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

May 18, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-May-18 (PDF)

L085A - Thu 18 May 2017 / Jeu 18 mai 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 18 May 2017 Jeudi 18 mai 2017

Orders of the Day

Rental Fairness Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité en location immobilière

Notice of reasoned amendment

Introduction of Visitors

Government advertising

Oral Questions

Probation and parole services

Government advertising

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Sexual violence and harassment

Opioid abuse

Land use planning

Electric vehicles

Nurses

Agri-food industry

Public consultation

Birth certificates

Nuclear safety

Executive compensation

Deferred Votes

Fair Hydro Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour des frais d’électricité équitables

Anti-Human Trafficking Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 contre la traite de personnes

Rental Fairness Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité en location immobilière

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Age-Friendly Whitby

Speaker’s whisky of the year

Graduation rates

Long-term care

Savio Wong

Bladder cancer

Elmira Sugar Kings

Sean and Michael Sullivan

E. Mayhew and Son

Correction of record

Speaker’s comments

Estimates

Visitor

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Motions

Standing Committee on Public Accounts / Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

House sittings

Visitors

Petitions

Hospital services

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Health care

Hospital funding

GO Transit

Medical assistance in dying

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Rail service

Privatization of public assets

Hydro rates

Private Members’ Public Business

Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act (Freedom of Conscience in Health Care), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées (liberté de conscience en matière de soins de santé)

Young professionals

Protecting Vulnerable Persons in Supportive Living Accommodation Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la protection des personnes vulnérables dans les logements supervisés

Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act (Freedom of Conscience in Health Care), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées (liberté de conscience en matière de soins de santé)

Young professionals

Protecting Vulnerable Persons in Supportive Living Accommodation Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la protection des personnes vulnérables dans les logements supervisés

Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act (Freedom of Conscience in Health Care), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées (liberté de conscience en matière de soins de santé)

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Safer School Zones Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la sécurité accrue des zones d’école

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Rental Fairness Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité en location immobilière

Mr. Naqvi, on behalf of Mr. Ballard, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la location à usage d’habitation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m going to take a very brief moment to make some comments, but I’ll be sharing my time with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing, who will be presenting most of the remarks on third reading of this very important bill.

I just wanted to speak on behalf of my community of Ottawa Centre. As many of you know, Ottawa Centre has a downtown community with some significant development that is taking place. Especially, we continue to see new condo buildings that are being built in my riding, a development that is welcomed by the community.

This bill will be a significant relief to many people who live in my community who rent, mostly for the young people who attend both Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, but also many young families as well that rent. By eliminating the 1991 cut-off, through this particular bill, we of course would ensure affordability of housing to many of those young people and those young families, so I am quite grateful and supportive of this bill in that regard; from the perspective of my constituents, it’s something that I’ve heard a lot about.

The second group of people I am quite pleased will benefit from this bill are those who live in retirement residences: our seniors. I’ve heard from many seniors, especially seniors who live in the Colonel By residence in Old Ottawa South, that seniors’ residences, many of them built after 1991, are not covered by rent control and they see significant increases. This bill will cover those seniors’ residences, and those seniors who live on limited means by way of their pension will see relief in that regard, so I’m quite appreciative of that. I hope other members see that as well and will support this bill.

Before I pass the floor to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing, I just want to say: Go, Sens, go. It was a great victory last night, 5-1. We are, I believe, six games away from holding the Stanley Cup. Hope is eternal.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Go, Sens, go.

Il me fait plaisir de participer au débat pour la troisième lecture sur le projet de loi 124, l’équité dans des locations immobilières.

I am very happy to participate in this debate on Bill 124, which is, in my view, urgently needed and reflects significant, great work that was done by the Ministry of Housing and its minister.

I want to start by thanking all the participants in the public hearings and the members of the committee for their input, which was very much appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, the government’s work to improve access to suitable and affordable housing for the people of Ontario predates the Rental Fairness Act. Since 2003, the government has invested about $4 billion in affordable housing throughout the province. It has helped create about 20,000 rental units, helped repair over 275,000 social and affordable housing units, and helped over 90,000 households with rent and down payment assistance.

The core vision of the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy is that every Ontarian has access to an affordable and suitable home. That means that they have some form of security of tenure so they can have the foundation to secure employment, to raise a family where they choose and to build strong communities that have stability. Our goal is also to end homelessness by 2025. It’s an ambitious goal, but as Ontarians, we need to be committed to it.

Last December, as you know, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act was given royal assent. It gives municipalities the option to implement inclusionary zoning, and it also makes it less expensive to build secondary suites in new homes. Those are measures designed to increase the supply of affordable housing for our communities.

Certainly, recently, the Fair Housing Plan has demonstrated that we remain serious and committed to creating affordable housing options and reducing the pressure of high housing costs.

Let me talk a little bit about the Fair Housing Plan, because it’s integral to the work that we’re doing today. On April 20, the government released the Fair Housing Plan, a set of 16 comprehensive actions designed to make buying or renting a home more affordable. The Fair Housing Plan includes the following:

—a 15% non-resident speculation tax in the greater Golden Horseshoe;

—reducing landlords’ costs by aligning property tax rates for purpose-built rentals with those of condos and houses;

—leveraging provincially owned land to build more affordable housing units;

—a $125-million development charge rebate program to encourage developers to build new rental apartment buildings;

—creating a team to continue to work with developers and municipalities to eliminate red tape, to really remove all the barriers and ensure that shovels get in the ground as quickly as possible; and

—of course, part of this plan was also to expand rent control to all private units in Ontario, eliminating the exemptions for the apartment buildings built after 1991.

There are nearly 1.2 million households in the province’s rental market. Rental vacancy rates are low and demand is high. This is because people want to move to Ontario. They want to share in the economy. We’re proud of this. We want to make sure that they have places to stay so they can stay in Ontario and continue to promote and participate in our economy. So it is important, I think, that we deal with the housing issue to ensure that everyone can indeed have an affordable house.

We know that there’s no silver bullet to ensuring housing affordability. Nevertheless, there are important measures that this bill represents to ensure that we protect the ability of renters to stay housed and stay in the building that they choose. As was mentioned, it’s important that we have this measure because it affects all generations, young people as well as senior citizens, who do need to have some predictability in their rental, so that they continue to pay the price of their rent and stay housed where they want to be.

With the Fair Housing Plan, we want to create the right conditions for people so they can afford to put down roots and stay where they want to live.

Let me talk a little bit first about rent control. In our proposed Rental Fairness Act, we are tackling unfair rent hikes that have been occurring recently, and we want to increase protections for tenants while maintaining and protecting landlords’ rights as well.

Bill 124 is an important piece of legislation that, if passed, will amend the Residential Tenancies Act. It represents the culmination of years of work and of consultations with different groups: with municipalities, with tenants’ groups, with landlords’ associations. It is designed not only to increase affordability but to remove some of the irritants that existed in the system.

The government is committed to continuing to protect tenants, ensuring that they have security of tenure—that is, that they can stay and they’re not kicked out, evicted, for no good reason. We want to continue to ensure that they are able to pay their rent.

In 2012, we capped the annual rent increase guideline at 2.5%. However, buildings built on or after November 1, 1991, continue to be exempt from rent increase guidelines. This is what, today, we want to remove: this anomaly where we had some buildings that were subject to rent control and others that were not. We want the entire rental housing system to be subject to the same rules, so that we don’t have a two-tiered system. Renters all across Ontario will know the rules, and so will landlords. This means extending rent control to all private rental units and getting rid of the outdated, two-tiered rent control system.

It’s simply unacceptable that so many Ontarians are faced with housing costs that have risen so dramatically. It’s time that we deal with this problem, and that’s what this Residential Tenancies Act review aims to do.

Throughout the consultations, landlords were consulted and tenants were consulted, as well as economists, municipal service managers, indigenous partners, advocacy groups and transitional housing providers. We have received over 450 online submissions from engaged citizens throughout the province. We have received different petitions from Generation Squeeze, with 3,000 signatures, that asked us to expand rent control to deal with the rent spikes that have occurred recently.

This helps shape legislation that is balanced and that offers predictability, affordability and opportunity to Ontario’s rental market.

We have also had lots of discussion among members of the committee, and we had great presentations at the committee. Indeed, during the public hearings, the elected chair of East York ACORN, Alejandra Ruiz Vargas, stated, “By ending the post-1991 exclusion, thousands of families and individuals can have secure housing. They can live without fear that their rents are going to double.”

The executive director of the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations stated that “since the government’s announcement, I’ve had a lot of ... people crying on the phone because their landlord is not going to be able to hit them with 10% increases every year. They were fearful for the future, but now they’re not.”

We also heard from the legal profession, including staff lawyer Joseph Richards, who is a graduate of the University of Ottawa and made a great presentation, where he said that the bill brings stability and also supports new landlords to be accurate in setting their starting rental charges.

That’s the other part of this bill. It allows a landlord to set the initial rent at the level that he or she feels is appropriate for the market, then provides security of tenure to the renter, to the person who actually rents. If that person chooses to leave that apartment, the landlord or landlady is able to then put back the rental unit at the market rate or the rate that they so choose. It’s a balanced legislation because it protects the person, the renter, in his or her ability to stay where they want to be.

We have to recognize how important it is to provide some security of tenure, some predictability for our renters, because one of the biggest stresses in life, besides losing a loved one or a divorce, is moving. Moving costs a lot. It can displace a family and displace school opportunities for children. It makes it harder for seniors to adapt to new neighbourhoods. It also makes it difficult, often, for people that have chosen to live somewhere because it was close to their school, close to their university or their college, or close to work. Having to move is costly.

We want to ensure that we protect renters and allow them to stay where they have so wished, and not be evicted for no good reason and not be evicted for the doubling of rental charges.

Let me review a little bit the scope of the act with you so that we are sure about what this bill does. Through the proposed Rental Fairness Act, we are answering the call to make Ontario’s rental housing system fairer, more affordable and more predictable for tenants.

Let me emphasize how it protects people from unfair rent spikes before coming into force. While the majority of the proposed amendments will come into force upon royal assent, we’ve added transitional measures for rent control. Should the Rental Fairness Act pass, all notices of rent increase given on or after April 20—the day that the government introduced the Fair Housing Plan—will be capped at 1.5%. That’s important. That means that from April 20, all notices of rent increase are captured by this bill, and that protects tenants.

I also want to ensure that we continue to talk about the range of protections for tenants that is included in the bill. Certainly, I think, outside of rent control, there’s a comprehensive suite of reforms that had been called for for years.

We’re tackling issues like a disparity in leases across the province that meant that some leases had illegal clauses in them. Throughout the consultation, we heard from small landlords and from tenant groups that they wanted Ontario to join the majority of provinces—the majority of provinces have a standard lease. This bill provides and gives the authority to the ministry to do consultations and then come up with a standard lease.

A standard lease is a good thing. It is exists elsewhere because it does provide for stability and knowledge. It will be written in clear language, plain language so that people know what they’re getting into. For both the tenant and the landlord, it’s nice if they know what’s going on. It’s nice if they know what they are committing to do. The objective is to ensure that people know what contract they are entering into, know what their responsibilities are on both sides, and ensure that there’s no unfair advantage taken on by landlords who impose clauses, sometimes, that are illegal.

This was a request not only from tenants’ groups but as well from small landlords, who want to actually benefit from good guidelines so they know what they’re getting into and what their obligations are.

Madam Speaker, certainly there will be an obligation to consult people before coming up with a standard lease. We know, and it was clear during the committee hearings, that many organizations are happy to participate with the government to help set a good standard lease: a standard lease that will actually deliver on a promise of clarity and plain language and will make sure that everybody understands what they’re getting into.

The second piece that was actually quite interesting and came up often during the consultation was the abuse of landlord’s-own-use evictions. The bill takes steps to lessen the abuse of the landlord’s-own-use eviction provisions. We know that in Ontario there are thousands of good landlords, good landladies, that get along with tenants. We also know that there are thousands—millions—of tenants who pay their rent on time and who comply with their obligations. However, we know that there’s a possibility of abuse, and we have known that there were some real cases of abuse throughout Ontario.

Currently in the Residential Tenancies Act, it is possible for a landlord to evict a tenant to provide for his or her personal use or that of a member of the family. This was always in the Residential Tenancies Act and was designed to allow the landlord or landlady to take his or her property back—breach the lease—in order to install members of the family. Unfortunately, this has been abused throughout Ontario. We know that many landlords, to get rid of tenants, pretend that they actually want to take the property back, and then put it back on the market at a higher price.

Indeed, there was so much abuse that this was a constant demand of tenants’ groups. I think we’ve heard that through the hearings and we had heard that in consultations before.

So the bill does provide a presumption of bad faith that occurs in some instances. We have agreed with our friends from the other side, the NDP, and have included two of their proposed amendments to ensure that there are no loopholes. It is a presumption of bad faith. If indeed the landlord has good reasons to respond and has good reasons to evict the tenant and things change—he or she wanted to be in the unit, take it for their own use, but something happened and it’s no longer the case—certainly there’s the possibility of justifying that they were not acting in bad faith. But it is important that there is this rebuttable presumption to avoid the abuses that we saw throughout the system.

I see that my time is running out, so I just want to point out a couple of other things that are in the bill.

We have heard from transitional housing providers. The bill does provide protections for people who are in transitional homes but recognizes that they don’t get better in a year. Many of the participants said, “We need some period of time to be in transitional housing so that we can access all the good treatment.” The bill therefore responds to that concern and extends the current exemptions of one year to four years to ensure that people who are in transitional housing have the benefit of the treatments that are offered for four years, provided that—and we are quite clear in the bill—they need to have some protection as well and be treated very fairly.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 124. In this Legislature, we’ve talked over and over about the housing affordability crisis that we are facing in Ontario. Whether it’s shelters, social housing, rental units or single-family homes, we’re facing a shortage of supply. As a result, there are 171,000 families on the wait-list for social housing, bidding wars for apartments, and increases in housing prices. Bill 124 is a band-aid solution that in the long term may make the supply shortage worse.

Over the last few years, we’ve talked about the need to better balance the Residential Tenancies Act to protect both good tenants and good landlords. One presenter pointed out in committee that this is not a fight between tenants and landlords; it’s a fight between good people and bad people.

There are many stories of good landlords and good tenants: the landlords who knew their young tenants were struggling to pay for their wedding, so they gave them free rent for a month; the small landlord and tenant who have a key to each other’s apartment to take care of each other’s cats when they’re away; the landlord who was frustrated this year that costs were going up so much that he was forced to raise rents for the first time in over 10 years.

Last year, the government agreed that part of the solution to our supply problem was to encourage people to become small landlords. Instead, this bill does exactly the opposite. One of the concerns of those potential landlords is that if they rent out the unit and their personal circumstances change, they won’t be able to take back that space.

Imagine the seniors who have created a second apartment in their house, intending to move a caregiver in when they need assistance. In the meantime, they are considering renting the unit. Under this bill, they won’t.

Imagine a young couple who are working for their first house and want to rent out part of the house as an apartment until they need it for their family. Under this bill, they won’t. First, this bill adds a one-month penalty for people who have been renting out part of their house and now need that space for their family or caregiver. This means that the person who moves in their elderly mother to care for her now not only has to give the former tenant proper notice, they also have to pay them a one-month penalty in cash. The young family that is expecting a child and needs the space in their home will have to pay a penalty of one month in rent in cash.

Let me give you an example of one of the people who will be impacted. The committee received an email from a woman who became a landlord when she rented her condo to move back to her childhood home to give her aging parents care. Both her parents have serious, debilitating health conditions that make it risky for them to live at home alone. She rented her condo rather than selling it because she was concerned about her ability to re-enter the real estate market in Toronto.

At some point, her parents will need more support than she can offer and will likely need to enter supportive housing or long-term care. This small landlord, who has made a selfless decision to help her parents, is upset that the government is penalizing her for her decision. We tried to vote out this section, but the government refused.

We recognize that some individuals or couples only have one or two rental units, but they purchased them as a corporation. This bill prevents corporations from using the personal use exemption. This is a problem that was pointed out during our committee, and the parliamentary assistant said, “We recognize that this is the outcome of this bill.” In response to one of the presenters on this issue, the Liberal member from Durham said: “There are a number of issues that you raised, especially one that I took some interest in, the own-use provision in the bill.

It’s fair to say that you wouldn’t do something like that, but it was being abused by a certain faction. It’s something where we wouldn’t want your relative, your mother or your grandmother, not to have somewhere to go, so it’s something that we would probably look at. We have to look at that.”

But the government failed to put forward an amendment to fix the problem. When we put forward an amendment that would exempt individuals or couples who own less than three units, the government voted it down.

It gets worse. Let’s say that you move your elderly mother into an apartment in your home to care for her for six months, and then either she needs more care and moves into a nursing home, or worse, she passes away. The original bill said it would be deemed bad faith if you rented that apartment out again at a higher rent within a year.

We understood that. It is to prevent people from claiming they needed the apartment for personal use when they just wanted to rent it at a higher rate. But during committee, the government supported an NDP amendment that went much further. Now it is deemed bad faith if you rent that apartment again during that first year, even if it is at a lower rent. But it is not a year: When you add the notice period, it’s 14 months. A lot of things can change over that length of time.

Imagine your child moving home because they can’t find work, so you give them proper notice and they move into the apartment in your house. Luckily, they find work in another town just two months later. You now have to leave that apartment vacant for the rest of the 14 months or it is considered bad faith. This change means that good, affordable units will be sitting empty. That is the exact opposite of what we were trying to achieve.

We put forward a motion to create a committee made up of both landlords and tenants to monitor and report on the supply of new rental units. Adding a requirement to report on the amount of new supply was requested by both the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario and the Ontario board of trade. Of course, the government voted that down.

We put forward a number of amendments to make the situation easier for good tenants and good landlords. We put forward amendments that would have allowed tenants and landlords to provide notice by email, where both parties agree. This was requested by a number of stakeholders, and it was one of the items from the government’s consultation to encourage small landlords.

We also put forward amendments to help these tenants and landlords who are facing challenges with second-hand smoke. A survey found that all things being equal, over 80% of people would choose smoke-free housing. As was pointed out at committee, 70% of people at lower income levels do not smoke.

If a tenant has signed a lease with a non-smoking clause, our amendment would have allowed the landlord to enforce it without having to prove that the smoking in the building has caused damage or interfered with reasonable enjoyment, as long as the landlord lived in the same building and the building has three or less units. Saskatchewan has legislation which provides for similar enforcement of no-smoking policies. This amendment was requested by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Lung Association and the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association.

The government has actually been funding an organization called Smoke-Free Housing Ontario, but when it came to supporting an amendment that creates smoke-free housing, the government voted it down. The Smoking and Health Action Foundation, which also is supported by the Ontario government, said, “The Ministry of Housing should play a much larger role in promoting smoke-free multi-unit housing.” They also pointed out that seniors and children are particularly affected by secondary smoke in multi-residential buildings. This amendment was designed for small landlords who are considering renting one or two units in their home.

Bill 124 introduced a new standard lease which on the surface looks fine, but the government introduced a loophole which allows tenants to use this to break their existing lease. An existing tenant can request a new standard lease from their landlord, and then refuse to sign it and use that to break their lease. We put forward an amendment to say that if the tenant and the landlord have already agreed upon a written lease, the tenant can still request a new standard lease, but they cannot use not signing the lease as an excuse to break their lease. But the government—again, you guessed it—voted it down.

If this government is so concerned that tenants and landlords are not aware of what is legal to include in a lease, perhaps they should have been spending money on advertising to educate people on that. Instead, they spent millions on advertising to congratulate themselves on the pension program, or advertising a rate reduction before the legislation was even introduced.

Over the past few years we’ve seen a number of stories about professional tenants: people who know the system and repeatedly move into apartments and stop paying their rent, knowing it will be months before they can be evicted. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce says that after tenants stop paying rent, the landlord needs to wait 14 days to file with the board, 30 to 60 days to get a hearing date, five to 10 days after the hearing to get the order, 11 days before filing with the sheriff and seven days before the sheriff can evict the tenant. This amounts to 67 to 102 days’ process, and the landlord losing two to three months of rent, assuming that the tenant paid last month’s rent deposit.

We put forward an amendment that, after the Landlord and Tenant Board has issued an order of eviction, would reduce the delay before the sheriff can act to five days. This reduction would only impact people where the Landlord and Tenant Board has already decided against them, and the sheriff is needed to enforce the order; but it would prevent professional tenants from further dragging out the process. In some cases, it may also shorten the process just enough that the landlord may be able to rent it again before the next month. However, again, the government voted it down.

One of the things we heard from both tenants and landlords is that it takes too long to get a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board. This is hard on tenants who are looking for significant repairs, and hard on landlords faced with professional tenants. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is recommending that the government provide one-time funding to immediately reduce the backlog. This would help tenants and landlords. They also recommended that we look at more innovative ways for the system to work, such as the one in British Columbia where tenants and landlords can hold hearings by telephone.

This would be particularly helpful for people in the north and rural areas, where they may not have to wait for someone to travel to their area.

Just last year, the government was worried about the impact of professional tenants and the fact they were taking advantage of the system. In Kingston, it took a man six months to evict tenants that had farm animals living in the house and had done over $30,000 worth of damage. Afterwards, CBC News reported that the Minister of Housing was worried about landlords like him pulling out of the market when the rental units are in such short supply. Minister Ballard was quoted as saying: “If it’s enough to scare off someone from renting a suite in their basement, we don’t want to have that happen. So we need to look at legislation, and that’s what we’re doing.”

But this legislation wouldn’t help that landlord and wouldn’t change his decision not to rent long term anymore. That is just one more unit unavailable when we are already facing dramatically low vacancy rates.

This legislation is discouraging landlords large and small. The Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario recently surveyed their members and found that 20,000 rental units that were in the planning or application stages are now at risk of not being built. According to a recent media report, Cary Green, whose family has spent generations building rental units in Toronto, says the uncertainty over the province’s proposed changes means his company now is taking a second look at its latest roster of projects. He said, “We’ve got 1,200 units that we are looking at putting on the market as new rentals.

And now we’ve got to go back and look at each building individually and make sure it’s sustainable.

“My only message to the government is: it’s finally not broke. Don’t fix it. Don’t mess around with it.”

In RioCan REIT’s recent quarterly financial statement to investors, they said that as a result of the rent control announcement: “It is possible that future projects may be completed with a greater portion of condominium units than we had initially envisioned.” These are units that we needed in Ontario. The fact that we have bidding wars for apartments is a direct result of low supply. To ensure that tenants have access to good, affordable apartments, we need more supply.

The government says that they understand, but in policy they continue to do the opposite. They tilt policies in favour of professional tenants. They add more red tape and delays to the planning and building processes. They add additional costs through more development charges and inclusionary zoning. All of these things add up and are making housing in Ontario more unaffordable.

One of the other factors that has contributed to housing unaffordability in Ontario is the rapidly increasing cost of hydro. We have all heard the stories of people in Ontario who have been forced to choose between hydro to heat their homes and paying for necessities like food and prescriptions. Landlords have been hit with those same increases. It means that either they have to cut maintenance and other expenses or they need to pass the costs on to tenants. Neither option is good.

The real solution is to address the factors that are driving up the cost of hydro—stop signing contracts for expensive energy that we don’t need and stop paying hydro executives over a million dollars a year. Instead, this government is putting another band-aid solution in place. They are simply saying that if landlords have extraordinary increases in utility costs, they can no longer share those costs with the tenants. That doesn’t solve the problem.

What happens to all the landlords who include utilities in their rent in four years when they get another major increase in hydro rates? The senior on fixed income who added a second unit to help pay her hydro bill will now be faced with increasing rates, paying a hydro bill for two people instead of one. Instead, since the tenant doesn’t pay any portion of the increase, there is no incentive for them to conserve.

This government needs to focus on solving the real problems instead of doing quick fixes and photo-ops. As a recent QP briefing story said, “Just like her ‘fair hydro’ policy, I think almost every thoughtful person would assess Wynne’s housing plan as ‘good politics, but bad public policy.’” We all want to stop the increases in hydro rates, but burying the costs so they can be paid back later with interest doesn’t solve that problem. We all want affordable, good apartments for tenants, but the only way we’re going to achieve that long term is to address housing supply, and this bill does nothing to solve that problem; it just makes it worse.

We are not the only ones who have concerns. The Liberal member from Beaches–East York said, “The rent controls that were brought in by the previous NDP government under Bob Rae decimated the affordable housing market in Toronto and other communities in Ontario because it didn’t allow the private sector to continue to build.” He went on to say, “I would resist, tremendously, any amendment to this legislation which would bring back rent control.” Just yesterday on Twitter he called it a “blunt instrument.”

His views were shared by a former Liberal Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who said, “The proposed legislation would also encourage investment in the rental housing market by continuing to exempt units built after 1991 from rent controls. These provisions are and remain significant contributors to a favourable investment climate that would foster the renewal of Ontario’s rental housing supply.”

We need to encourage more building so tenants in Ontario have a choice. It is the only way to end the bidding wars that current tenants are facing.

Just two weeks ago, we put forward an amendment to Bill 68 which would have streamlined the planning process to put them back to what they were when the Liberal government was elected, but the government, again, voted that down. Those are the types of measures that will increase our supply. Instead, this government is pushing ahead with measures for which they have very little data to prove where they would work and a lot of experts who are saying they won’t.

Before I close, I just wanted to raise one more point on data. As I pointed out multiple times in this House, the government is not leading by example. We still don’t have the latest annual report with statistics from the Landlord and Tenant Board, even though it is a legislative requirement to have that tabled as part of the annual report of the Social Justice Tribunals over nine months ago. That is the responsibility of the Attorney General, but it seems that the Minister of Housing should have been looking for that information before he tabled the bill. Perhaps one of them will eventually follow up.

If he’d had that information, he may have come up with a totally different idea of how we have to deal with the challenge we are presently facing in the housing industry in Ontario today.

We need policy that is based on evidence, not photo ops. We need policy that is designed to achieve good, long-term results and not be a short-term political band-aid. It is the only way to really ensure good, affordable rental units for tenants and to once again have the dream of home ownership within the reach of all people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 124, the Rental Fairness Act.

Let me start out with a bit of a history lesson, if I could. Just before we broke last fall for the Thanksgiving weekend, the member for London West had the floor and was speaking to Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act. She gave us, in great detail, the need for more affordable housing in her city.

She told us of the 11,000 people who are among the working poor in London. She told us that there are 6,000 rent-geared-to-income units within the 8,000 social housing spaces available in her region. The member for London West also told this House that there were 2,800 names on the waiting list for affordable housing in her area, including 1,000 families with young, vulnerable children. I spoke to her comments. I reminded the House of the 85,000 on the waiting list for affordable housing in Toronto.

We were all speaking of the need to find solutions to the affordable housing crisis in Ontario.

I just misspoke, Speaker. Allow me to correct my record. I said, “We were all speaking”; I should have said that some of us were speaking to the need for options to affordable housing. That’s because the Liberal member for Beaches–East York then stood up and said—and I quote from Hansard from Thursday, October 6, 2016: “I would resist, tremendously, any amendment to this legislation which would bring back rent control.”

Mr. Wayne Gates: Who said that?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: That was the member from Beaches–East York. As you know, he never speaks softly in this House. You can hear him without a microphone. I mention that, of course, because he seems to be kind of quiet these days as we discuss another of his own party’s bills. This one, the Rental Fairness Act, brings back rent control in Ontario in a massive way, something he so tremendously opposed just a few weeks ago. What happened?

Last fall, the member from Beaches–East York and his Liberal colleagues were dead set against rent control. Here in the spring, it’s a key plank in their re-election campaign. You’ve got to love it. I am guessing that it may have something to do with the buzz created by the private member’s bill introduced by my friend from Toronto–Danforth, Mr. Tabuns.

On the 16th of March, he told us he was bringing in Bill 106, the Rent Protection for All Tenants Act. We asked for unanimous consent for the bill on the 6th of April, but of course the Liberals and their Conservative birds of a feather voted it down. The housing minister introduced his own bill on the 24th of April. We rushed it through a committee hearing. Not one amendment was accepted from the official opposition. Mind you, two amendments were accepted, and I thank the member from Ottawa–Vanier for accepting those amendments, from the NDP—a bit of a rarity, I must say.

I always find it somewhat amusing. We’re in the House, they bring in this closure to cut off debate—the time allocation—and someone will stand up on the Liberal side and will say, “We’ve heard enough debate. We’ve got to get it to committee. Here are the delegations. Make amendments and fashion a better bill.” They never accept any amendments, normally. They didn’t do it when we talked about the municipal bill recently. Anyway, not one amendment from the Conservatives or the NDP was entertained on the municipal bill, but the NDP did get two in on this one.

In the rush to get this bill to the House today, the Liberals cut off debate at committee at 5 o’clock, and then we worked on the remaining amendments in silence. We couldn’t debate them. That was stunning to the delegations in the audience, who came to hear if their suggestions were being taken seriously.

Let me take time here to inform the House what some of these delegations had suggested. By the way, Mr. Crack did a great job of chairing the committee, the member for Stormont-Dundas—no. Where are you from?

Mr. Grant Crack: Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Speaker, thank you. I shouldn’t have said “Mr. Crack,” I know.

A small landlord from Thunder Bay, Derek Schmidt, called in to tell us that the Landlord and Tenant Board process is in dire need of attention. It takes way too long to get to a decision-making date.

Arun Pathak, the president of the Hamilton and District Apartment Association, which represents the owners and managers of more than 30,000 units, called for a portable shelter allowance. He also called for changes to the Landlord and Tenant Board to make the system better, fairer and faster.

Jim Murphy, the president and CEO of the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario, argued against the bill’s proposal for a standardized lease, saying that there should be provisions for specific clauses that are unique to the properties of his 2,300 members, who own or manage over 350,000 units across Ontario.

The Toronto board of trade sent my friend Jeff Parker along to speak of their 12,000 members. He reminded us that 80,000 people a year are now moving into Toronto, and he asked for an annual report to the House on the progress of the Fair Housing Plan.

John Plumadore is a tenant. He represents other tenants living at Brentwood Towers. That’s a five-complex building with 950 units. They’ve had to pay 10 above-guideline increases over the past 15 years for minor building upgrades, with absolutely no evidence of the need for these things. When you get to the Landlord and Tenant Board and you say, “Show me what you have. Show me the evidence,” the landlord doesn’t have to do it. He just says, “This is how much I spent on this list of stuff.” He doesn’t itemize it. You don’t know if you’re getting what you paid for or not. There was no evidence required at all.

His members do have a lease. It’s 11 pages long, and he says that you would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure it all out.

Dania Majid and Jonathan Ho came, representing the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario. They thanked the government as well as Mr. Tabuns, the member from Toronto–Danforth, for bringing in his rent control bill. They suggested that when large landlords evict a tenant because they want the unit for their own personal use, they should have to pay an amount equal to three months’ rent—not one month, but three months’ rent—which is consistent with what they have to pay if the landlord wants to demolish the unit or convert it to condominium status.

They also suggested the landlord should provide an affidavit, signed by the family member wishing to move into the house, to demonstrate that they’re moving in in good faith. In conclusion, they said that the bill was a good first step, but measures such as vacancy decontrol must be taken. We’ve got to do something about vacancy decontrol. That’s when the landlord kicks you out by any means possible just so he can jack up the rent for the next tenant coming in.

The ACTO also told us of the many illegal clauses that exist in leases, such as no pets, no children and special charges for guests that stay over. Some people are so desperate for housing in the market, Speaker, they’ll settle for anything and they’ll sign anything, just to get a roof over their heads.

Chris Yaccato from the Lung Association was disappointed with the government because they’ve had previous discussions with the ministry during the consultation period on the bill. They were left with the impression that the bill would deal with the problems related to second-hand smoke in multi-residential buildings. He said it’s an issue for an estimated 800,000 people in Ontario. His CEO has sent the minister a letter expressing some deep disappointment about that, and the fact that testing for radon exposure wasn’t in there either. He’s of the opinion that healthy homes were put on the back burner by this government with this bill.

Just so you know, Speaker, exposure to radon gas is related to 850 deaths a year in Ontario. Next to smoking, it’s the second-leading cause of lung cancer.

The Greater Toronto Apartment Association was more concerned that the act doesn’t provide the necessary incentives for the development of a new supply of purpose-built rental units. Daryl Chong said he was representing the views of his members. He speaks for owners and operators of 150,000 apartments—not condos.

We heard from a relatively small landlord from rural Ontario, Patti Jo McLellan Shaw. Her family owns Hapfield Developments. The business was started by her father, Hap, back in 1966. They now have 73 units spread over 15 buildings in rural Ontario. Her property taxes are 1.75 times those charged on family homes. The bill sets the property tax rate for new purpose-built multi-residential buildings at a 1-to-1 ratio, which she says continues the discrimination against her 73 tenants.

Since her company is registered as a corporation, should her mother one day decide to move in to one of the family’s better units, she won’t be able to, because corporations can’t evict you for their own personal use. The Liberal member for Durham, Mr. Anderson, told her, “We will take note of that.” Of course, they may have noted it, but they still didn’t make any changes on my suggested amendment on that issue.

Speaker, just so you know, Patti Jo said her highest rent is $800 a month, and there’s, of course, another $200 for utilities. She said that in one of her communities—in Mount Forest, for example—tenants pay $120 for water and sewer. “It’s not metered, so our little Mrs. Olive Aitken, who ... is 96, pays the same as a house that has four bedrooms and multiple occupants.”

We had a great presentation from David Hulchanski from the faculty of social work at the University of Toronto. He is of the opinion that the problem with rental supply has little to do with rent regulations. Rent regulations are a response to the problem, not the cause of the problem. He said our rental housing problem has everything to do with the nature and type of rental housing. In Ontario, he said we have a classic case of market failure, and consumer protection is required when markets fail. Rent regulation is simply consumer protection.

He also said, “Vacancy decontrol in a failed market simply allows for plain and simple rent gouging. There is no excuse for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% rent increases when nothing has changed other than the fact that some people are fortunate enough to own something that is not being supplied and is absolutely needed.”

Professor Hulchanski thought that small landlords of up to three units should be exempted from legislation preventing them from evicting a tenant and moving a family into the unit.

My friends from ACORN Canada, who work with low- and moderate-income folks, came to the committee. They agreed that rent control should be placed on all buildings. They also asked for a rent registry. When it comes to elevators being repaired before a rent above the guideline was allowed, they said that provision doesn’t go far enough. They want all outstanding health and safety orders corrected before the AGIs would even be considered. They singled out Northview Apartment REIT, which is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, with assets of $3 billion.

They said that tenants like Marcia Powel have been unable to get simple work orders corrected by the building managers and are left to deal with issues such as a broken fridge, bugs and broken cabinets on their own, and are still hit with a rent increase.

From the Quinte Region Landlords Association, we heard from Robert Gentile. He said it was fundamentally unfair to make landlords pay the tenant anything just so they could use their own property. He didn’t like the requirement of a standardized lease, asking, “Since when is government in the business of forcing private entrepreneurs to use government-written contracts for their businesses?” Mr. Gentile told us he had approximately four tenants of his own.

He didn’t like paying so much in hydro, but the member from Durham, according to Hansard, said that under the fair hydro plan, “ ... you’ll probably get the 25% and [are] probably eligible for up to another 50% more in reductions in hydro rates,” to which Mr. Gentile replied, “Rates have gone up so much over the last three or four years that without being an expert on the figures, our concern is that the corrections, or the adjustments, that the government is making are going to perhaps simply minimize the increases that have already occurred over the last few years....” Of course, we all agree with that statement.

The Non-Smokers’ Rights Association came. Andrew Noble wants smoke-free clauses added to the standard lease, saying 80% of people surveyed would choose smoke-free housing.

I’m going to skip along a bit.

Geordie Dent of the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations: They provide services to 60,000 tenants a year. His research shows rental housing development is impacted by zoning and tax incentives but not rent control. He’s heard from many tenants who have had to pay up to $1,000 for rent increases in the past few months.

Let me take a moment at this juncture and tell you about some of the amendments we in the NDP introduced as we tried to improve the bill.

We wanted to help out the smaller landlords. We set a limit at five units. If you had five or more units and wanted to evict tenants for personal use, you would have to pay them three months’ rent. Landlords with fewer than five would only have to give one month’s rent. Larger landlords have greater flexibility in these situations, and that would incent them to try to find other options. The other parties didn’t see the merit of that.

We tried to do something about vacancy decontrol, to stop landlords from finding all manner of excuses to force you out. Again, the Liberals said vacancy decontrol is essential to the way the system works in Ontario, which is not a good thing, I don’t believe.

We did a lot of things on behalf of ACORN and the other people, and we didn’t get much. But the Liberals did accept two of our amendments, and we’re very thankful for that. Let me say at this point, as I know I’m running out of time, we presented 16 amendments and we had two accepted. The Conservatives tried 17 but were shut out.

Interjection: No.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Yes, I know. It’s tough to hear.

At this time, Speaker, let me thank the member for Toronto–Danforth again for all of his hard work on rent control. Mr. Tabuns has worked with local and provincial tenants’ groups for many years on these issues. He never gave up on them; he never stopped fighting. His private member’s bill prodded the Liberals into action, as did, I must say and acknowledge, a series carried on the CBC about the outrageous examples of rent gouging in the Toronto area—rents being raised by $1,000, rents doubling, and rates going up 30% to 40% and more.

The hits on the Liberal government just kept on coming and coming and coming. They panicked. They had to back down. They turned their backs on some of their largest donors, those who have propped them up financially for years, and they brought in rent controls, which their own members were stating in the House just a few weeks ago they would resist tremendously—“tremendously,” said the member from Beaches–East York.

I wonder if the member for Beaches–East York now regrets being so bold with his words. Having to eat crow is not an easy thing to do for some people, especially those who crow the loudest in this chamber, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order. It’s never too early to warn or name people, okay? You know the rules. The next time I get up, you know what? There are going to be consequences.

I return to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker, for keeping that rowdy group under control over there.

I know the Liberals didn’t want to head into next year’s election with a rent control millstone hanging around their necks, and the politics came into play after the member for Toronto–Danforth was on the record with his private member’s bill.

Mind you, this bill does nothing to increase the supply of affordable housing. There’s no money in there to help the city of Toronto with its $2.6-billion capital repair backlog.

Interjection.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, I have to chuckle at the member for Beaches–East York, because the last time I talked about that issue—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: We’re friends. Speaker, we are friends.

The last time we were in the House discussing that backlog in social housing repairs that the city of Toronto needs, my friend from Beaches–East York called the city of Toronto a terrible landlord, the worst in the province, as I recall, for the way that social agency has been run in recent years. He’s been burning his bridges on this file at every turn—don’t bring in rent control; they’re a terrible landlord.

We can’t forget that, in 2013, as Premier, Premier Wynne and the Liberals cut from the provincial budget the $129 million that they had been giving each and every year to the city of Toronto to help fund the provincial share of Toronto’s social housing programs. That cut has come back to bite them where it hurts on this file.

The NDP is on record as saying we will step up to the plate. We will pay our fair share of the cost of that repair backlog in the social housing stock in the city of Toronto’s portfolio.

There are other factors which separate us from the Liberals. The people of Ontario are learning about them, and we look forward to making sure those differences are front and centre by this time next year because, as we all know, we’re heading into an election, and as we all know, the only reason this bill is in front of us today is because we are heading into an election. After the member for Toronto–Danforth brought in his rent-control-for-all bill, the Liberals panicked. They jumped forward with this bill. They rushed it through, and here we are on third and final reading.

I thank you so much for the wonderful job you’re doing this morning, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you. Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 3, 2017, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Naqvi has moved third reading of Bill 124,

An Act to amend Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I hear noes.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I believe we have a recorded vote. It will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Orders of the day.

I recognize the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: No further business, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I will recess the House until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1003 to 1030.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the member from Nipissing has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 134,

An Act to implement 2017 Budget measures. The order for second reading of Bill 134, therefore, cannot be called today.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bob Delaney: Back in 2004, my very first legislative page was a young lady named Jaimie Alexandria Lee. Although she’s not here today, she’s turning 26 years old and is about to complete her bar exams and become a lawyer. Happy birthday, Jaimie.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure to welcome a friend of my daughter’s all the way from Mexico who is with us today: Jay Gearing in the members’ gallery.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got some great guests here from my riding of Oakville. My Oakville Provincial Youth Advisory Committee is here today to speak to a number of my colleagues. Please help me welcome Allison Headrick, Henry Mann, Elora Franklin, Anam Khan, Kristin Ashworth, Nikhi Bhambra, Colten Slater, Emily Ioffe and Christien Rivard, who is one of my summer interns. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to welcome two classes from two schools here today: the Maranatha Christian School, grades 7 to 10; and Maple View school, grades 5 to 9—from my riding.

M me France Gélinas: We have a few members of ONA with us in the gallery, starting with Lawrence Walter, Sheila Riddell, Cathryn Hoy, Colleen Taylor, Melissa Grenier, Jackie Chesterman and France O’Connell, not to mention Nancy Donaldson, Ruth Featherstone and Susan Archibald. Thank you very much for coming to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m just going to ask the indulgence of the House. I have a list of people that I want to introduce. They are from our Don Valley West Civic Engagement Volunteering Activities Club. Students are here with Afie and Wendy, who run my constituency office. They are Aislin Perry, Amelia Lin, Nafi Hamid, Huda Mukhtar, Hussam Sheikh, Julie Sue-A-Quan, Kifaayat Hamid, Madeleine Wredenhagen, Natasha Pelletier, Olivia Hamilton, Saad Mukhtar, Sharai Doiron and Tia Sato-Li.

They are involved in volunteer activities across the riding, and I want to welcome them here today.

I also want to welcome Tina Forgione, who’s the mother of Andrew who is one of the issues guys in my office.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce here in the House today Mr. Simon Keslassy, who is the president of the Jewish Moroccan Community of Toronto, as well as Faouzi Metouilli, who are here with the delegation from Morocco, which I will leave to you to introduce.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You will.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: But I wanted to introduce Simon and Faouzi. Welcome. Bienvenue à tous.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I just wanted to welcome a couple of guests of the page from my riding, Kate Winterton. Her mother, Jennifer Krikorian, and her aunt Jacqueline Krikorian are here in the public gallery.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to welcome Nicole Sanvido to the Legislature today. Nicole is a constituent of mine and attends Queen’s University. She’s here today to shadow some of our staff at the Ministry of Labour.

M me Gila Martow: Merci beaucoup, monsieur le Président. Vous savez que le Maroc est un pays francophone. Je veux aussi accueillir la délégation du Maroc, M. Simon Keslassy—il vient de ma circonscription—et M. Faouzi Metouilli. Bienvenue, tout le monde.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to introduce relatives John and Shannon Green and my nephew Sean Green. Welcome to the House.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to rise today and introduce Khalil Heron, a student from Joseph Brant Public School, and his mother, Farah Heron. They’re here to have lunch with me today. Please welcome them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now, as it is the tradition of the Speaker to introduce the guests in the Speaker’s gallery, we have with us, accompanied by diplomatic officials from the embassy of Morocco, Mr. El Habib Nadir, Mrs. Fatima Taoussi, Mr. Yassine Radi, Mrs. Imane Benrabia, and Mrs. Ichrak El Bouyousfi, the delegation from the Parliament of Morocco. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Government advertising

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On Monday, May 15, 2017, the member from Leeds–Grenville, Mr. Clark, raised a question of privilege concerning advertising on electricity pricing. According to the member, a number of items which were issued or authorized by the government alluded to future price cuts and other changes in the electricity sector. The member alleges that they constitute a prima facie case of contempt by the Minister of Energy because they presume a timeline and outcome of a bill currently before the House. The government House leader, Mr. Naqvi, also spoke to the matter, and both members filed written submissions.

Having had the opportunity to review the written notices of the member from Leeds–Grenville, the oral arguments and written submissions of the member from Leeds–Grenville and the government House leader, and other relevant precedents and authorities, I am now prepared to rule on the matter.

This matter is directly related to my earlier ruling on March 23, 2017. In that instance, the member from Simcoe–Grey had raised a substantially similar question of privilege, and based upon apparently the same materials as are in question in the current instance.

Those materials are:

(1) An undated screenshot of a Facebook advertisement from Ontario Energy.

(2) A screenshot of a retweet of a similar ad to the one from Facebook, showing the date March 2.

(3) A screenshot of a retweet of a graphic containing the Hydro One name and logo, showing the date March 2.

(4) An Ontario Liberal Party publication, of unknown provenance, referring to the “Fair Hydro Plan.”

(5) Two audio advertisements about the “Fair Hydro Plan” sponsored by the government of Ontario.

In my earlier ruling, I was not able to find that a prima facie case of contempt had been made out largely due to the fact, and I paraphrase, that to do so would have required me to have been capable of conducting, or to have some sort of jurisdiction to conduct, a legal analysis of the legislative framework that would have been necessary to produce the results alluded to in the ads and other items. Speakers do not undertake legal analysis, make legal findings or attempt to interpret the law.

That is as true in the present case, as it was in March. So the question of whether or not the specific piece of legislation currently before the House, Bill 132, is the sole available mechanism for the government of Ontario to implement its “Fair Hydro Plan” is not one that I can study or answer. Were there, or are there, other viable means to give effect to electricity rate reductions? I cannot know.

However, now that a bill is before the House which has provided the genesis of the complaint from the member for Leeds–Grenville, I can examine if any of these items do what the ads did in the seminal case of the government advertising that was referred to by the member, that being the 1997 ruling by Speaker Stockwell.

Let me remind the House of what Speaker Stockwell had to say. In addressing definitively worded statements in government ads about municipal reform in Toronto, he stated:

“How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and law-making process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to the House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals—and that is all that they are—been qualified by a statement that they would only become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them.”

Let me begin by examining the five items provided to me by the member from Leeds–Grenville that I mentioned before. The Ontario Liberal Party ad and the Hydro One ad are not the responsibility of the government of Ontario or the Minister of Energy, so I accord them no value for the purpose of this particular consideration.

As for the Facebook and Twitter ads, which are substantially the same, I can report that they each predominantly feature both a Web address and a separate link to the “Fair Hydro Plan” website. Right on the landing page of this site is the following language:

“Ontario has introduced legislation that would, if passed, reduce electricity bills ... etc.; and, “In addition, if the proposed legislation is passed, your bill ... etc.”

In short, the language of this website is conditional throughout with respect to the “Fair Hydro Plan.”

Likewise, the audio ads that the member for Leeds–Grenville provided, which are archived from links on the Toronto Star website, direct listeners to the same “Fair Hydro Plan” website as the Facebook and Twitter ads I just mentioned. I take note of the fact that the member from Leeds–Grenville advises that these audio ads were aired some time during March break two months ago.

The ads make bold statements, as I noted in my March 23 ruling, but they also have to be taken as a whole. The predominant links and the references to the “Fair Hydro Plan” website are just as much a part of the ad as the other statements in them. The advertising and messaging on Bill 132 that has been drawn to my attention, including that provided by the government House leader, contains language that, in my opinion, is suitably deferential to the requisite and superior role of this House in first passing the legislation to enact the plan.

Finally, the 1997 Stockwell ruling precedent that has rightly become so influential in the area of government advertising was made in a context where legislation was then currently before the House, though the then government advertised about its application in a way that conveyed the impression that it was a done deal. I have not had similar advertising specific to Bill 132 brought to my attention.

For the various reasons just mentioned, I cannot find a prima facie case of contempt has been established in this matter. In closing, I will say that the fact that the advertising and other messaging around Bill 132 is conditional in nature and explicitly recognizes the need for the bill to first pass in the Legislative Assembly is, in my view, both a vindication of the direction established by Speaker Stockwell 20 years ago and a full answer to the grievances of the members for Simcoe–Grey and Leeds–Grenville in the current instance.

I thank the member from Leeds–Grenville and the government House leader for their contributions to this matter.

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your ruling. I’m very mindful of your ruling and what you said, and I look forward to hopefully receiving a copy through Hansard today.

I guess my message is to the government: that, regardless of what the Speaker ruled, you set a very—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Whatever the member’s feelings are about the issue—first of all, if he wishes to challenge the Chair, go to his House leader and ask for confidence in the Speaker.

Second of all, when the member realizes I’m standing, he sits. Therefore, I’m going to start the member with a warning.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Probation and parole services

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Last year, there was a headline from North Bay that read like a plot of Law and Order: SVU. The headline was, “North Bay Mother Awakes to Nightmare of Stranger Attacking Child.” The attacker was charged with many crimes, but among them were two counts of breach of a conditional sentence order.

That was one year ago this month, and what has this government done? They’ve done nothing to watch over violent criminals on probation and conditional sentences. It’s unacceptable.

In the last year, how many other children have been harmed by violent offenders? How long are we going to wait until the government will make sure that criminals are checked?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services will want to comment on this.

Obviously, we all have to take these situations very, very seriously. Our government takes the safety of our communities extremely seriously. We work in partnership with our police services and justice partners to make Ontario one of the safest jurisdictions in North America.

Of course, not in any way diminishing the incident that the member opposite has identified—but for 11 straight years, Ontario has had the lowest crime rate of any province or territory in Canada. Ontario is also home to six of the 10 safest census metropolitan areas in the country.

We will continue to work with our police services, with our police partners, to make sure the right policies are in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Another story out of North Bay read, “One woman and two men were arrested following a report of a stabbing Friday night that sent one person to hospital with non-life threatening injuries....

“Following a verbal dispute with the man, one of the visitors stabbed him with a knife.”

One man “was charged with assault with a weapon, aggravated assault and breach of probation.”

The last charge was breach of probation. Clearly, he was a violent criminal. Did this individual receive any home visits? Of course not. He is expected, under this system, that the Liberals support, to self-report.

Mr. Speaker, give me a break. You’ve got a violent offender who is expected to self-report if he feels tempted to stab someone? How can the government allow this to continue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I guess I’ll thank the member, the Leader of the Opposition, for his question, because it’s actually great that I have to share with you and all Ontarians that Ontario is one of the safest jurisdictions in North America. I’m very proud that our crime rate has been decreasing for years, and offenders have been less likely, actually, to reoffend.

When you talk about what we are doing as a government here in the province—you know, we are moving forward on correctional reforms—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Is that the way it works now? Just give everybody a free pass?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If some people can’t read—I have not started on a fun note.

Finish, please.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m very proud that we are working on our correctional transformation. I always like to share and thank all of our correctional officers and our parole and probation officers, who work—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: What you just heard are government talking points. The question was, when there are violent criminals and sexual predators, how we think it’s good enough to simply allow self-reporting and not have home visits.

The minister praised the probation officers. They’re the ones who are whistle-blowing on this government, saying it’s not good enough.

There are 4,513 criminals convicted of serious crimes out there, and we’re expecting them to self-report. How many examples do I have to give? Last week, it was a case of child luring in Durham. Then it’s the case in North Bay of a stabbing. How many serious criminal charges are there going to be where we have criminals out in our communities, and they think self-reporting is good enough?

A very clear question to the minister: Do you think self-reporting is fair and adequate for convicted sex predators and violent criminals? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to say that the Leader of the Opposition, and I would say his party, talk a big talk, but their record shows otherwise. I want to remind everyone about, especially, the party leader’s track—

Interjections.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We’re talking about the stabbings in North Bay.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing, come to order. The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I want to talk about the party opposite’s leader, about his track record. He cut Canada’s correctional service budget by 10%, and for those who don’t know how much, that’s $295 million. He also introduced ridiculous changes to our mandatory minimums, and let’s not forget about cutting award-winning programs to help our offenders in terms of reintegrating and releasing. So, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s not even related, Charles. You know that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

You have a wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Instead of playing politics with safety, we, on this side of the House, are actually committed to working with our partners.

Government advertising

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. It seems that yesterday the Liberals launched a new ad campaign about their budget. How much more money will the Liberals be spending on these clearly partisan budget advertisements? Can you tell us a number? Ontarians deserve to know how much of their money this government is using to sell their tired old lines.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have to say that, on this side of the House, we are very happy that the budget we have brought forward has been passed in this Legislature and will now be implemented across the province. Obviously, the member opposite is not happy about that.

He voted against OHIP+ so that four million children and young people will have access to free medication, starting January 1, 2018. He voted against that, so he is not supportive. But we believe that that is a very good and important thing for young people and families in this province.

He also doesn’t want us to implement free tuition for young people in the province. He doesn’t want to see $16 billion invested in new schools in places like Ottawa, Waterloo, Thunder Bay—across the province. We think those are important investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The question was on partisan government advertising, and I can see why the Premier doesn’t want to answer, because they’re embarrassed of how much they’re abusing taxpayers.

From Wawa to Petawawa, from Owen Sound to Parry Sound—

Interjections.

Mr. Patrick Brown: —this government is wasting taxpayer money on partisan vanity ads—and they applaud; they clap when they hear about how much money they’re wasting, but I can tell you Ontarians are not applauding, because it’s unacceptable, it’s unethical—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Chief government whip, come to order. Minister of Children and Youth Services, come to order. Minister of Education, come to order.

Please finish your question.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, it’s unacceptable, it’s unethical and it’s irresponsible. They are campaigning on the public dime.

My question is, for once, will they do the right thing? Will the government cancel these partisan ads that are being paid for by taxpayers? It’s not right. We already have—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: —one of the most horrific debts in the world, and you’re spending more to promote your own selfish partisan purposes.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There is one province in this country that has a law in place that forbids partisan advertising, and that province is Ontario. We are the only province that prohibits partisan advertising.

I say to the member opposite again, I understand he does not want people in the province to know about OHIP+, but we think it’s important. We think it’s important that the four million children and young people in this province know that on January 1, 2018, they will receive free medication. It’s important to their families; it’s important to them. We think—

Mr. Paul Miller: How about the 25-year-olds? What do they get? Nothing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Finish, please. Wrap up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We think it’s important to implement free tuition across the province. We think it’s important to build hospitals in Niagara, Windsor, Hamilton, Markdale—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The Premier said that only one province has a law to prevent partisan ads. That was before this Premier. That was before this team completely eroded the powers of the Auditor General for their own partisan purpose. Right now, we have the Auditor General saying that these are partisan, self-congratulatory vanity ads, and we have the government saying, “No, the Auditor General is in favour of them.” Who do I trust? Do I trust this Liberal cabinet or do I trust the Auditor General? Mr. Speaker, I’m with the Auditor General.

They are abusing taxpayers. They are abusing taxpayers to pay for their own partisan ads. You know what? Maybe it’s because of the recent polls they have to abuse taxpayers to promote themselves, but it’s not right. They need to stop using taxpayers to sell their misguided agenda.

No one in Ontario thinks it’s right to use taxpayer money for partisan ads. Do the right thing. Pull these ads.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me remind the member opposite—because facts still matter in Ontario—that the legislation that bans partisan advertising is still in place in Ontario.

Let me just pick up on something that the Leader of the Opposition said. He talked about a misguided agenda. What is he talking about? He’s talking about OHIP+ pharmacare for young people from ages zero to 25. He’s talking about free tuition for young people from low-income families. He’s talking about building hospitals and schools across this province—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thanks to both sides, we’re now in warnings. The Minister of Children and Youth Services is warned. I’m going to get silence.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: He’s talking about hydro relief across the province. These are supports the people of this province need. We have the first balanced budget in nearly a decade. We are going to make investments in the people of this province because the people of this province have earned that support.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Hydro rates have gone up 300% under the Liberals and 50% just under this Premier. People have good reason to be suspicious about any action the Premier takes on the hydro file, and now, leaked documents show that hydro rates will be going up even further as a result of the Premier’s scheme, causing even more scepticism about the Liberals’ handling of our electricity system in this province.

Will the Premier come clean with Ontarians on the future cost of hydro before her hydro scheme, her borrowing scheme is voted on in this Legislature?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to comment in the supplementary, but let me just say that we have been very clear—I have been very clear and the Minister of Energy has been very clear—with the people of this province that we have made investments in the electricity system in Ontario: $50 billion to make a reliable, clean, renewable electricity grid in—

Mr. Paul Miller: Where’s that gas plant?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve been clear that there was a cost associated with that and that that cost needs to be shared over the generations that are actually going to use that asset. We are bringing forward a reduction of 25% on people’s electricity bills, to be in place by the summer, and to do that we are spreading the cost over a longer period of time. That means that not just this generation today will pay for those costs, but that will be spread over a longer period of time. We’ve been very clear with the people of Ontario that that’s what we’re doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier’s borrowing scheme will cause hydro rates to soar by over 50%. She denies this, but she hasn’t shown the people of Ontario any evidence to back up that denial.

Will the public get any additional information on how much the Premier proposes to increase hydro costs after the next election so they can provide educated, informed feedback at the committee hearings next week?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: As stated, we’re bringing forward legislation that will actually reduce everyone’s bills by up to 25% on average. It’s important that people know about this so they can understand that this government is acting to ensure that we’re making our system as affordable as can be for many of these families. Some 800,000 families that live in the rural and northern parts of our province will see a 40% to 50% reduction.

That’s what we’re doing right now, Mr. Speaker, in the short term. In the medium term, we’re ensuring that we’re holding the rates to the cost of inflation. Then, for the long term, the 2017 long-term energy plan will project where costs are going to be so people can see the transparent process that we have.

We rebuilt a system, one that is coal-free, that is clean, that is reliable, and it’s something—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier and her Liberal government have made a mess of our hydro system, and it has cost Ontario families and businesses far too much.

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They think it’s funny, but it isn’t funny when people have to make choices about paying their hydro bill or putting food on the table, or choices about keeping people employed or paying their business’s electricity bill.

From the gas plant scandal to the broken promises not to sell off Hydro One to the four years—four years—of denying that there was any problem at all with people’s rising hydro bills, why has this Premier had so much trouble reconciling what she says with what she does?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: In terms of reconciliation, when it comes to talking and then acting, it’s this Premier who actually committed this government to bringing forward the fair hydro plan that’s reducing everybody’s bills across this province by 25%.

If you look at a plan that has no reconciliation and no idea of how it would ever achieve a number—it’s the pamphlet that the NDP put together, Mr. Speaker. There is absolutely no way that they’re going to take one cent—not a single cent—off anyone’s bills. And they don’t even talk about helping low-income individuals until the last page—in one line.

A large part of our plan is helping our low-income individuals, our seniors, and our on-reserve First Nations peoples that they don’t even mention in their plan. This is a plan that will work for every Ontarian.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Leaked documents show very clearly that the Premier knows her $40-billion borrowing scheme is going to end up costing families and businesses on their already sky-high hydro bills, but she denies that her plan is based on these documents.

Well, if the leaked information is inaccurate, Speaker, why won’t the Premier just come clean and release the information that did inform her plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, let me just reinforce what I have said in this House on previous days. There is a short-term, a mid-term and a long-term plan around electricity prices. We know that people need relief now. That’s what the 25%, on average, reduction for all Ontarians is. It will be in place by the summer. We will then hold the rate of increase of electricity bills down for four years, to the level of inflation. Then, the long-term energy plan, which is being developed right now, will give businesses and families around the province a snapshot of just that: the long-term energy plan.

But we will continue over the medium and the long term to continue to take costs out of the system, which has happened with each one of our long-term energy plans. We found ways to take costs out. That will continue and the people of the province—when that plan is ready, they will see it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the Premier neglected to say is that after four years, those bills are going to soar in Ontario by over 50%. Leaked documents show that the hydro bills will absolutely go up. Yet, the Premier’s answer to this disgusting betrayal of Ontario families and businesses is: “Just trust me. Just trust me. It’s going to all be fine.”

Ontarians are getting pretty fed up with the “just trust me” line. It’s what the Premier said before she broke her promise not to sell off Hydro One, and it’s what she said about the Sudbury bribery charges right before a criminal investigation got under way. “Just trust me” is not good enough for the people of Ontario.

When will this Premier release the information she says is showing the long-term effects of her borrowing scheme so that Ontarians have all the facts before she rams this legislation through the House?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Let’s be clear. We have—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Waterloo is warned.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear. The fact is that 25% is coming off of everybody’s bills before summer, once this legislation passes, and 50% is coming off 800,000 families’ bills in northern and in rural parts of our province. That’s a significant savings for these families. We’re also helping small businesses and farms.

When you want to continue to talk about facts, it is this government that cleaned up the mess left by the opposition parties when they were in power and the system that they left for us to clean up—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do not appreciate gestures being made by members.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Our plan has been praised by poverty advocates, by indigenous leaders, by business leaders and by energy experts. Francesca Dobbyn, the executive director of the United Way of Bruce Grey, says this “government is listening to people. With these positive changes, our rural community will now truly benefit from the low-cost power it produces.”

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Clarity is actually what the people of this province need and deserve, but they’re not getting any of it from their government. The Premier’s scheme punishes families who are already struggling with their electricity bills. She is rushing it through the House and shutting down debate. Any chance of meaningful public input is being truncated by this government. She claims that the leaked documents that came to light last week about the plan are inaccurate, but she refuses to come clean with the people of the province about the facts.

Why is this Premier going to such great lengths to make sure that the people don’t have all the information about a plan that will affect their lives for three decades or more?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, we have short-term solutions, a medium-term solution and a long-term solution. The 25% off, with all of the other programs that are coming out through the fair hydro plan, is something that all families will see right before summer. We hope to have that passed and get it into their pockets as soon as possible.

In the medium term, we are holding rates to the cost of inflation for the next four years.

When it comes to the long term, we are the only party that actually can plan long term. These parties opposite have no idea. One of them doesn’t even have a plan. They have no idea on what to do when it comes to electricity. We’re making sure that we’re bringing forward reductions that will help families, all at the same time that we cleaned up the system. We’ve made sure it’s clean and reliable, and it is something we should all be proud of, because people look to us to see what they can do to emulate our system.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Attorney General. Yesterday, the Attorney General suggested that the Ontario justice council’s new education plan would mandate sexual assault law training for Ontario judges. That would be great news. I’ve been calling for this kind of training for weeks, and even tabled a private member’s bill about it. The problem is that this new training plan does not mandate sexual assault law training. The training “encourage[s]” new judges to attend seminars, one of which is about sexual assault law.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a solution, so my question to the Attorney General is: How can the minister suggest that this issue has been resolved when what we really have is a continuation of the status quo?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, I want to thank the member opposite and the member from Davenport for their advocacy on this very important issue. I’ve spoken on this issue numerous times and I’ve always advised all members of this House that at all times we have to respect the independence of our judiciary when it comes to matters around what training they should receive. It’s a decision of the judiciary.

Therefore, on behalf of this House, on behalf of our Premier and the government, I have written to the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice and have had the chance to speak to her. She has informed me, through correspondence, that she has now expressly mandated sexual assault training for all new judges. She has informed me that changes have been made to the education plan that is available online.

I commend the Chief Justice for taking this very important step. It is within her purview to make those decisions, and I happen to know that that express mandate is now—

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yesterday’s Toronto Star

article by Kristin Rushowy quotes the Ontario Judicial Council as saying that under the changes, “the legal and social context issues [around sexual assault] ... are integrated into various programs.” But they are only for new judges, and I believe, from the

article and the OJC, that it’s not even mandatory.

I wonder: Is the minister really satisfied with his answer? It clearly doesn’t meet the expectations for survivors of sexual assault, who want to be sure that the court system will treat their cases fairly. I do know that the minister cares about this issue, so my question to him is: Will he finally agree that mandated sexual assault training needs to be legislated, and will he support my bill?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again I thank the member opposite, I thank the member from Davenport and the Premier and all members of the House for their work on this very important issue. We should never, ever undermine sexual assault, violence against women, or harassment in any shape whatsoever.

My responsibility as the Attorney General is always to work with our courts, with the judiciary, which are independent. I am sure all members will appreciate that at no point ever will we cross the line and interfere in the affairs of the judiciary, because their independence is key.

My obligation on behalf of this House and all members is to do that work, and I have been doing that work. I have been informed by the Chief Justice that the education plan for the judiciary has been updated and now expressly mandates training for new judges. I think that’s a good direction. I’m confident that more can be done, and we’ll continue to work on that.

Opioid abuse

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Premier. Ontario is in the midst of an opioid crisis that demands urgent action. People are losing their lives every day on the streets of this city. In fact, 258 people died from a drug overdose in Toronto in 2015, and that number continues to climb.

On March 20—two months ago—the Toronto Board of Health requested additional funding of $375,000 from this government to support the Toronto overdose action plan, but this government has so far refused to provide the additional funding that’s needed.

In the midst of a growing crisis of overdose deaths, when everyone recognizes that urgent action is desperately needed, why has this government failed to provide the resources that Toronto needs to help save lives?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really appreciate the question from the member opposite. This is an incredibly serious issue that is being dealt with across the country. In fact, our Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has taken a leadership role with his colleague ministers across the country. We have an opioid strategy in place. We are gathering data. Now the federal government is coming on board, and they are putting in place a strategy that will give us better information and will mean that we’ll be able to track what is going on in the country and, thereby, be able to prevent and provide better treatment.

On the Toronto-specific issue, I am aware of the request made by the city of Toronto regarding funding towards the Toronto overdose action plan. We’ve received their submission. It’s being reviewed. I want the member to know that we are hosting a meeting of mayors, and I will say more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: We are in the midst of a public health crisis, a crisis that is growing here in Toronto and right across our province. When local boards of health come to the Premier to set up and provide additional supports to directly save lives, this government should be ready to help, I would say, in a heartbeat. That’s what urgent action means. That’s the proper response to a growing crisis. That’s what a crisis demands. How much longer will Toronto have to wait to get the resources to save lives and stop the overdose crisis in this city?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows we are there. We are supporting three proposed safe injection sites in the city of Toronto. That was something that the city of Toronto had asked for.

The mayor of Ottawa was here a number of weeks ago. I met with him. He brought forward a plan. I said we would support that plan, and out of that meeting with the mayor—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Out of that meeting with the mayor of Ottawa came a meeting that we are hosting for all of the mayors who want to be involved. This is not just an issue that is relevant in Toronto or Ottawa. It’s actually an issue that’s relevant in many urban centres and in small towns. This is across the province. We need to make sure we’re doing the right things, and we will be working with our municipalities, as we already are, to see what further needs to be done.

Land use planning

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question this morning is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As we prepare to celebrate the Victoria Day long weekend, it is a good time to reflect on a region that is one of the most extraordinary places on the planet. It’s blessed with abundant fresh water, significant natural features like the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment, excellent farmland and a moderate, though sometimes unpredictable, climate.

These assets support a high quality of life and economic opportunities. They help make the GGH’s dynamic economy Canada’s largest economic engine. That is fuelled by a diverse and talented population.

Today, our government released updated land use plans for the region that will protect our natural resources and support future prosperity. Would the minister please provide some details on today’s announcement?

Hon. Bill Mauro: The member is correct. Today, our government released four updated land use plans that will help grow the greater Golden Horseshoe. The region is a success story and attracts people from all over the country and around the world. Already home to 9.5 million people, the greater Golden Horseshoe is forecasted to grow by approximately 50% over the next 25 years.

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan set out an overarching strategy of where and how future growth should be accommodated and what we need to protect for current and future generations.

The updates will help us achieve a more efficient use of land, resources and infrastructure, so that we can reduce sprawl, ensure the region is growing in a way that protects our vital assets and building communities that are vibrant, healthy and prosperous. The updates are the result of a significant amount of work and extensive consultation, which I will speak about more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thanks to the minister for his answer. I was particularly happy to hear our government’s reaffirmed commitment to protecting the greenbelt as were the many dozens, perhaps, if not hundreds, of constituents in my riding of Davenport who called, wrote and visited my office to express their support.

Our government established the greenbelt in 2005. I understand that we are now growing the greenbelt to include 21 new urban river valleys and associated wetlands, plus five new parcels of land. We’ve also extended greenbelt-like protections for natural heritage, water and agriculture to the entire greater Golden Horseshoe area. This will help protect sensitive lands for generations to come without constraining development.

I appreciate the work that has gone into these changes. I understand that many people provided input. Would the minister elaborate on the consultation process that led up to today’s announcement?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Again, thank you to the member. We’re happy, as a government, to reaffirm our commitment to the greenbelt and the principles it was founded on.

This process began in February 2015. The first stage saw the establishment of an expert panel headed by the Honourable David Crombie. I want to give David my heartfelt thanks for his leadership, and to recognize panel members for their recommendations.

Throughout the process, which included a six-month consultation period in 2016 and a number of meetings with municipal leaders, we heard unanimous support for the goals of these plans. “One size doesn’t fit all” was something we also heard a great deal about during the consultation, and we’ve taken that into account in the final revisions to the plan. They provide greater flexibility that recognizes local circumstances without compromising the objectives of the plans.

These new land use plans set the foundations for a sustainable, healthy, vibrant and prosperous greater Golden Horseshoe. They’ve been shaped by thousands of people across the province through a lot of very hard work. I would like to thank all of them today, including my staff, who have worked very hard on this over the course of the last 12 months.

Electric vehicles

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Speaker, $1 million can go a long way here in the province. It could help children with special needs, or people struggling to pay their hydro bills. But instead of helping those in Ontario who need it the most, the government has decided to use $1 million of taxpayer money to open up an electric vehicle car shop.

Minister Murray called this absurd waste of taxpayers’ money “the first of its kind.” Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us if this taxpayer-funded vanity project will also be the last of its kind?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m very happy to take the question from the member. This member, who has served in this Legislature for a number of years, would know that over the last number of years, there have been a number of initiatives that our government has brought forward with respect to supporting consumers who tell us, loudly and clearly, that they want to do their

part in the very crucial fight against climate change.

We know, here in the province of Ontario, that roughly 35% of all greenhouse gas emissions flow as a result of activities within the transportation sector, and a large share of those come as a result of people who are driving vehicles that have traditional internal combustion engines.

That’s why, over the last number of years, we have brought forward a number of initiatives, including the Electric Vehicle Incentive Program, including support for the expansion of a significant build-out of a charging infrastructure network in every corner of the province of Ontario, because we want to help enable the kinds of choices that consumers tell us they want to make in order to do their part with respect to that fight against climate change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, this government refuses to fund life-changing treatments for rare-disease patients while these ministers hand out 14-grand rebates to luxury electric Tesla owners and waste a million dollars on electric car lots.

In the real world, if someone wants to open a car lot, they use their own money. But when the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of the Environment unveiled Steve and Glen’s electric car shop yesterday, they used a million dollars of taxpayer money on their government-funded vanity project.

They can call it a discovery centre, an education centre; they can use whatever Liberal spin they choose. But when it comes down to it, the Liberals just wasted one million taxpayer dollars building an electric car dealership.

Mr. Speaker, will the ministers be working weekends at the car dealership to pay back this wasteful spending?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: To the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Speaker.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I just want to point out that we are in a strategic partnership with all the major auto manufacturers—and global. Every single electric vehicle made in Ontario and sold in Ontario has been donated to be part of this. The car dealers know—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned. I could have warned him earlier, when he was heckling during his own member’s question.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Car dealers know that this centre is absolutely essential to advance EV sales and the development of them—every major auto manufacturer. But, Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise us over here that the party that voted—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Which one of your friends is profiting from this?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll do it. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —that the party that voted against every investment that we have made in the auto sector—that would have seen the collapse of our auto sector and loss of jobs—doesn’t support this.

The party that doesn’t support $200 million, the biggest investment in EV mobility, to develop autonomous and electric vehicles here didn’t support that, and—

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

New question.

Nurses

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Nurses are leaders in our health care system. And I want to welcome registered nurses who are here today from ONA.

Every day, nurses are on the front lines as first responders in our emergency rooms and throughout our health care system. Nurses see and experience trauma in their workplaces each and every day, whether it’s patients in life-threatening condition or the violence that puts health care workers themselves at risk.

New Democrats believe that all nurses in Ontario need to be covered by presumptive PTSD legislation. Why doesn’t the Premier agree?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the leader of the third party for that excellent question.

Certainly, if there’s an issue on which we have come a far way along in the past year, it’s on PTSD coverage for our first responders.

Speaker, we all came together, as three parties in this House, to support a bill that was passed about a year ago, and each one of us had some input into that. Each one of us chose at that point in time which people should be covered under that bill. As we move on, obviously, questions are being asked— should some other people be included in that?

At this point in time, we should be proud of what we’ve done as a government, look to the future as what potentially we could do—because post-traumatic stress disorder amongst our first responders is something we’ve ignored for far too long.

We have a piece of legislation in place now. Legislation can always be improved upon. But we’re in a leadership role in the province—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: During the committee process of the bill that the minister is talking about, we brought amendments to include nurses and others, but the Liberal government refused to include nurses in the legislation at that time. In fact, we could have legislation right now that does cover nurses, but the Liberals decided not to do that.

At a time when nurses are dealing with violence in the workplace, overcrowding in hospital hallways, increasing workloads and the physical and psychological demands that come from this government’s cuts to hospitals, the Premier has chosen to turn her back on these nurses and deny them the WSIB coverage that every first responder needs and deserves.

Why is this Premier and her government refusing to do the right thing? Stand up for nurses and extend PTSD legislation to every nurse in Ontario.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I don’t believe for a minute that anybody has turned their back on anybody in this process. This has been one of the best processes that this House has ever undertaken in taking an issue that was ignored—there were tragic outcomes to some of the things that were happening at that point in time. Our first responders, as a result of not being able to get presumptive coverage under WSIB, were choosing to take their own lives. We knew we needed to do something about that. We brought in Bill 109, I think it was, on PTSD—or 160. We’ve made a huge step forward.

We’re always open to discussions, because we know nurses play such a huge, integral role in the provision of services to our society—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Five times the bill was brought forward by this party.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think the member from Welland has to be warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: In a first responder role, nurses are covered in our corrections institutions.

We’ve come a long way. Perhaps we have more to do, but we should be proud of what we’ve done.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr. Minister, as you know, in recent months, our farmers and agri-food sector have come under vicious attack from our American neighbours. To many people in Ontario—we know full well that our agri-food industry is a $36-billion industry. It employs 800,000 people. They create clean, safe, quality food in Ontario every day: our dairy farmers, our milk farmers. Yet we’re being told that we have to abandon our successful supply management system.

I know you’re going to Wisconsin to meet with Great Lakes representatives to tell them about our strong agricultural system in Ontario, and that we’re not going to be bullied by those—

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

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank my colleague, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, for the question this morning. I want to recognize him, as he was the unsung hero who helped to bring back French’s ketchup production to the province of Ontario—

Interjections.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I’ll—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member sat down.

Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Colle: Anyway, when you are going on this trade mission to talk about the importance of our supply management system in Ontario—and the fact is that we have a surplus. In other words, the Americans get more out of trade with Ontario in agri-foods than what we get back, yet they want us to scrap this incredibly good system.

I ask you, Minister, what are you going to tell our American neighbours about our great agri-food industry, our great farmers and our great supply management system, which is second to none in the world when it comes to producing good, safe, quality food?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for the supplementary. Basically, what we have here today is that the problem with milk production is in the United States. We have oversupply in places like Wisconsin, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

I’ll be going to Wisconsin next week to tell my colleagues down there that Ontario is not prepared to cede one inch when it comes to our supply management system—the best system that has ever been designed for agriculture—fair price to the consumer, fair price to our producers in the province of Ontario; and we won’t let the Americans attack a very successful system that contributes more than 22% to Ontario’s agri-food sector and 23% of the sector’s jobs.

I’m asking all members on all sides to stand up for Ontario’s supply management system.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Public consultation

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is for the Premier. On May 24, the MPP from Northumberland–Quinte West will be in Thedford in the municipality of Lambton Shores in my riding for a public meeting about the government’s plan to close more rural schools. Curiously, the invitation sent by the issues management team at the Ministry of Education specifies that “photography and video recording does not occur once the engagement session begins.” Heather Wright, publisher of the Petrolia Independent, calls it a “shameful excuse to limit press freedom” and a trampling “over the very basic freedoms of the press.”

The Premier’s plans to fast-track the closure of more rural schools is not only an important issue in my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, but all across the province. Will the Premier direct the Ministry of Education to lift the media blackout on this so-called public meeting, or will the government continue to close more rural schools under a veil of secrecy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Education is going to want to speak to the supplementary. But over my years as a parent, as a member of a school council, as a school trustee and as a community member, I’ve been to more education consultations than I can count. And what I know is that at those meetings, there are people who want to be on the public record and who want to speak out, and then there are people who want to talk about an issue, but actually don’t want it to become a public discussion. What we need at a meeting like the one that is happening around the rural schools and community schools is, we need everybody to feel free to speak.

Of course the Minister of Education will always speak to the media. There will always be opportunities for the media to know what the discussion is about, but people need to be able to speak freely.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Back to the Premier. In the email exchange between the spokesperson for the Ministry of Education and Heather Wright of the Petrolia Independent, the minister’s spokesperson spins the need for the media blackout by citing “consent concerns of the participants.” But how does the ministry already know there are consent concerns at a public meeting that is still a week away? So far, the only confirmed attendee is the member for Northumberland–Quinte West. Is it possible that it’s your own government that is concerned about there being a video recording of this meeting?

Premier, there are already many concerns that this listening tour is much ado about nothing.

Premier, journalists have an important role to play in our democracy. Will you lift this blackout today so Ms. Wright and other journalists can do their job as professional journalists?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the members for the question. It’s a great opportunity to talk about these engagements and the fact that we’re going into 10 communities across rural and northern Ontario to talk about how we improve education for students. That’s what we’re there to do, Mr. Speaker.

My colleagues who have been doing these consultations along with me—we’ve engaged with media. Media have attended as the sessions were beginning, and there’s a process for the media to be involved in these consultations.

As the Premier has already said, we want to have a really robust conversation with parents, with students, with school boards, with municipalities and with everyone who is engaged in this very important dialogue around how we can improve our schools in rural and northern communities. We want to ensure that we create the space for them to do that and we have a process for connecting with the media that is quite open and transparent.

Birth certificates

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Joshua Ferguson is a queer, non-binary person who has applied to change the sex designation on their birth certificate. Currently, in Ontario, one cannot amend their registration of birth to anything other than male or female categories. Ontarians should have the right to have their birth certificates accurately reflect the correct sex designation.

Will the minister issue an amended birth certificate to Joshua, and others like them, that correctly reflects their sex designation?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for this very important question, because I have been following Joshua’s story with great interest. Joshua presented at a ServiceOntario office recently.

I want to say, off the top, that our government values acceptance, respect and diversity. We’re very committed to ensuring that all Ontarians are treated ethically, equitably and fairly, including the trans and non-binary community.

It’s important to note that Ontario has already changed the way it displays information about a person’s sex on health cards and driver’s licences, making it easier for people to have documents in line with their gender identity. We’ve also recently introduced a policy to help the trans and non-binary community to live according to their gender identity. There are new rules.

I’ll talk more in the supplementary about what we’re going to do on the birth certificate side.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the minister. It’s difficult to get a health card or a driver’s licence if you can’t get a birth certificate. Ontario passed Toby’s Law in 2012, adding gender identity and gender expression to the Human Rights Code. Applying for a birth certificate with non-binary designation is entirely legal under Toby’s Law, but sadly, Joshua may not be afforded rights.

This should not be an issue. Trans and non-binary rights are human rights. Why is the government breaking its own law?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Again, I want to thank the member for the question. Similar to the driver’s licence and health card examples I mentioned, I’m very pleased to report to the Legislature that the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services is developing a gender-neutral option for Ontario birth certificates.

We know a birth certificate is a foundation for many forms of identification, and we need to ensure we get that right. We need to work with the federal government and other ministries, of course, on this.

There was a recent consultation held with the trans and non-binary community on the development of an OPS-wide policy, and that is going to help inform our work on this birth certificate issue. I attended that session. I was deeply moved from the conversations I had with a number of attendees. It’s my hope that we will target further consultations with the key partners I mentioned and get moving on this this summer.

Nuclear safety

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Nuclear energy is a vital part of Ontario’s energy mix and economy. Our province is at the centre of nuclear energy advancements and technology. That’s something of which all the members of this House can be proud. Our nuclear facilities power more than half of Ontario and helped us get rid of dirty coal.

When it comes to nuclear energy, public safety is of very high importance. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can the minister update the House on the recently announced changes to the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Response Plan?

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: J’aimerais remercier la députée de Barrie pour cette excellente question.

My most important priority as minister is the safety and security of every Ontarian. We are updating our Provincial Nuclear Emergency Response Plan this year to ensure that it reflects the most cu