was going to fix everything and it would just negate the HST.

Well, you know what? I think Ontarians are smart enough. They get their bill; they know that there is that 13% charge on their home heating. They know that on the debt retirement charge, they’re paying HST. They know that this Liberal government is getting anywhere between $3 billion and $5 billion extra a year as a result of the harmonized sales tax. And there has been no relief anywhere else in the system. There have been no exemptions. Their rent is going up. Gas has gone up. For heaven’s sake, funeral arrangements have gone up.

This is what this Liberal government has done, because, as my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke stated earlier, this isn’t the first tax that they increased. They brought in the single largest sales tax increase in Ontario’s history with the HST, but they brought in the single largest income tax increase as well, and that was the health tax. They tried to tell people in this Legislature and in this province that it wasn’t a tax, as my colleague said. They pretended it was a so-called premium. These guys are the worst insurance salesmen in this province. No one believes them. Why would you buy insurance from them? You don’t want to.

In fact, that’s why people like Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s have put them on credit watch and put them on a downgrade, because this government can’t manage people’s money. And now they want to force us to pass their budget by June, so that they can prove to the world they have a plan. They haven’t had a plan in nine years. All they see is every single soccer mom, grandmother and small business owner as their personal ATM, to spend more money and keep spending more money, and they have nothing to show for it—nothing—with the exception of a deficit and a ballooning debt.

Let’s talk about that for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and how Bill 19 impacts that. We’re looking at the trickle-down effect of the HST. It goes to the landlord, then it goes down to the tenant—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would ask the members on the government side, if they want to talk, to not yell to each other. You might want to go outside to talk about it or at least sit beside each other. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks, Speaker. You know what? I think it’s an important history lesson for them as well, because they weren’t here for some of the catastrophic choices that government made over the past nine years with respect to our economy. Just to simply let them know, what this government has done and why people are paying more and getting less in this province is because they continue to spend.

I want to cite something, and I’ll actually summarize something that Dwight Duncan said in his speech: The first priority of this government to spend money is health care. The second is education. The third-largest spending priority of this Liberal government is servicing the debt and the deficit. With the exception of health care and education, it is higher than every other ministry combined; it is the highest of every other government department combined, with the exception of health care and education.

Every single dollar we spend on serving the debt and the deficit is a dollar taken away from health care and education—and we still are raising taxes. So what’s happening here, ladies and gentlemen? They have a spending problem.

This is no surprise to anybody. This morning I woke up, and I was listening to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would ask the member to stick to Bill 19. She’s drifting into other areas.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you, Speaker, but my main contention here is that the HST was so fundamentally flawed when it was brought in that it has created this trickle-down effect and Ontarians are paying more. My thesis here, Mr. Speaker, is that the folks are paying more as a result of the HST. They’re getting less of it. What they see with their tax dollars when they send them to Queen’s Park is not better rental facilities, it’s not better health care. You know what they see? They see Ornge. This morning, I was listening to a radio station here in Toronto, Newstalk 1010. They were talking about Ornge and—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This will be my last suggestion to you to stick to Bill 19. Now we’re on Ornge?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, the HST is what caused this bill. There is a correlation between the amount of taxes we pay to this government and what they’ve done with those taxation dollars. That is why it’s a fundamental concern to the people who are either landlords or tenants in this province, on where their tax dollars are going.

I think that’s a significant question that this government needs to answer. I think that they have taken a significant amount of revenue that they’ve raised off the backs of taxpayers, tenants, landlords, small business owners, families and seniors across this province and they’ve wasted it. Now we’re talking about a bill that was brought in as a result of the HST because this bill doesn’t go far enough in actually addressing the real problem here in this province, which is making life more affordable. What they did is they raised taxes. Now they’re raising rents and they’re hurting landlords at the same time.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: They’re hurting everyone.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: And they’re hurting everyone, as my colleague from Northumberland–Quinte West says. So the question before them now becomes: How do they make this province more affordable and how do they get a control on the economy? Because, ladies and gentlemen, they haven’t shown in the past nine years that they’re capable of that. That’s why we don’t have confidence in this government.

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 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Shurman: I’m very pleased to introduce, sitting in the west members’ gallery, the family of a page from Thornhill, Andrew Mohan, who I had the pleasure of having lunch with the other day: his mom, Deborah Mohan; his dad, Timothy Mohan; his grandfather William Broadhurst; and his grandmother Arden Broadhurst. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Prue: I’d like to introduce the interns from OLIP who are here today: Evan Akriotis, Patrick DeRochie, Belinda Ellsworth, Lauren Hanna, Humera Jabir, Sylvia Kim, Diego Ortiz, Sylvia Pena, Craig Ruttan and Monika Wyrzykowska. They are here to watch the proceedings, but also to make sure that the members know that there is an OLIP reception tonight from 4:30 to 7 o’clock in room 228. They hope all the members of the Legislature will attend.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s my pleasure to introduce some very good friends of mine in the members’ east gallery this morning: Dr. Steven Franklin, the president and vice-chancellor of Trent University; Dr. Neil Emery, the vice-president of research at Trent University; and Mr. Don Cumming, associate vice-president of public affairs and government relations. I invite all members of the Legislature to join us from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. in committee room 2 to celebrate Trent University.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce four guests from North Bay Police Service. We have Staff Sergeant Mike Tarini, Sergeant Ken Rice, forensic information officer Ivan Ryman, and Constable Aaron Northrup here today, and I’ll be joining them for lunch later.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome from the city of Timmins and the Timmins Police Association the president who is here, Mike Fortin, along with their vice-president—I was going to say Lisa; my God, I don’t believe I did that—Lindsie Durepos. How’s it going?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I have a page here—the last session—from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, Sarah McPherson. Visiting Sarah here and visiting Queen’s Park this week are her mother, Tracy Shields, and her cousin Halle Kunjah. I welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I know they’ve been introduced as a group, but I want to introduce, joining us in the public galleries this morning, my intern from the OLIP program, Craig Ruttan. I’ve got to tell you what an amazing addition he’s been to our office. He’s doing a fine job, as they all do, but I want to single out Craig because he is the intern working for me.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m really pleased to introduce some representatives from the Niagara Regional Police who are here in the members’ gallery. I’d like to introduce Cathy Portolesi. As well, I’d like to introduce Rick Gordon and Vince Wong. I want to thank them for the great service they provide to the Niagara region as police.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’d like to welcome some honoured guests from the Halton Regional Police Association to the Legislature today: Duncan Foot, Kevin Neufeld, Lesley Martin and Rick LoStracco, who I met with earlier today and who are visiting Queen’s Park as part of Police Week.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the east members’ gallery I’d like to introduce my daughter, Natasha, and her friend Erica Beasley visiting from Whitehorse in the Yukon. We also have a grade 10 class from St. Augustine Catholic High School in the public gallery, and also my intern, Diego Ortiz.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome some people from Belleville that are on the way to the Legislature today, likely stuck in traffic. Alan and Donna Corrie, and their grandsons Ben and Will Smith, will be arriving shortly.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Dr. Ken and Lori Lee from London are here. Welcome, Dr. Ken and Lori.

Also, Speaker, the Personal Support Network of Ontario, the voice of PSW professionals in the province: I’ve got Maureen Hylton, Derrick Harrison, Connie Xolisiwe and Jane Clarkson here, as well as Lori Holloway, Sarah Blakely and Chris Holcroft. Welcome to all our PSWs.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Today, obviously, police from across Ontario will be joining us. I’d like to make a special mention to those from the Ottawa police force who are joining us. In the gallery today is another Ottawa police officer, but he is with the OPP. I’d like to introduce Todd Provost. How are you today, Todd? Thanks for coming.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce members from the Police Association of Ontario: Jim Christie, Ron Middel and Ed Parent. I invite all of you to join us at 5 o’clock for the reception at the St. Lawrence lounge in the Macdonald Block.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I join the minister, Speaker, on behalf of the PC caucus, in welcoming all members of the PAO here today, and I invite the members and encourage them to join them at the reception later this evening.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to introduce two police officers from the Greater Sudbury Police Service, Danny Zymbrowski and Brian MacRury, and thank them very much for their incredible dedication to the people of Sudbury.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just a point: When we get to strictly introducing everyone, we give them a good round, and I appreciate the members staying to that process. Most people can introduce everybody, but for those who have not been invited, we welcome you here to the Legislature, the people’s place.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. For months we’ve been warning you that if Ontario doesn’t get its economic fundamentals right, our province faces continued job losses and high unemployment. A look at Greece and Italy today shows you the consequences of the path that you are on. No company is interested in investing or creating jobs in those countries today. For months, you’ve ignored our pleas for the urgent action required to restore Ontario. We have been giving your government viable options to rein in spending. What are you prepared to do today, right now, to take us off this current path?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I welcome the question from my honourable colleague, and I’m pleased to join in what I think is a very important debate about the future of Ontario’s economy. But I would respectfully suggest to my honourable colleague that it is both inappropriate and, I would also say, irresponsible to compare the great province of Ontario, with our wonderful foundational strength in terms of our economy, to less fortunate places around the world. I think that while we might debate the best way to get there, surely we can begin by agreeing that we have a wonderful province, that we have a strong economy.

Our shared responsibility is not to castigate it, it is not to undermine confidence in it, but to find a way to make it even stronger.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Premier, it’s unfortunate that you continue to ignore the problems that our province has. Since you won’t act, we will. Later today, on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, I will introduce legislation that will bring in a mandatory wage freeze for the public sector. Such a wage freeze would save Ontario $2 billion annually and be a major step forward to getting our economic fundamentals right. It would send an important signal to investors, entrepreneurs, companies and rating agencies that we are serious about dealing with our spiralling debt.

Premier, will you help us restore Ontario as the economic engine of Confederation and support our mandatory wage freeze?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm coming from the side opposite, but we actually have some common ground here. Where we differ is in terms of how to get there.

We have said in our budget very specifically that there is no new money available for newly negotiated collective agreements. We’ve made that very, very clear. But we’ve also drawn lessons from the experience in other provinces. None have adopted the approach advocated by my honourable colleague; neither has the federal government.

We intend to negotiate firmly and fairly with our collective bargaining partners. If we fail to achieve the result that we need that will maintain our fiscal plan, then we’ll take additional steps in this very Legislature to ensure we arrive at that. I think that’s the sensible way, I think that’s the most guaranteed way, of arriving at our destination.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Premier, you tried that two years ago and failed. It’s not good enough anymore.

Seven months ago, the people of Ontario sent us back here to deal with our jobs crisis and our high unemployment, but all you’ve done is make things worse. It’s clear the Premier is happy with Ontario being a have-not province, with anemic economic growth, and saddling our future generations with his debt.

On this side of the House, we know we can do better. We know Ontario can do better. Today, we are tabling legislation that enables our province to realize that bright future. Ontario can be strong again. Why won’t you change course and support our mandatory wage freeze?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Maybe there’s a leadership contest under way over there, Speaker.

Again, we have some common ground here. We both understand how important it is for us to restrain the growth in compensation. More than half the money that is spent as a government goes into compensation, And that, of course, Speaker, is money well spent when invested in doctors, teachers, nurses, water inspectors, meat inspectors and the like. We think that’s a very important investment that we make on the part of Ontario families.

But we also think it’s very important that today we hit the pause button for a couple of years. We’re going to do it in a way which we believe is responsible and, ultimately, effective. We’ll do it in a way that has been adopted by the other provinces and the federal government. We will work with our collective bargaining partners.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday you missed a golden opportunity to have an adult conversation with Ontarians about their rising hydro bills. Instead, you chose to play politics with comments about Niagara Falls.

Well, let’s talk about Niagara Falls and what you allowed to happen there last year. In addition to the rich subsidies we pay for wind producers, we also make guarantees to buy their power at any time it’s made. This happens mostly at night, when we don’t need the power. So, Premier, you allowed water to spill over Niagara Falls without harnessing that power through infrastructure we’ve already paid for. That cost taxpayers $300 million last year. Premier, do you plan to continue to spill water over Niagara Falls next year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague, secretly at least, is very supportive of renewable energy policy in the province of Ontario. He was an active champion on behalf of the great city of North Bay in that regard, and we were pleased to partner with him in that very important initiative, Speaker.

But I will say, and I think it’s important to keep in mind, that while our electricity bills have been going up, it’s important to understand that 5% of the bill is related to renewable electricity in the province of Ontario. The overwhelming majority of that is related to the investments we’ve been making: billions of dollars, 9,000 megawatts in new generation, 5,000 kilometres of new transmission, expanding our capacity at Niagara Falls and the like.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, in addition to the $300 million spilled over Niagara Falls, let’s look at some of the other high-cost items that are causing our families’ hydro bills to soar: smart meters, $1 billion; the politically motivated gas plant closures in Oakville and Mississauga, another $1 billion, or maybe more. The Auditor General told us the feed-in tariff subsidy cost $4.4 billion more than through the existing standard offer. We’re talking about serious money here, Premier.

Yesterday, our PC Party rolled out our Paths to Prosperity plan. Premier, will you adopt our plan to restore the power sector to its rightful place as an economic development tool in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That horse ran out of the barn a long time ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have an ally, Speaker. For the day, anyway, we have an ally.

I would say to my honourable colleague that—it’s interesting. I think this is eighth question, if my count is right, with respect to their new plan related to energy, but they refuse to talk about the particulars in this House about their plan.

I think it’s important that we devote at least a little bit of time to understanding what they’re proposing. They want to sell off our hydro assets. They want to take us back to a time 10 years ago where, within the span of seven months, electricity rates went up by 30%. They then responded by putting in place an artificial cap. That cost us $1 billion. That’s a debt that we continue to struggle with to this very day. That’s a failed experiment, Speaker. I think it’s time for us to understand that and to keep moving forward.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, your legacy now includes the doubling of our hydro rates in addition to the doubling of our debt. Not only has Moody’s downgraded the province’s credit rating, now Hydro One’s credit rating has been downgraded too. That, too, is going to cost ratepayers more money.

Companies like Fabrene in North Bay, who I introduced in this gallery some weeks ago, who now pay $1 million in global adjustment on top of their hydro bill, can now expect to pay even more, thanks to your flawed strategy.

Premier, it’s evident that everything you touch in the energy sector costs taxpayers and ratepayers even more money. Our party has developed a 13-point plan, a plan to make energy an economic development tool. Will you adopt our plan and put Ontario back to work?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker—

Interjection.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That’s you guys; that’s not them.

Again, I think it’s important we understand that my honourable colleague is secretly a champion of green energy—green, clean and renewable energy—in the province of Ontario. As the mayor of North Bay, he was relentless in the pursuit of putting solar panels on the rooftops of some buildings there, which speaks, I think, of—it’s been said, Speaker, that actions speak louder than words. I want to assure my honourable colleague that he has been most eloquent with respect to his actions. I am mindful, and I have taken those actions to heart. I know he continues—secretly, at least—to champion our plan to bring more renewable energy to the province of Ontario.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Reliable, affordable electricity is vital if Ontario is going to succeed in bringing jobs back and making life affordable for people. Can the Premier tell us how much of Ontario’s electricity generation is currently publicly owned and operated?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As the members would know, well over 70% of Ontario’s generation capacity is publicly owned, publicly operated, owned by all of the people of the province of Ontario—well over. Those would be our nuclear stations, which generate about half; our hydroelectric stations, which are over 20%; and then a number of gas-fired facilities and some coal that we’re getting out of. It’s well over—well over—70%.

That’s going to remain unless the PCs get their way, when they’re just going to sell off hydros, nukes and everything else that isn’t nailed down.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In fact, in 2003, about 72% of the province’s electricity was produced by Ontario Power Generation. As of 2010, that figure had dropped to 62%. Over that same period, the price has climbed by 75%.

The government says they’re focused on the best way to keep prices affordable, but prices keep rising dramatically. Is the government ready to consider that private power schemes may in fact be a big part of the problem?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, not only do we continue to run, through OPG, the generation facilities, but Bruce Power, which is a private company, the assets are owned by the people of the province of Ontario. We have a very strong public footprint—always have, and always intend to.

What we’ve said to all of those who generate electricity in the province of Ontario is that we’re determined that it be done as efficiently and effectively as possible. There are cost containment and cutting measures in place in OPG and Hydro One. We’re moving to international benchmarking. We’re taking a look at all the local distribution companies, and we’re saying, can it be done more effectively? We reduced the feed-in tariff rates for green energy at the top end by 30%.

We’re looking everywhere to find the most effective way to deliver power to the people of the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For people worried about good jobs and the cost of everyday life, the arrival of the monthly hydro bill can actually be a pretty traumatizing experience.

The debate is very clear: Some are arguing that repeating the same old private power experiments that haven’t been working is the solution; we’re saying that it’s time to look at what is actually working in provinces like Manitoba and Quebec, where people are paying literally half of what we pay here. Will the government commit to an open and transparent review of the entire electricity system?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: You know, we’d all like to commit to the geography in Quebec and Manitoba, but we haven’t found a way to do that.

I think the party opposite should be clear. A substantial part of the publicly owned generation assets are nuclear, and they’ve consistently said they oppose nuclear and the almost 80,000 jobs in the province of Ontario that go with it. A substantial

part in the change of the energy mix over the last eight years is that we’re getting out of coal. It was 25% when we came; it’s less than 5% today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It was 25% when we started in 2003; it’s less than 5% today.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Simcoe–Grey, come to order.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I hope the leader of the third party is supportive of that. Green energy is part of the new mix: wind, solar and bio. When will the leader of the third party stand up and support clean green energy?

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. Last week, the government assured this Legislature and the public that First Nations partners were being properly consulted about development in the Ring of Fire. Today, we’re hearing a very different story from the Neskantaga First Nation, whose legal counsel asserts that the government breached its legal duty to consult. Why has this government shown no serious willingness—and those are the First Nation’s words—to address the concerns of Neskantaga and other Matawa First Nations?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I’ll speak to this at the outset and then refer it to the minister.

I just want to say that we take our responsibilities very seriously when it comes to consulting with our First Nations partners. We understand there is both a legal obligation there, but we also feel a sense of responsibility, on behalf of all Ontarians, to make sure that we are working with our First Nations partners, especially when it comes to exciting new opportunities to be found in the Ring of Fire. I know that specific efforts were made to reach out to those communities in the past. We will continue to find ways to move forward.

None of this is going to be easy, but more than anything else, I think it does represent a hopeful, bright opportunity, especially when it comes to resource benefit sharing with our aboriginal partners to ensure that they can participate in economic growth as we move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, according to media reports, Neskantaga Chief Peter Moonias is afraid to say hi to the minister for fear that the McGuinty government will interpret that as meaningful consultation.

It’s clear that the government is bungling this, and thousands of jobs in the Ring of Fire for northerners actually hang in the balance. When will this government stop putting the cart before the horse and have a full discussion with First Nations partners that includes a proper environmental assessment and the creation of a regional decision-making forum?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said in this House, we are very clear that in order for the Ring of Fire development to go forward—and remember that the Ring of Fire is the most promising economic mineral development opportunity in the north that we’ve seen in a generation. So in order for it to go forward in the best way possible, we know that this is a partnership: the federal government, First Nations, the provincial government and the companies working together.

So we’ve been very clear that the formal process of engagement will begin. There was a business decision that was made, and in order for First Nations not to discover this the day of the announcement in the newspaper, we reached out to many of the communities the day before. We had a conversation with them.

But we’ve been making investments for a year. We’ve invested $8 million in the Ring of Fire communities. We will continue that engagement now.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The promise will not be realized unless this government gets serious about doing right by First Nations in northern Ontario.

New Democrats have long called, in fact, for a stand-alone Minister of Aboriginal Affairs who can devote their full attention to the priorities concerning First Nations. The mishandling of the Cliffs announcement only underscores this need. It is very clear: This has to happen in Ontario.

When will this government take their duty to consult with First Nations seriously and dedicate resources to do so?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, this is the government that set up a stand-alone Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, not that party when they were in office. We set up the ministry and we are working in conjunction with First Nations. We are very clear that there will be a formal engagement, there will be a discussion.

I say to the leader of the third party, she has a choice right now. She has a choice—

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Calm down. Calm down, lady.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did not find that appropriate.

Minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite who shouted out “Calm down”—I really believe that there’s a need for an emotional engagement on this issue. I think that this is an important moment in Ontario’s history. The importance of it is that we work together and that we not undermine the process.

There is a history of neglect and of conflict that we have to overcome in terms of working with our First Nations people. It is our commitment to do that. It is our commitment that the 1,100 jobs that are available will be shared with First Nations, and we are going to work to make that happen.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. I’m appealing to the Premier this morning to bring in line his government House leader, who has motions before him from this Legislature, as well as from the public accounts committee, requesting additional time and flexibility so that we can get to the bottom of the Ornge scandal.

We now have no hearings for this coming week because the government has refused to allow us to have them. We have two more days of hearings before the summer break. We specifically requested to be allowed to sit into the summer. Dr. Chris Mazza has yet to testify.

This morning, we heard that Ruth Hawkins, a senior person within the Ministry of Health, has a great deal of information. We need the additional time. Will the Premier agree to give us that time?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’ve been following the committee hearings on Ornge carefully, of course, and I’m very pleased that so many people have participated in a meaningful way at those hearings. I myself was very happy to be there for two and a half hours, about an hour and a half longer than I was asked to attend.

There is important work that is being done at that committee. If the member opposite wants to conduct the hearings here on the floor of the Legislature, I tell you, I would like to know more about a $7,000 invoice that Kelly Mitchell, a top Tory insider, expensed to prepare a strategy for engaging the Ontario PC Party. I’d like to know more about the work that he did with Lynne Golding, a top Conservative lawyer; and Perry Martin, a top Tory lobbyist, to lobby the opposition.

Speaker, there are questions that need answers and we’re happy that the committee is meeting.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I can’t even believe what I just heard from the mouth of this Minister of Health. Serious issues: Two people died this past week; ambulance services couldn’t respond to a call. There are serious issues at Ornge ambulance and this minister has the gall to stand up and talk about a consulting agreement that someone received from Ornge.

Minister, I’m going to ask you directly: Will you stand in your place, stand with us, help us get to the bottom of the issue that you should be at the bottom of? Give us the additional time. Give us the hearings so that we can restore confidence in our air ambulance service.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can assure you that the changes that have been made at Ornge and the changes that continue to be made at Ornge are not waiting for any process that the member opposite wants to champion.

While they’ve been busy ringing the bells, we’ve been busy fixing the problems at Ornge. We have new leadership, we have a new performance agreement, a much stronger performance agreement, and we have legislation before this House that I would very much like to get passed. This is legislation that entrenches in law the oversight and transparency that we all agree we need at Ornge. I’m asking the member opposite to stop ringing the bells and let’s get this work done.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Today, former Ornge vice-president Jacob Blum testified that he had weekly meetings with officials at the Ministry of Health. He said the ministry was happy with the reports they were receiving and noted that the ministry was fully informed of all things going on at Ornge. But despite these regular meetings, the minister “never asked” about salary disclosure.

How can the minister claim that her office didn’t know what was going on at Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know that the former executive assistant to Dr. Chris Mazza did testify today. I tell you, I take the word of the Attorney General over the former executive assistant to the former president and CEO of Ornge.

What I can tell you is that we are moving forward with legislation that addresses the issues that were raised by the Auditor General. We’ve already taken significant steps that even the member from Newmarket–Aurora characterized as being aggressive changes. So we are making those changes. We continue to watch with interest the hearings, but we do need that bill to be passed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, Mr. Blum, one of the original negotiators of the original performance agreement, told the committee what we already knew: The ministry had many tools that they could have used to check up on Ornge. He said the minister could “audit and check files within any aspect of Ornge ... whether that was the left or the right side of the organizational structure,” referring to the for-profit or the not-for-profit.

Has the minister been blaming the performance agreement because she’s hesitant of blaming herself?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me begin by correcting myself: I said Attorney General; I should have said Auditor General in my first answer.

But I do take the word of the Auditor General over the former employees under the old leadership at Ornge. The Auditor General said the performance agreement was weak, it was not adequate, it needed to be significantly strengthened. The Auditor General, in a March 21 press conference, said, “The ministry has stepped in and taken concrete actions.” The Auditor General’s report says the performance agreement has only two specific and measurable response time requirements relating to requests for air ambulance services.

The Auditor General did a thorough review. We are acting on each and every one of those recommendations and we are going further by introducing legislation. I ask all members to support Bill 50.

GO TRANSIT

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Minister, those of us who live in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area know that GO Transit is a critical provincial service that binds our communities together while taking cars off our roads and highways. Many of my constituents depend on reliable, economic service on three different GO corridors: the Stouffville, Richmond Hill and Barrie lines. With five GO train stations and another to be added soon in my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, many people in my community, as well as places like Aurora and Newmarket, use these lines as vital links between home and work through the GTA.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what is being done to enhance this service to make it as attractive an option as possible?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I want to thank the member for Oak Ridges–Markham for raising an important issue for GTA travellers. GO Transit is an essential part of daily life for more than 219,000 Ontarians who depend on a reliable service to get them to and from work. That’s why we’re proud to confirm that beginning in late June, GO will be running an additional train during the morning and afternoon rush hours on the Milton line, and will be initiating a new weekend pilot service of six trains daily each way on the Barrie line.

Likewise, as this week marks the 45th anniversary of GO Transit, I was also pleased to reveal that we will be moving forward and implementing our 15-minute service guarantee, beginning this fall. This kind of action, Mr. Speaker, is an essential part of building stronger and more dependable public transit to serve the greater Golden Horseshoe area.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you, Minister. Indeed, providing a timely and reliable commute is important, but as we enter the summer months, GO Transit has the potential to play a key role in facilitating regional tourism, which largely occurs on weekends. Whether it’s someone from King City coming into Toronto to attend a concert or a Blue Jays game, or a Torontonian spending a weekend up on Lake Simcoe, this kind of internal tourism is so important for our regional and provincial economy. GO Transit helps make that happen, but only if it’s available where and when people want to travel. Tremendous progress has been made, given the neglected service the government inherited.

Mr. Speaker, again through you, what are the next steps being taken in the near term as we move progressively towards two-way, all-day service?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. GO Transit is so important in moving people across the region. The expansion of a transit system as large as GO is an ongoing process, but with more than $6 billion already invested, we’ve made significant headway. Not only did we restore service to Barrie after it was cancelled by the NDP and left cancelled by the Conservatives, but as I mentioned, we’re expanding that service to Barrie. We brought GO train service to Kitchener. We’re expanding service north of Richmond Hill. We brought summer GO train service to Niagara Falls. And for the first time this summer, we’re introducing GO bus service to Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Mr. Speaker, the Tories downloaded GO Transit onto the backs of the municipalities and cut capital funding to zero. We’re taking a different approach because this service is so important to so many Ontarians.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. Speaker, the minister has repeatedly claimed that Ornge lied to her, but it’s become clear at public accounts that Ornge, in fact, made a great effort to keep both the minister and the ministry fully briefed. In fact, we learned that the Ministry of Health and Ornge met and received a briefing every Friday. So I ask the minister, can she tell us who specifically lied to her and what they lied to her about?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have to confess that I’m pretty surprised that the member opposite is now leaping to the defence of the former leadership at Ornge. I can tell you that the Auditor General found it very difficult to get information from Ornge. My ministry officials found it very difficult to get information at Ornge. It was only when I made it very clear to the former board chair and COO that I expected them to cooperate with the Auditor General, that I expected them to reveal salaries, that they in fact did reveal that information, and shortly after retired en masse.

So if the member opposite wants to take the word of the former leadership at Ornge over the Auditor General, I’m very surprised.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was very clearly aware of the disastrous mess at Ornge and chose to take no action about it. She also claims that the original performance agreement didn’t allow her to intervene. That is not correct. She also claimed that the federal incorporation of Ornge prevented her from acting. That had nothing to do with anything. That also isn’t correct. She has repeatedly abdicated her responsibility on the grounds that Ornge misled and lied to her.

However, both Alfred Apps and Jacob Blum, who appeared in public accounts this morning, have stated that the Ministry of Health had been fully, truthfully and painstakingly briefed on matters at Ornge.

So it’s clear that no one lied to the minister, that she had the power to intervene and simply chose not to do so. As a result, the mess at Ornge is now costing patients their lives. Minister, will you do the right thing and resign?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the first thing I must do is caution the member opposite from jumping to any conclusions about any incidents. There’s a full investigation under way, and I would just caution all of us not to jump to any conclusions.

I can tell the member opposite that I do have some questions that I think—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The interjections from both sides are not helpful.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I would like to know more about how it came to pass that Ornge established a new satellite operation at Oshawa Municipal Airport.

Here’s what we do know: A former Ornge executive said he opposed the move and that it was a very poor choice for a host of reasons. We also know that the member for Whitby-Ajax not only lobbied to get a base at the airport in her riding; she also, of course, posed for that famous snazzy photo in Ornge.

Interjection.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we look forward to learning more at Ornge. These are important questions we need answers to, and I’m happy we are having those—

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

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke: second time.

New question.

Interjection.

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

New question.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities wrote that the anti-bullying bill would likely go to court. If he’s right and students are denied the ability to use the name “gay-straight alliance” in a school, will your government back those students?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to talk about an important piece of legislation that is now before committee in this Legislature. I have set out very clearly the expectations, and our government has set out clearly the expectations, of the support that will be available to students in the document of the Accepting Schools Act. My expectation, Speaker, is that every board in every part of this province will abide by the policies, that are clearly stated, that the school needs to support student-led initiatives such as a gay-straight alliance. We’ve been very clear since the beginning.

What we know is that we need to see this piece of legislation passed, so that we have the tools we need to ensure that students across this province have the support they need. Let’s get this bill passed. Let’s have these rules in place. Let’s have support for our students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question is very simple: If students are denied the right to use the name “gay-straight alliance,” will this government back the students and their own law?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: My focus is on listening to the advice that we receive at committee. My focus is on getting Bill 13 passed so that we can have the tools in place to ensure that this bill, which requires support for students in the form of gay-straight alliances or single-issue clubs, can be enforced across this province.

I ask the members opposite, on all sides of the House, especially those calling: Will they support us? Will they see this legislation passed? Will they see support in place for students across the province? Are they with the students, or are they with others in this province that don’t want to see students be supported? That is the question that all of you must answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before I recognize the member, I want to make a quick point: You’re always referencing your questions and answers through the Chair.

New question.

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

AND HYDRO ONE

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, Ontario Power Generation is one of the most important public assets in the province. They are responsible for producing most of Ontario’s base-load generation, and they manage many of Ontario’s large generating facilities. I know that Niagara hydro facilities produce close to 2,400 megawatts; that’s enough electricity to power over 1.2 million homes. Furthermore, they account for close to 7% of Ontario’s total supply. These important OPG assets are providing Ontario families with safe, clean, reliable power. Ontario families and businesses have a vested interest in OPG and all of our generating facilities in the province.

Minister, can you please provide this House with an update on the status of OPG and its generating facilities in the Niagara region?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I want to thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for his question. He has long been an advocate of environmentally conscious approaches to energy policy.

He’ll be pleased to know that there’s a new tunnel going in at Niagara Falls that’s going to provide enough additional water to the generating facilities to power 160,000 homes—more clean, green generation. The great thing about that is it’s all owned by the people of the province of Ontario, as public power has been in place for about a century.

It’s important that we all have a stake in this, because our power facilities are part of our economic foundation. All families in Ontario want to have a piece of this province. If the PC plan is implemented, they’re not going to have that. It’s going to be auctioned off. They’ll lose part of their heritage. They tried this in the late 1990s; it didn’t work. Let’s not go back; always look forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister. I know that my constituents are pleased to hear that this government will protect these vital facilities from being sold off.

We often focus on the generation of electricity. However, an equally vital part of our electricity system is the distribution of electricity from the generating facilities to our homes and businesses.

Hydro One, another vital public asset, is responsible for ensuring that Ontario families and businesses get the electricity they need when they need it. Just last month, you informed this House that Hydro One continues to rebuild our electricity system, and they have built over 5,000 kilometres of new transmission lines. This is an accomplishment that my constituents are very proud of.

Minister, can you please provide this House with an update on the status of Hydro One and their efforts to modernize our electricity system?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member is right, because Hydro One has been doing a lot of work to modernize and upgrade a transmission system that hadn’t had the upgrades it needs—5,000 kilometres-plus of new line, enough to take us from here to the Yukon. That’s an enormous investment on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario.

I know that others in this House, the party opposite, the PCs, want to sell off Hydro One. They tried this once before. It resulted in rocketing, rocketing electricity prices. In fact, it was so bad that I have a quote from back there—I have a quote from 2003: “Consumers want to be assured their hydro bills are reasonable. First, it was by freezing hydro rates, and secondly, by maintaining full public ownership of Hydro One.” Who said this on January 21, 2003? Who said it? The Leader of the Opposition.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, many MPPs are receiving a significant number of complaints from constituents regarding the Ministry of Natural Resources’ electronic licensing system. We all know that when the system was introduced on January 1, there were significant delays and operational problems with it. However, today, when you call the ministry’s 1-800 number, you are greeted by a recording that says, “Personal information may be stored outside of Canada and is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction where it is stored.” Ontarians are pretty outraged at this.

Minister, do you think it’s right that a ministry of the Ontario government would ship the confidential information of Ontario citizens to another country, where it is subject to its laws, and how can you assure Ontarians that this information will not be accessed by another government or third party for their own purposes?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are rolling out a new, modern system that will make it easier for anglers and hunters to get their licences, and we’ve been working through some of the challenges associated with that. I think it’s working in a very positive way.

In terms of the privacy issues, let me be very straightforward. Obviously, we take privacy issues very, very seriously. We’ve raised those concerns with the company and reminded them of their obligations to protect Ontarians’ privacy. We also have built extremely tough protections into the company’s contract. They cannot disclose any information without prior approval from us. And may I say, the very tough provisions of Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act absolutely apply.

I can confirm to you that indeed we are watching this very closely. It’s very important to us that we maintain the privacy provisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Minister, your 1-800 recording says that the personal data is collected for purposes of identification, enforcement, research, marketing and administration—that pretty much covers everything—and you claim that this personal and confidential information is being protected. So why does the ministry have this disclaimer on the 1-800 number, which again says, “Personal information may be stored outside of Canada and is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction where it is stored,” not Ontario?

Can you and will you cancel this contract and ensure that this data is retained in Ontario, or do Ontarians have to live with this bad decision?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Obviously, there was a company that was the successful proponent in a competitive procurement process as we moved forward on this new automated licensing system. Again, we take the privacy provisions extremely seriously, which is why we have built very those tough provisions into the company’s contract. It’s also why the very, very clear and tough provisions of Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act apply.

We are taking this very, very seriously, building in a very strong contract agreement with the company that was the successful proponent of this as we move towards the system that will actually make it easier for people to access hunting and fishing licences across the province.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The annual report from the Cancer Quality Council of Ontario paints a picture of unequal access to care in cancer hospitals across the province. Patients in Ottawa are waiting longer for radiation treatment than almost everywhere else in the province, with only 66% of patients treated within the recommended 14 days compared to a provincial average of over 80%. Many are questioning whether quality care is being compromised.

Can the Premier explain to Ottawa’s patients how they could have fallen so far behind?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thanks to the leader of the third party for the question. I want to say, first of all, thank you to the Cancer Quality Council of Ontario for this report. We have learned that if you measure and if you publicly report, you can actually improve performance in the health care system. This report shows that we have made significant improvements to cancer care, but there is still more to do.

Ontarians are living longer with cancer. Our cancer survival rates in Ontario are very high compared with international jurisdictions. But we do need to improve the care. With this report, we can continue to improve care. We are very pleased that we’re meeting the targeted wait times 80% of the time. That’s up from 69%. There’s much good news in this report, but there’s also indication of further work to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ottawa is regrettably not the only region that has fallen behind. Windsor has the unfortunate status of having the longest wait time in the province for radiation treatment, with only 55% of patients receiving radiation treatment within the recommended 14-day period. Families in London are also seeing long waits.

Can the Premier explain why Ontarians’ access to life-saving cancer treatment depends on where you happen to live in this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Addressing those inequities is, of course, a very high priority for us, but whenever you rank, some will always be at the bottom and some will always be at the top. I do think, though, that equitable access to care is something we should all be striving for.

We have come a long, long way since 2003 when it comes to cancer care. We’ve got 13 cancer centres that have been opened, expanded or are now under construction. We’ve got an additional 65 cancer drugs that we are funding. We are looking forward to also implementing a personalized cancer risk profile online, where people will be able to enter information about their family history, about their own history, be identified at what level of risk they are and take appropriate steps to prevent cancer.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Crown wards are often at a disadvantage when it comes to successfully transitioning to adulthood in terms of acquiring higher education, employment and emotional support. In November 2011, youth currently and formerly in the care of children’s aid societies worked with the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth to organize two days of public hearings at the Legislature on their experience. On Monday, I was very proud to attend the release of their report that was produced, entitled My Real Life Book.

Speaker, through you, I ask the minister how the government has helped to improve the child protection system in recent years.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank my colleague from Windsor West for the question and for her ongoing advocacy on this important issue.

I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the Youth Leaving Care team and the provincial advocate for their report, which I know was the result of an incredible amount of hard work.

I was privileged on Monday, as well, to accept this groundbreaking report and hear from many of the courageous youth who played a big

part in creating it.

Through this government’s Building Families and Supporting Youth to be Successful Act, 2011, and other important reforms, we’ve made it easier for prospective parents to adopt a child. This is helping to provide permanent homes for more crown wards. In fact, since 2003, and despite a rising population, we’ve seen a 3% decrease in the number of children in care and in the past few years alone a more than 20% increase in adoptions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: I thank the minister for his answer. Both the youth team and advocate should be commended for their hard work. Our government has done a lot to support and improve the child protection system. Fewer kids are coming into care and more kids are being placed in permanent homes and we continue to invest in our children. Building on these reforms and accomplishments, I believe this report presents a real opportunity to continue positive change in the system. I was pleased to introduce a private member’s bill in response to the release of the report.

Speaker, once again through you, I ask the minister to outline what action the government is taking in response to this report.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, I’d like to thank the member from Windsor West.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the Youth Leaving Care team’s report, I was pleased to announce that we are taking immediate action on their number one priority recommendation emerging from this report. I have directed my ministry to immediately bring together a working group, as requested by the team, comprised of youth with experience living in care, along with partners from across the province.

I’m also pleased that action has been taken on another important recommendation brought forward by these youth in the report. My colleague the member from Windsor West earlier this week introduced a private member’s bill to designate May 14 each year as Children and Youth in Care Day. I invite all of my colleagues in the Legislature to join me and the member from Windsor West in passing this bill.

PENSION FUNDS

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week, you claimed to have published the unfunded liabilities of public sector pensions in the budget. This is not so. What is published is how much we already know Ontario taxpayers will be paying out, which includes over $3.3 billion worth of pensions in 2014-15 alone. The numbers in the budget only include the next three years.

The question is, how much more will Ontario