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

October 25, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Oct-25 (PDF)

L020 - Tue 25 Oct 2016 / Mar 25 oct 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 25 October 2016 Mardi 25 octobre 2016

Orders of the Day

Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la promotion du logement abordable

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Energy policies

Electronic health information

Energy policies

Nursing home deaths

Electricity supply

Hydro rates

Correctional services

School nutrition programs

Hydro rates

Academic testing

Mental health services

Hydro rates

Appointment of temporary Financial Accountability Officer

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Protecting Students Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 protégeant les élèves

Nursing home deaths

Members’ Statements

Volunteer firefighters

The Hospice of Windsor and Essex County

West Neighbourhood House

Ontario Trillium Foundation

Dan Duma

Ottawa Champions baseball team

Dean Bunston

Eddy Lefrançois

Hindu community

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Free My Rye Act (Liquor Statute Law Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la vente libre de whisky (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les boissons alcooliques)

Disclosure of Information Relating to the Protection of Children Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la divulgation de renseignements concernant la protection des enfants

Hindu Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine hindou

Growing Ontario’s Craft Cider Industry Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la croissance de l’industrie du cidre artisanal de l’Ontario

Home Care and Community Services Amendment Act (Dan’s Law), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur les services de soins à domicile et les services communautaires (Loi Dan)

Wearing of ribbons

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Child Abuse Prevention Month

Hispanic Heritage Month

Child Abuse Prevention Month

Hispanic Heritage Month

Child Abuse Prevention Month

Hispanic Heritage Month

Petitions

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

GO Transit

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

School closures

Disaster relief

GO Transit

Hepatitis C treatment

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Long-term care

Apraxia

Gasoline prices

Opposition Day

Energy policies

Adjournment Debate

Ontario Trillium Foundation

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la promotion du logement abordable

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 19, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act to amend or repeal various Acts with respect to housing and planning / Projet de loi 7, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois en ce qui concerne le logement et l’aménagement du territoire.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about important issues that affect my riding, and affordable housing and access to housing affect my riding a great deal.

Today, we are debating Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act. It’s always got such a great Liberal title; from my experience, any time the government tries to draw this much attention to the title of the bill, it’s usually because there are important details that they would like us to overlook or, as I’ve discovered, things that have been omitted. Like so many Liberal bills, Bill 7 looks okay on the surface, but many of the details are left to regulation, outside the Legislature’s control. Whether Bill 7 turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing will depend on these regulations.

As I’ve said in this chamber many times before, the devil is always in the details, and with this government, we need to be especially vigilant when it comes to those details. That is the concern with this bill. The government has introduced the legislation but has said, “Don’t worry about the rest; we’ve got it from here.” I still wish that we could trust the government to handle it, but sadly their track record is not exactly the best when it comes to putting the interests of Ontarians above their own.

We are concerned by what has been left to regulations. This includes the details on inclusionary zoning, which my colleagues and former members in the NDP have fought so hard for for so many years. For example, there is no requirement or guideline suggesting that the provision of affordable housing should be permanent. The lack of such guidelines has become a problem in Ontario as multi-decade agreements expire and affordable housing is inevitably put at risk. It’s nice to see that the government is finally listening to the NDP’s long-standing call for inclusionary zoning, but glazing over details such as this is a dangerous and irresponsible approach.

Rent protection, Speaker, is also missing from this bill. For example, the bill does not end the current system of two-tiered tenant rights, which exempts residences that were first occupied on or after November 1991 from rent increase guidelines. This is not fair. All tenants should have the same rights, regardless of how old their building is, and all tenants should be protected from significant or prohibitive rent increases that could force them out of their homes.

This bill also allows municipalities to give cheques to people in need of housing instead of actual housing to people in need of housing. Speaker, this flexibility can be good for tenants in some contexts, but there are risks associated with it as well. By providing cheques instead of guaranteed housing, there are no assurances that the amount provided will be enough to keep a roof over the recipient’s head.

There are also concerns that the money would simply flow into the pockets of landlords through rent increases.

These are serious concerns, Speaker, and they can mean the difference between an increase or a decrease in the availability of affordable housing in our communities. These are not new ideas, they are not new concerns, and they are not the first time the NDP has said them.

Sadly, this is not the first time this Liberal government has overlooked these concerns. They made promises about real rent control prior to the 2003 election and have been breaking this promise for over 13 years. Now they are continuing to break promises with Bill 7. It all comes back to the same concerns. Bill 7 looks okay on the surface, but there are so many details overlooked and so many decisions left to regulations and away from public scrutiny.

The government has also made a number of assumptions with this bill. It seems the government has assumed that with this bill, the market alone can provide affordable housing for Ontarians. It assumes that by clearing away a few regulations and changing some bylaws, the private sector will magically start building lots of affordable housing. It sounds great, and in a perfect world, that would be the case and we could rely on that being the case. But this isn’t a perfect world, and this isn’t a small concern. This means rolling the dice on ensuring that families across Ontario can afford a home to live in. That is not something to roll the dice on.

The NDP does want the removal of regulatory barriers to affordable housing, but the market alone will not solve the affordable housing issue. The federal and provincial governments will need to step up with more funding to get affordable housing built.

Unfortunately, Ontarians are still suffering the effects of federal Liberal cuts to housing in the 1990s and provincial downloads by the PCs. This is not just a product of the past or a problem of the past. Provincial funding for housing and homelessness prevention has been cut even further in recent years, including a $20-million cut to the housing ministry’s budget this year.

Speaker, as you can see, there are a number of issues with this bill. We are pleased to see the government finally listening to the call for change, but there are areas where it falls short and there are areas where we simply don’t know where it falls, because the government has left so much up to regulation.

The important thing to note here is that these decisions have a real impact on communities across Ontario. By glazing over some of these concerns, the government could be hurting families in need of affordable housing.

This problem is prevalent in so many communities, including my own. The current wait-list for rent-geared-to-income housing in Durham region—so, not just in my riding but in the Durham region—stands at around 5,700 households. That’s a lot of people. The housing services division in Durham region does excellent work in our community, but as this government knows, they’re simply not provided the support they need to achieve their goals.

In 2014, the region of Durham approved an ambitious 10-year housing and homelessness strategy called At Home in Durham. The strategy focuses on four key goals: end homelessness in Durham, secure affordable rent for everyone, provide greater housing choice, and ensure strong and vibrant neighbourhoods. As I said, these are ambitious goals, and I am very proud that our region is fighting them head-on. They have seen some success already. In Durham, 2015 saw a 7% decrease in the usage of emergency shelters from the year before.

But they’ve also recognized the challenges they face as well. At the time of the study, the average market rent in Durham was $1,021. Assuming that we follow the rule that no family should have to spend more than 30% of their income on rent, then you would need a minimum income of $40,000—well, almost $41,000—to afford that rate. Unfortunately, one in five households in Durham earns less than that amount.

To quote directly from the report, “At Home in Durham recognizes that affordable housing is vital to strong and vibrant communities, and commits to working in partnership with the non-profit and private housing sectors to increase affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households. It also recognizes the need for increased rental assistance for low-income households who struggle with more severe affordability needs.

“People with low to moderate income face increasing challenges in finding affordable rental housing in Durham. Although the region’s social housing portfolio ensures a level of affordability for some of the most vulnerable people in our community—including seniors, people with disabilities and families in crisis—only about 300 subsidized units become available annually. In order to address the affordability needs of all renters in Durham with low to moderate income, the community needs a greater range of affordable rental housing options.”

Speaker, you can see that ultimately the region will require real support from the province to ensure that these important goals are achieved. We must remember the problem does not simply end there. As I have discussed during past opportunities to speak in this chamber, affordable housing is about more than rent or a mortgage; it’s about the expenses necessary to keep it running, to keep it warm, to keep the lights on and to keep food on the table. People need costs, such as their hydro, to be stable and fair so that they can budget what little they might have to keep up with the cost of living underneath a roof.

In Durham, the average wait time for housing is nearly four years for non-senior singles and couples; seniors wait just over four years. So while we appreciate what the government has put forward on paper with this bill, we need to see action behind it. We need to see the details that will truly decide the effectiveness of this bill and we need to see the resources that will be necessary to make real change happen.

Investments in affordable housing can make a real difference in people’s lives and the ripple effects can be massive, so I ask that this government take the time to speak with the experts and community groups that understand the challenges our province faces. Listen to their suggestions. Make real investments in affordable housing in Ontario.

Everyone in Ontario deserves to live with a stable and secure roof over their head and to be able to put food on the table.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Han Dong: Good morning. I’m very pleased to respond to the comments made by the honourable member from Oshawa. I’ve been listening to her carefully. I understood that she brought up a few concerns, including inclusionary zoning, rent control and rent protection.

I want to first of all recognize her effort in championing this issue. We all have social housing, affordable housing sectors in our ridings, and this past summer I had the pleasure of visiting a few of them. I heard concerns over how increasingly difficult it is to put a roof above one family, especially in a very competitive market, such as Toronto.

This bill, if passed, would enable or, where prescribed, require municipalities to pass zoning bylaws for inclusionary zoning which must include the number of affordable housing units to be provided; the period of time that an affordable housing unit must be maintained as affordable; requirements and standards that an affordable housing unit must meet; measures and incentives that may be provided to support inclusionary zoning; the price at which the affordable housing unit may be sold; the rent at which they may be leased; and any matter specified in the regulation by the minister.

To me, this bill is making a very comprehensive attempt to make sure that affordable housing is available in our great province. We all know this is very, very important. I look forward to the support from across the floor. Let’s get to committee, where we can make real changes in the process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to add my voice to the debate. I appreciate the comments made by the member from Oshawa. I feel it’s really important, from our perspective, the PC Party of Ontario’s, that when we talk about affordable housing, the first and most important issue that needs to be addressed by this government is affordable energy. That is what’s driving the pressure throughout my riding and across Ontario in terms of the inability to pay for ever-rising energy costs.

You’re going to hear more about it today, because it’s not just about a single parent, it’s not just about the senior on fixed income; it’s about affordable energy for community living group homes. The list continues to go on and on, and the manner in which this government particularly is ignoring affordable energy is a slap in terms of—it proves them to be disingenuous when we actually stand up in this House and talk about affordable housing, because we have many concerns.

If they actually took time to consult, they would find out that energy is a huge issue when it comes to affordable housing. But, just like in so many other instances, this particular bill was not researched properly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): There was a word that you used earlier that I would ask that you withdraw.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Please continue.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: So the manner in which this government is approaching affordable housing leaves a lot to be desired insomuch as they are turning a blind eye to energy rates. They’re turning a blind eye to the importance of doing proper consultation. Again, one of our concerns is the fact that this bill has not been properly vetted, if you will, and consulted on throughout the province. So we want more input to this particular bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to you. It’s always a pleasure to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. I always enjoy being in the House when the member from Oshawa brings her views, because she certainly does her homework from her area, that’s for sure. She always brings a perspective of what is important to her and her constituency, something I admire and that I try to do myself from a northern perspective.

Some of the points that she did bring across are the affordable options that are lacking in this particular bill and the fact that the regional strategies that were there, that were developed in her area—there was an opportunity here for engagement from the government. The wait time for individuals to get into a home hasn’t been addressed and, actually, the lack of details within the content of this bill—again, highlighting a nice title within this bill.

However, leaving things to regulation isn’t always the message or isn’t what individuals are wanting to see—and the fact that individuals across this province are really challenged with the energy crisis that we’re in. Those are some of the things she brought forward.

Now, she did also bring forward the idea that the details are going to be within the discussions, and that’s something that we are quite worried about. If you bring out a title and you leave the discussions or the details to later on, it really doesn’t address the issues that people are looking for and wanting to see within the content of the bill.

The fact that there was a huge opportunity here for this government to actually reach out and develop those partnerships and look at the individuals who are there in those regions, who have the skills, who have the knowledge to provide that information and feedback to the government: That’s something this government didn’t reach out and do. This won’t get done unless there are actual funding dollars from both levels of government, federally and provincially, if we’re going to have a real strategy developed that will assist all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments. I recognize the Associate Minister of Education.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m pleased to rise today—

Interjections.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Oh, I’m sorry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): No, I recognized the Associate Minister of Education. She was up first. So back to the Associate Minister of Education.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act. As you know, we are proposing changes that would, if passed, support improved access to adequate and affordable housing and modernize the social housing system. Mr. Speaker—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, a point of order, please.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. Thank you very much. Just before I recognize the member on a point of order, one of the things I don’t appreciate is banging on the table to get my attention. Whoever did it, I would ask that they don’t do that again, please.

You are not in your seat, so you are unable to stand on a point of order. However, you are now in your seat, so now I will recognize you on a point of order.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that. I’ll communicate your request not to bang on desks to get your attention in the future to all our caucus members.

Speaker, we are on questions and comments for the member for Oshawa’s debate on Bill 7. I think the minister is actually doing her debate, as opposed to the questions and comments.

Interjection: How do you even know what she’s going to say?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): We are on a point—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me, please. Minister, I would ask that you come to order.

We are on two-minute questions and comments. I’m sure that the Associate Minister of Education is aware of that. I stopped the clock on your behalf. Now you are allowed to continue to finish up with your questions and comments. Then we will go back to the member for final comments. Thank you very much. Please continue.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I am aware of the fact that we are in questions and comments now.

I’m pleased to rise and to speak to this. Having a safe and warm place to call home is key to the happiness and success of people. If passed, this bill would try to achieve that by increasing the supply of housing units, by ensuring more stability and security for municipal service managers, by serving social housing tenants, and by allowing social housing tenants to retain more of their income without having to face higher rents. In addition, it will make it easier for municipalities and private developers to provide affordable housing.

The members opposite talked about consultations. Absolutely, there were consultations held as part of this process, extensive consultations, on the long-term and affordable strategy update. That is what fed into this process.

I believe that this really establishes the vision that we have, to ensure that we are achieving that everybody has an affordable and suitable home to provide the foundation for a secure employment and success.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Oshawa for final comments.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I appreciate all of the comments from around the room: the members from Trinity–Spadina, Huron–Bruce and Algoma–Manitoulin, and the Associate Minister of Energy. Energy? Education. It must be the morning. Anyway, thank you, everyone.

To the member from Huron–Bruce: Many of the comments that you made were spot-on. This is not just a single-parents’ or a seniors’ issue. These pressures are being felt across our ridings and across our communities. Without proper consultation, without the homework, as the member from Algoma–Manitoulin called it, without that sufficient input, why are we bothering? A bill should have the voices and it should have had input from across our province.

If we’re looking at housing alone and not factoring it into the midst of the energy crisis, and taking in all of our affordability pressures, we’re doing a disservice to our communities. The member from Algoma–Manitoulin, of course, had highlighted—and thank you—the regional strategy that Durham region has put forward.

This is a government that should be really working with their partners across our regions and across the province to find out what ideas are out there, to find out what initiatives have already been undertaken, to look at those strategies. Our municipalities and our regions are doing a heck of a lot of good work, and they’re doing it oftentimes without that partnership, without that support.

Again, if we’re not doing things together and for Ontarians’ best, then what are we doing? We shouldn’t be making decisions just for the Liberals. We should be making them for those people who need a roof over their heads.

Speaker, I’m glad to have had the opportunity this morning. To the Associate Minister of Education’s point: Everyone deserves safe, warm and affordable housing—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Further debate?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 7, Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016. I want you to know that I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and also the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

If passed, this bill would improve access to adequate and affordable housing and modernize the social housing system. Having a safe and warm place to call home is key—key to the happiness and success of people. Improving access to affordable housing is part of our government’s economic plan to build Ontario up. When people have a home, they are healthier, more ready for employment, and better able to participate in and contribute to their local communities.

We all know how challenging life can be if you don’t have a roof over your head, if you’re young, if you’re old, if you’re a senior, if you have a family or if you’re a single parent. These are the challenges sometimes that some families face. Families find it hard to pull themselves up and out of difficult circumstances if they can’t get back on their feet, and that starts with a home. It starts with a roof over your head and it starts, really, with the Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016.

This act is part of a vision. It’s part of our vision, and that vision is that every person should have an affordable and suitable home to provide the foundation to secure employment, raise a family and build strong communities. But this isn’t just a vision; it is a commitment.

If passed, this bill would increase the supply of affordable housing units through a variety of new tools, including inclusionary zoning. It would ensure more stability and security for municipal service managers as well as social housing and not-for-profit co-operative housing providers. It would serve social housing tenants more effectively, and it would do this by including housing assistance.

It would ensure that families and individuals get that housing assistance in a more equitable and timely fashion, allowing social housing tenants to retain more of their income without having to face higher rents or face eviction, and make it easier for municipalities and their corporations to work with private sector developers.

This is really about ensuring that the people in this province are successful. A home, after all, is more than just a roof. It’s a place that creates a safe cocoon, a cocoon around a family that allows families and individuals to grow and sets them on a path to success.

More importantly, this is the right thing to do. There have been many conversations in my riding about this very thing, about affordable housing, about the need for an affordable housing strategy and act, and our government is moving on those voices. We’ve been listening, and that’s what we have here today.

It’s an honour and a privilege to speak to this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is certainly an important debate. I appreciate the flavour and the tenor in the House, which is that, I think we all agree, everyone has the right to an affordable and suitable home to provide the foundation they need to live their lives, to secure employment, to raise their families and to build strong communities.

I think that the affordable housing act, Bill 7, is really a very strong response to that absolute need. It reflects the new research and best practices that support Ontario’s transformation towards a better housing system. As you know, this bill was introduced earlier in the session. The point of the legislation, without question, is that we want to ensure that the people of Ontario have better access to affordable and adequate housing. I speak as a member—much like my colleague across the way from Algoma–Manitoulin—as a northerner who recognizes how important affordable housing is and how we need to modernize the social housing system.

Bill 7 will introduce legislative amendments to a number of acts: the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act, the Housing Services Act and the Residential Tenancies Act. Most notably, if passed, Bill 7 would help to increase the supply of affordable housing and modernize social housing by enabling municipalities to require the inclusion of affordable housing units in residential developments through inclusionary zoning, which I will speak about a little bit further. It will exempt secondary suites and new homes from development charges—that would be under the Development Charges Act.

It would provide local service managers with more flexibility in administering and delivering social housing in their communities as well as—I think this is a pretty important part of the legislation—prevent unnecessary evictions from social housing, and modernize the enforcement of property standards and rental housing.

The member for Oshawa referenced the need for consultations. We had extremely extensive consultations leading up to the introduction of this legislation. We heard about the need to foster diverse, inclusive communities. To help reach this goal, we have provided a range of planning, financial and other tools through this particular legislation to help municipalities create more affordable housing.

One of the tools we’re proposing is called inclusionary zoning. If passed, Bill 7 will allow municipalities the choice of establishing inclusionary zoning policies. Inclusionary zoning would allow municipalities to require private sector developers to include affordable housing units in their residential development proposals. That would not just enable but certainly motivate the private sector to play a much larger role in providing affordable housing.

We recognize how important this legislation is; it’s a real priority of our government. We’re very pleased to bring forward this legislation, and certainly hope we get support from all members of the House.

If I may, I will pass on the rest of the time to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Hon. Laura Albanese: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and speak to Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act. I think that the issue of affordable housing is important to all of our ridings, to all the people that we represent. Urban realities may differ from rural realities or northern realities but, at the core of that, having the possibility to have housing that is affordable is crucial for many Ontarians.

Just to give some background on this legislation: According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., 13.4% of Ontarians were in core need of housing in 2011. Nearly 72% of the households in core need were captured solely because they were spending more than 30% of their pre-tax income on housing, so that’s how they were captured. Many were waiting for rent-geared-to-income housing, and there had been an increase in that. The average monthly rent for a two-bedroom was not affordable to households in the lowest 50% of the renter income distribution. In other words, many Ontarians, as we said, find it difficult to secure stable and affordable housing.

In order to address these issues, the government brought forward the updated Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy. I think it indicates a vision that is important to everyone: that every person have an affordable, suitable and adequate home to provide the foundation to secure employment, raise a family and build a strong community. This is what we want to ensure.

In the time that I have left, I wanted to address the concern that was raised about the portable housing framework contemplated by this legislation and the fact that it could result in an increase in rent. I wanted to point out that this legislation, if passed, aims to create more flexibility within our social housing system. That’s really important so that Ontarians can have the opportunity to choose the right housing for themselves. The portable housing benefit framework is not an entitlement program and will not be mandated. It just provides an additional tool for service managers in the delivery of targeted housing assistance, and, as such, the impact on rent is expected to be limited.

The Ontario housing allowance working group, a coalition of industry and community organizations, noted in a report that they did in 2008 that existing rent supplement programs in Canada had little impact on rent levels. So the benefit framework would enable more housing choices for tenants, it would move with the person, and I think it would give people the option of being closer to family, social support networks, schools and employment opportunities. That’s what’s really important to people.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the PC caucus to enter into the debate on Bill 7, a bill that I had an opportunity to speak to previously in this House. I sit beside our PC housing critic.

I’ve had an opportunity to discuss this legislation with a number of those who represent the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association. In fact, I spoke to this piece of legislation and then I had a breakfast meeting not too long after that where I spoke to about 40 developers inside the city of Ottawa. One of the major concerns I think that they have is that the government has policies that are spiralling out of control. That doesn’t just mean in the development industry; it doesn’t just mean inclusionary housing.

It relates to taxes, red tape, regulatory burdens, increasing development charges on developers on new homes and rentals and, of course, the hydro rates that have spiralled out of control, that have soared in recent years. I think that makes life more expensive for all Ontarians. I think when the government continues to bring pieces of legislation to this House that make it more complex for affordable housing in the province, that’s what we continue to see.

We’ve said that we would support this legislation depending on amendments. We’ll see where that goes as we debate it here today. But the previous version of the affordable housing strategy promised an annual report that included performance indicators that has yet to be released. The only real measure that we’ve got is that every year there’s a wait-list for affordable housing and it hits new record highs every year.

I think the government, if they want to be serious about this, would be far more collaborative with our municipalities but also with the development community, who I think would tell them that the regulatory burden, the high cost of hydro and the high cost of development charges are making it more difficult to attain that affordable housing.

I’d be remiss not to point out that I had a wonderful visit in Greely last week at Albion Woods, where they are trying to do that attainable housing. That’s what this government needs to learn a bit more about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Affordable housing is a serious issue in this province; we all know that. Many people can share stories of constituents who waited far too long to be able to have access to affordable housing. I know in my riding in Brampton, particularly in the Peel region, the waiting lists have been amongst the highest in the province.

Though we are absolutely encouraged by the inclusion of the inclusionary zoning piece, we have to highlight, as New Democrats, that providing laws that allow for inclusionary zoning, that allow for the option to build affordable housing, is not enough in and of itself. It’s a great step and we’ve fought for that for a long time, but there needs to be, hand in hand with this strategy, a government initiative to commit to invest in building affordable housing. That investment is essential. The housing market alone will not allow for affordable housing to be built. There needs to be a concerted effort on the part of the government to invest in that and build that.

Many people talked about the importance of housing. It’s essential to be able to have a roof over your head, to have that place where you’re safe and secure. It’s fundamental. Many of the problems we see in society, whether it’s precarious employment, whether we look at the gap between the rich and the poor, the growing income inequality—many of these issues can be addressed if we have access to affordable housing. One of the biggest costs in someone’s life is their housing, their rent.

If we can find a way to ensure that at least that element, the element of housing, is more affordable, then so many other areas that we need to address and so many other areas that are so important for us to address can be tackled.

That’s why we need to, again, highlight how important it is for this government not to only move forward with this legislation but to ensure that we have a concerted effort to build affordable housing in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s a pleasure to speak today on this bill. The bill itself talks about affordability; it talks about affordable housing and making life more affordable to Ontarians. I just kind of scribbled down a list here of 10 initiatives that really are put in place to create more affordability in Ontario. I want to go through the list because I think it’s important for people who are watching and people who may read through Hansard to know what the track record of this government is when it comes to affordability.

Average tuition in Ontario for families earning less than $50,000 is free. We’ve increased the child benefit to a maximum of $1,356 per child, implemented by this government; 100,000 new child care spaces created within the next five years. We put in full-day kindergarten, which saves, on average, a family in Ontario $6,500; and the Healthy Smiles initiative, which brings 70,000 more young people into a dental care program. We invested over $900 million in four years to support people who rent by retrofitting social housing apartments and providing grants and rebates.

We’ve put in a vaccine for shingles for seniors. We’ve put in a minimum wage program that pretty much doubled since we’ve been in power, and of course the 8% rebate on energy cost here in Ontario that we recently announced.

Of all those initiatives, the Conservatives have supported one: the 8%. I believe the NDP supported, out of the nine or 10 that I just mentioned, one, which was the 8%. I think it’s shameful to be in this House and listen to the NDP and the Conservatives talk about affordability, when all of those initiatives I just listed were voted down by the members of the opposition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to get up to make a few remarks on the comments that were made. I just want to point out one thing that is different in Liberal language than it is in the real language of the province of Ontario. When the minister says that one of the things that they have accomplished is the 100,000 child care spaces that are going to be created over the next five years, that, my friend, is not an accomplishment; that’s what the Premier would call a stretch goal. Because so far, everything they’ve promised, they don’t do.

The thing I really want to talk about for just a moment is some of the challenges in this bill. I support the principle of this bill. I think everyone in this House would support creating more affordable housing for the people of the province. But one of the things that’s in the bill is that when developers have inclusionary zoning put on their property, it doesn’t allow them to pay cash in lieu of creating the units in that exact development. So if you’re building three houses in a row and it’s in an area of inclusionary zoning, one of those houses would have to be built as an affordable unit.

Somebody would then have to have a system in place to look after that, if it was part of a public housing regime, to make sure that everything was followed up over the next 20 years over these three houses.

I think what they need to do is to make sure, if it’s in the best interest of building affordable housing, to take cash in lieu in a development so that it can be moved, in combination with other units in another area, to build in an area where we can manage the affordable housing that’s being built, as opposed to being scattered all over the city because they had to have one in each part. So that’s one of the things.

The other thing that’s rather interesting: If it’s in a condominium, how do you deal with the condominium fees for the people who can’t afford to pay the price of the condominium fees? That would be part of the affordability, Mr. Speaker.

So I think that there are things that need to be looked at, and I thank you very much for a few moments to talk about them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for final comments.

Hon. Laura Albanese: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I also want to thank the members who have made comments.

The member from Nepean–Carleton indicated that we need to work with partners. We need to work, as a government, with our partners, especially with municipalities and other stakeholders. When you work together, you always have a better result. I think our record shows that we have done that in the past and we will continue to make sure that we do that, especially in regard to this bill.

I want to thank the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton. He indicated that he’s encouraged by inclusionary zoning, and I hope that we will be able to further discuss the bill in committee, where we make most of the significant changes to bills.

Thank you to the Minister of Children and Youth Services and MPP for Don Valley East. He highlighted the importance of affordability and the initiatives that the government has made to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario.

I also thank the member from Oxford. He did say that he supports the bill in principle and he spoke about some of the concerns that he has. Hopefully we will be able to discuss those further, especially in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that when people have a home, they are healthier, they’re more ready for employment, and they are better able to contribute and to participate in their community and in our society. That is the goal of this bill. It is to provide people with housing, a roof over their heads, that makes their lives more affordable, but also makes a difference in their lives and makes an overall difference for Ontario as a healthier province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to be in the House again this morning to speak to Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act. In my view, the bill before us today tinkers with affordable housing, but it really doesn’t deliver any productive changes that would help to reduce wait times or improve efficiencies. In fact, it makes things worse and some housing even more unaffordable, which is, I take it, counterintuitive to what the actual title of the bill is.

First of all, as I mentioned in my comments last week, the number of people waiting for affordable housing has increased immensely. The wait time in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock alone is well over five years for some types of affordable housing, mostly seniors. The average wait time for seniors across the province has almost doubled on this government’s watch from 2.5 years to 4.4 years. In other words, the wait times have doubled after 13 years of Liberal government.

They had 13 years to fix the wait-list backlog, but instead the backlog has doubled and there are now 171,000 families waiting for housing. It’s the highest number we’ve ever seen in this province. I actually think the 171,000 is probably a low number; I think there are far more families waiting for affordable housing in the province. It’s mainly due to their increasing hydro bills, but I’ll touch upon that point later.

In the previous version—we’ve had several versions of the government’s affordable housing strategy—they promised us annual reports along with performance indicators, but they’re nowhere to be found. My colleague from York–Simcoe mentioned that yesterday. There are reports that languish on ministers’ desks and they’re not looked at. Where’s the accountability for that?

The government had also apparently consulted with stakeholders before this bill. Now we find out that these consultations took place after they introduced the legislation. It’s a very big trend in the Liberal government. They bring out a bill and then they go to the stakeholders and ask. We saw a lot of those situations occur, bringing in legislation and then, “Let’s hurry up and fix it.” It may even delay legislation, because they didn’t get it right the first time, because they didn’t have the consultations.

We’re seeing that with a few bills in front of us, asking for longer time before they do clause-by-clause, which means they tidy up the bill for the amendments they should have had. So it’s a trend that this government has of disrespecting stakeholders such as, in this case, our municipalities and plowing forward with the changes that it wants, that the government wants to make, rather than listening to Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve spoken many times that my riding is largely rural, has a number of municipalities, and they’ll be negatively affected by many of the changes proposed in Bill 7. For example, many municipalities do not have a municipal property standards bylaw, which means they’ll be facing additional costs as a result of this bill. That doesn’t make municipalities happy, that they weren’t consulted and now they’re going to pay more for this bill. Instead of working collaboratively with municipalities on what can be done that isn’t so costly to them, this government didn’t ask municipalities.

Another example: This bill downloads the cost of inspecting and enforcing maintenance standards under the Residential Tenancies Act to municipalities, where it was previously the responsibility of the minister. So you have our cash-strapped municipalities asked to take on even more responsibilities while this government washes its hands of it. They even included a clause which allows the government to make inclusionary zoning mandatory for prescribed municipalities despite their claims that they won’t force it on anyone.

The member from Oxford has followed this bill along, and he has made good comments. He just finished speaking about some amendments he’d like to see. But, again, if they had spoken with municipalities and the member from Oxford before they brought this legislation in—I mean, he is the critic for municipal affairs and housing—maybe they would have corrected this and it wouldn’t be so upsetting to municipalities.

The bill also requires that municipalities conduct the enumeration of homeless people. I again express my appreciation to those doing the enumeration work in Kawartha Lakes–Haliburton. They share the social services delivery model between those two large municipalities, which is close to 100,000 people put together. I know they worked hard throughout the summer on that. They had many open houses and public consultations.

But we know that when the federal government recently enumerated homeless people in a number of designated municipalities, it actually provided a million dollars of funding per municipality. Here in Ontario, the Wynne government has only announced $2.5 million for the entire province. You can add to that the unnecessary red tape and regulations that ignore common sense solutions that would lower affordable housing costs: for example, the requirement under the Housing Services Act for housing providers to purchase natural gas and insurance through the Housing Services Corp.

The member from Oxford did a fantastic job of highlighting the wasteful crown organization charges that inflated the rates for natural gas, which gouge housing providers. A couple of examples I’m going to throw in here: If they didn’t have to purchase through the HSC, the Housing Services Corp., which it is mandated to, the city of Toronto would have saved $6.3 million on natural gas in a single year. In the city of Hamilton, an additional $1.1 million was spent on natural gas in one year, and in Peel region, an additional $182,000 in one year.

There are a ton of examples where the government is forcing municipalities to purchase through HSC and it’s actually costing them more on the affordable housing front. The member from Oxford did a great job of highlighting this. The government still hasn’t taken action to free municipalities up from purchasing the products from the Housing Services Corp.

The government should be tidying these details up before they try to bring in a bill that says “affordable housing” but really tinkers around the edges of providing affordable housing. The government should have done that. It would embrace a reasonable market solution and it would have reduced the cost for municipalities, as I’ve said. But “wasteful status quo” is this government’s mantra, so the wasteful status quo it is. Instead of fixing the problem, which the member from Oxford highlighted and which municipalities would have welcomed, they choose to do nothing.

The bigger problem, I think, with this government’s approach on the issue is they seem to be oblivious that all their other policy decisions have contributed to the issues that have been plaguing affordable housing in Ontario. Of course, we have the government’s unwanted and inefficient experimentation with wind turbines and its decision to cancel the infamous gas plants, both of which have had to be absorbed by all Ontarians. We’re talking billions and billions of dollars that all Ontarians are paying for, which has actually made life more unaffordable in the province of Ontario.

Nothing has contributed more to the increasing unaffordability of housing than the skyrocketing costs of hydro for individuals. It has been the tipping point of more and more people in poverty in this province than anything else that I have ever seen. There’s no way they can actually afford housing. They can’t afford to pay their hydro bills, Mr. Speaker. We see this across the province. The government is kind of starting to listen to the fact that the hydro rates are impoverishing people at record rates, but they’re really just giving you 8% off your hydro rate and they think that is to be celebrated: “Well, they increased the bills by over 400%, but we’ll give you 8% and all’s good.”

Well, it isn’t good, Mr. Speaker, because the cost of hydro is still going to increase. They’re selling Hydro One. That’s going to increase the cost of hydro. We’ve heard from many, many professionals in the business that that’s going to increase the cost of hydro.

But you really don’t have to go any further in your communities than to phone the food banks. How are things? It’s up pretty much 30% everywhere, the use of food banks. Why is it up? Because they can’t afford to pay their hydro bills and they can’t afford to eat. I have Fuel for Warmth, which is basically a fuel bank instead of a food bank, in my riding, in Haliburton, created by many churches who just want to help people. They see an unprecedented demand for assistance.

I see people in parades. I’m in parades, and the working moms actually pull me over and say, “Please, help me with my hydro bill. I can’t pay my bills and feed my children, and I’m the one out there working.”

Mr. Speaker, that is a huge telltale sign of what’s going on in the province of Ontario, and the affordable housing act is really just a housekeeping measure.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Questions and comments?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to offer my comments to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock on her thoughtful talk this morning on Bill 7, Promoting Affordable Housing Act.

It’s interesting, her last comment there, that this is essentially a housekeeping initiative. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this government would actually focus on keeping housing at the forefront for Ontarians?

I appreciate many of the comments that she made, especially when we were talking about regional solutions. I had spoken about this in my remarks, that my region has put forward initiatives and a 10-year plan. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if the government of the day actually had a long-range plan? Imagine where we could be if we had a long-range housing plan instead of piecemeal, stopgap measures. But there we have it: We don’t.

I appreciate the term “wasteful status quo” as well. That is what we keep seeing over and over. We have so many opportunities to be that much further ahead, but we just kind of accept some of where we are and we throw good money after bad, and we see wasteful spending and initiatives from this government.

The issues that are plaguing affordability are many and varied. We talk at length and, I would say, ad nauseam about Hydro One, because we have to, because that is the number one issue we are hearing. It’s not just at the forefront of people’s minds; they’re trying to feed their children. Money does not grow on trees. It does not come out of thin air. But it is coming out of children’s education funds. It is coming out from under mattresses. People are making these tough choices.

To hear about food banks and skyrocketing costs—we need affordable housing and we need it now. We don’t just need a housekeeping bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Han Dong: I’m pleased to respond to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and her debate on this bill, government Bill 7.

She talked about the consultation process, so I’m pleased to inform the House that in developing the updated Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy, the ministry held consultations with partner ministries and major housing, health and human services stakeholders. In addition, the ministry attended 38 stakeholder meetings and consultations to discuss the LTAHS update. In total, 113 formal written submissions from stakeholders and the general public were received.

In addition, the ministry conducted further consultations via registry and stakeholder sessions between March and April with a variety of stakeholders on the proposed legislative amendments in Bill 7.

I also would like to point out that should this bill pass second reading, it will be going to the committee, and then we will have even more public input opportunities.

She also talked about support for municipalities. Since 2003, this government, on this side, has been providing lots of support to municipalities and, in fact, uploading lots of services. Some of those services were downloaded by the Conservative government prior to us. So I just want to point that out and remind the members of this House that we’ve been doing real work on this side to support municipalities, and also tackling homelessness.

I think this bill provides many, many meaningful instruments to municipalities and gives them the tools to create an affordable housing environment in our great province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to respond to the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. I know I only have a couple of minutes of questions and comments, but I think she hit the nail on the head.

I appreciate the fact that the member for Trinity–Spadina just used his government talking points. I know the government likes to talk about what happened 20 years ago, but the member, Ms. Scott—I think she hit the nail on the head.

When we have 171,000 people on a waiting list, a waiting list that has grown significantly since 2003, we’re going in the wrong direction. I would much rather have this government come forward with a collaborative approach, rather than just the same old same old. “We’re going to get money from the federal government. We’re going to match it. We’re going to dump it over to municipalities. We’re not going to necessarily consult them. If they use the units, great. If they don’t, they don’t.”

I think we have to do better. Rather than having a piece of legislation like this, I think we need to have something—and I mentioned this to our critic this morning—like a select committee, where we have all the stakeholders with us, we have all three parties and we sit down and look at very concrete ways to grow the housing stock, to get that waiting list down.

The member, in her speech this morning, talked about the issue with municipalities. Many of them don’t have property standards bylaws. Many of them don’t have the financial resources to hire additional staff to deal with the rules and the procedures in this bill. This is something that I think this government has to get its head around. Rather than talking about what happened 20 years ago, let’s talk about what’s happened over the last 12 or 13 years. We’ve got a serious crisis in this province and we need to work together. We can’t continue to play partisan politics.

Personally, I think the select committee is the only way to do this. I would hope that some of the government members would listen to Mr. Hardeman’s recommendations when it comes to committee. I think we’d be a lot better off.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I want to thank the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for her contribution to the very important bill on affordable housing.

She touched on hydro rates. I ask that this government really, really consider what they’re doing to hydro rates, because affordable housing—what we’re talking about today—is extremely important, but when you have affordable housing and people can’t pay their hydro rates, then that is a problem. The money they have, the income they derive, is going to be spent on trying to stay in their homes with a hydro bill that’s exorbitant, and other things are going to suffer.

I have to tell you, seniors are one of the concerns I have for affordable housing. All my seniors in the London–Fanshawe area say that they want to stay in the area, they want to stay close to their supports, to their families, to the local businesses they’ve developed a relationship with and to their MPP so they can have access to that office. There isn’t a lot of affordable housing in the London–Fanshawe area. It’s just a known fact.

When we talk about seniors, they are the ones who are being hit extremely hard because they’re on fixed incomes. Having hydro rates that are unaffordable means they’re going to cut other things. This is really a reality of what they’re facing. They are going to cut their drugs. They’re not going to be able to afford things like hearing aids. They compromise on their food bill. This is another thing that this government needs to address.

This bill is weak in areas. A lot of it is left to regulation. A lot of it is dependent on developers to meet the needs of affordable housing. I think this bill can be strengthened so that it actually makes a difference and gives people affordable housing in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes our questions and comments. I return to the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for her reply.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I want to thank the members from Oshawa, Leeds–Grenville, Trinity–Spadina and London–Fanshawe for their comments. They certainly have told the stories in their ridings of people who are on wait-lists for affordable housing that never end.

I know the member from Oshawa and I share the Durham region. What she mentioned about regionally working together, I think Durham region does what they can to work together to address these problems. The government members have said that they’re giving municipalities tools to deal with this when we’re actually uncovering the fact that municipalities are going to have more costs. These are more rules and more downloading to the municipalities to deliver this.

The member from Leeds–Grenville articulated that very well. Where was the consultation with municipalities before they brought the bill in? The municipalities are creatures of the province. We need to work collaboratively with them so that they do have the right tools. Everybody wants to have more affordable housing.

The big thing we see here, besides the wasteful status quo by this government, is the fact that—I’d like a bill that says “affordable hydro act,” so that we can actually deal with the fact that we’ve got these skyrocketing hydro rates that are putting more people in poverty. More people are going to be on the affordable housing list. We’ve seen that double under this government’s watch. You’re going to see more and more of that because people have used their savings. I have seniors who don’t even go and get prescriptions filled, or they don’t go and get that assistive device. They just can’t afford that extra cost because they have to pay their hydro bill.

I’ve spoken in this Legislature about load limiters. Are we in a third-world country? The fact is that I have many people on load limiters so they’re restricted on the amount of hydro they can use in a day. I’m sorry if they’re going to have to freeze at nighttime, but this government doesn’t care.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I am honoured to join in the debate on Bill 7. Many people have talked about this, and I’ll just highlight it again: It’s absolutely important for us to build more affordable housing in this province. The interesting thing about affordable housing is the intersection between affordable housing and many other areas that are important for us to tackle, and I want to draw the connection.

If we look at affordability, more and more people are finding it difficult—life is more difficult, and in terms of affordability with respect to bills and costs, it becomes harder and harder for people to make ends meet. It’s difficult right now. One of the biggest costs in most people’s lives is their housing costs, the rent, their mortgage or their purchase of a place to live. Affordability, in general, is linked with affordable housing, but there are also other factors.

If you look at the social determinants of health, having a healthy, clean and safe place to live has a direct and strong impact on your health. So having a clear investment by the government into social housing, into good, clean, safe housing, will actually also impact the health of the community.

If we want our society to look forward to a better future for the next generation, if we want to ensure that families are able to provide opportunities for the next generation, if we want the next generation to succeed, again, affordable housing is directly linked to that. To have a home as your home base to be able to grow and succeed in life is also very important. There are so many factors. Affordable housing impacts families, impacts this province and impacts the people of this province in many ways, and since it’s so important, we need to put a lot of emphasis on how we tackle this problem.

Now, the bill includes a number of areas that are important, and we support that—for example, inclusionary zoning. But there are a lot of ways this bill could go a lot further, and there are a lot of components of this bill which are unclear or they leave much to regulation. They don’t allow this Legislative Assembly to debate the nuances of the bill or the specifics of the bill because so much is left to regulation, and I want to touch on a number of areas.

If we want to really look at affordability when it comes to housing, one key aspect of affordability is rent, and nowhere in this bill does it address rent control. Rent control is something we see the impact of. If you have rent control, rent is affordable. We have examples. We have other provinces, other jurisdictions where there is rent control and where it’s far more affordable to be able to rent a unit, rent an apartment. The Liberals have actually promised to include rent control, to bring back rent control that was taken away by the Conservative government.

The Liberals promised to do that, and that was a great promise. That’s an important thing to address because we need rent control. However, for the past 13 years—13 years, Mr. Speaker—this government has broken that promise. They promised it. Mr. McGuinty, when he was Premier, made it very clear, but that promise was broken year after year after year. I’d like to know, actually—and hopefully in the response—does this government still believe in rent control? Do they still have a commitment to this promise they made before, or have they abandoned it?

Because if they’ve abandoned it, then we can say that they’ve made a promise and now they’ve abandoned it and it’s no longer a commitment they have. But we’re left with this assumption that the government said, “We’re going to do it.” They haven’t done it. This bill was a great opportunity to address rent control, but, again, they’ve broken that promise and they’ve not committed to bringing that back.

If you look at housing in this province and look at it from the bigger picture, there was a massive download of responsibilities onto municipalities by the Conservative government in 1999. Part of that was to download housing onto municipalities. We all know that downloading the various services that have been downloaded onto municipalities was a bad decision. Why? Because municipalities have limited means. They only have essentially one main resource or one source of revenue, which is property tax. Besides that, they have no other source of revenue. To put all these essential, important services on a level of government that has limited resources really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

This government acknowledges that, acknowledges that that wasn’t a good idea. In fact, a government report in 2010, the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy, made it clear that the downloading of social housing onto municipalities was short-sighted by the Harris government. That was a short-sighted decision. So if the government acknowledges that it was a short-sighted decision, you would assume that the government would then say, “Okay, we need to now upload that responsibility.” But, Mr. Speaker, as you know and I know, they have not done that. They’ve not uploaded that responsibility.

They continue to maintain the status quo, which is to have a level of government with limited resources continue to be responsible for such an important matter as social housing.

In fact, if we look at this government’s track record when it comes to housing, they continually cut when it comes to important elements of housing. In 2012, when the government eliminated the community start-up and maintenance fund, they rolled it over to a new fund but they provided less funding than before to address homelessness and to address issues of housing. Then in 2013, the Wynne government cancelled the Toronto Pooling Compensation. So they’ve reduced funding to essential things like housing. This is a fact. This is what this government has done. It’s not surprising, but these are the realities.

Given that we have a limited pool of affordable housing units—it’s a reality; there is a limited pool—the government needs to commit to building more. They need to actually commit to the dollars, the funding, to make sure we build more housing units in general so that people can afford housing. But in the meantime, we have another reality: Many people resort to basement apartments. They resort to second units in homes as an option for affordable housing. The government has taken some steps—and I give the government some credit on this—in moving toward making it easier to have second units in homes.

The NDP, when we were in power, made sure that that second unit policy was a right so that people could immediately be able to have a second unit in their homes. That is so important. Particularly when we have limited options for housing, we need it to be very clear that in the current climate, with the current serious crisis with respect to affordable housing, we need to ensure that, at a minimum, people have a right to build a second unit and that people have access to that as a potential for affordable housing.

When second units are registered, when they are regulated, they’re safer, there are better conditions and they can ensure that there is at least that option for people when it comes to affordable housing.

Just to touch on some of the strategies that we can employ, inclusionary zoning, which would allow for affordable housing to be factored in to a developer’s plan, is a good start, but we need to set some clear guidelines with respect to those units. We need to also look toward supporting not-for-profit co-operative housing as an option for affordable housing and we need to set some real targets. This government has not set any clear targets about how many housing units this government is prepared to build or when they’re going to build them by. We need to know very clearly; this province needs to have a direction with respect to when they can expect to see more housing units built.

In terms of the direction this government needs to go, instead of continuing to break this promise, the government needs to implement rent control and implement it immediately, so that we can move towards more affordable housing with respect to rental units.

This government needs to take this opportunity to break from the past and actually commit to uploading the responsibilities of social housing back on to the province. The province has income tax revenue, the province has sales tax revenue, the province has more resources and more revenue, and it should be the responsibility of the province to commit to building and dealing with social housing. This is something the government can do.

In general, we need a significant shift, not an incremental step. We need a significant step to ensure that housing is affordable and we need to do that immediately. It’s not the time to take incremental or minor steps. We need a bold vision and a bold step towards creating affordable housing in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): It being 10:15, this House is now in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to introduce Diane Brekelmans, Colleen McKay, Pete Overdevest and Megan Veldman. They’re here from the 16th class of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome Cliff Lawton back to Queen’s Park. As you know, he’s the father of our page Elisabeth Lawton. Welcome back, sir.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to introduce Martina Pfister from the 16th class of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, and Mike Colizzi and Megan Harris-Pero from LEAD New York. Welcome.

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s my privilege today to introduce two constituents of mine, Don and Jim Chapman, who run Lakeview Vegetable Processing in the riding of York–Simcoe. Please help me welcome my guests here today.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s my honour to recognize and welcome, in the public west gallery today, the Advanced Agricultural Leadership class, including leaders in agriculture and agri-food from across Ontario and from the wonderful area of New York state. I hope that they have a great day here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I’d also like to introduce to the members Mike Pastir, Jennifer Peart and Ann Vermeersch, also from the 16th class of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to introduce Nikki Jackson and Marijke Van Andel from the 16th class of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, and also Laura Bentley and Ted Greenwood from LEAD New York.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I like to introduce Robin Brown from the 16th class of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. She is here from the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, of course.

I’d also like to introduce, from New York, Challey Comer, Jean O’Toole and Martha Facer.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m pleased to welcome my next-door neighbour. Kevin Goldberg is here, a newly graduated engineer. He works for the company MetaFLO Technologies. They’re here for the special day for ONEIA. Welcome, Kevin. Glad to see you.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: On behalf of the member from Niagara Falls, I would like to introduce Dylan Wiens and Marty Byl from the 16th class of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, and Sam Filler from LEAD New York.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The Ontario Environment Industry Association is well represented here today. In committee room 228 between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., they have a reception, and I hope that you’ll come out.

I’d like to introduce Greg Jones, Alex Gill and Irene Hassas. This is the team that’s helping us implement Bill 151, which they co-authored with this Legislature.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce, from my riding, the heart of agriculture in this province, Tom Heeman, Kevin Howe and Jon Lamb from the 16th class of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome, of course, our guests from the Ontario Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program visiting Queen’s Park today. Here today from my riding is my very good friend Anna DeMarchi-Meyers. Welcome, Anna, to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today members from AMPCO from the riding of Huron–Bruce: Cameron Moffat, joined by Andy Mahut and Sue Olynyk.

I’m also very pleased, as an alumna of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, class 6, to welcome our AALPers to Queen’s Park. In particular, from my riding of Huron–Bruce, we have Rebecca Miller and Emily Morrison. They are joined in this class by Stuart Adams from Quebec and Jenn Norrie from Alberta.

On behalf of Speaker Levac, the member from Brant, I’d like to welcome Jenn Kyle, and on behalf of the member from Durham, Adrienne Houle. Welcome to Queen’s Park, everyone.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park, in the members’ gallery this morning, for the page captain today, Paige MacCarthy: her mother Josi MacCarthy, her grandparents Ann and Dane MacCarthy, and her aunt Erin MacCarthy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: On behalf of the member from Wellington–Halton Hills I’d like to introduce Meghan Burke and Anna DeMarchi-Meyers, from the 16th class of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, and Thomas Matthews, who is from the LEAD New York delegation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery today, we have with us, visiting from the riding of Brantford and Brant, Sandra Kagoma and her daughter, Eema Kagoma. Eema is a celebrated singer and won the Royal Conservatory Gold Medal for singing in Ontario. We welcome our guests today. Thank you for being here.

As well in the Speaker’s gallery today, a delegate and a good friend of mine, Mr. Talmadge Branch, the House majority whip in the Maryland House of Delegates. Welcome. We’re glad you’re here with us, Talmadge.

Seeing no further introductions, it is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The Liberals can’t seem to get anything right when it comes to the energy file. The waste never seems to end. Some $12 million wasted on consultants and advertisements; $28 million losing a lawsuit for a project that hasn’t even been built. And the newest scandal? An $81-million accounting error by the Independent Electricity System Operator, or the IESO. Just like that, the IESO’s deficit grew by $81 million.

Are the Ontario ratepayers on the hook for an $81-million Liberal accounting error yet again? How does this keep on happening, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite should know that there are no additional impacts to ratepayers. I believe this is an issue that goes back to 2010. The $70 million in savings from our recent Quebec agreement remains a net savings to Ontario ratepayers. As I say, the issue that the member is referencing is something that goes back to 2010. There are no additional impacts on ratepayers from that issue.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not quite the answer I got from the deputy minister this morning, but so much for being transparent.

The Liberals have tried to hide this $81-million mistake. The public accounts say that they have applied to the Ontario Energy Board to raise rates to correct this Liberal accounting error. I hardly think that it’s ethical for the Liberals to hike hydro bills to make up for their mistakes.

Speaker, has the $81 million in hydro rate increase been approved by the OEB? How much more can a family expect to pay to make up for this Liberal accounting error?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I thank the honourable member for his question. As we said in committee, we need to be very clear from the outset that there are no new additional impacts on ratepayers.

Accounting experts determined over which periods these payments would need to be recovered. This was done in 2010. All government agencies use these standards. They changed from GAAP to PSAB.

Last week in the House, we passed legislation to save five million Ontarians 8% on their electricity bill. This week, the opposition is talking about accounting practices for pension payments dating back from 2010 that have previously been disclosed through several years’ worth of public accounts.

In the speech from the throne, we announced regulations to save businesses up to one third of their energy costs. This week, the opposition is talking about accounting practices and disclosures from years ago. We’ll continue to stay focused on the issues while they just shake their fists at things.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. In the middle of the hustle and bustle I also heard some implements going off. I’m going to remind all members: Do not leave your BlackBerrys or your instruments on the top of your desks. As they go off, they still get picked up by the AV stuff. It is also harmful to those who have got the earphones on who are trying to hear this. Please, let’s all keep our implements away.

Final supplementary: The member from—

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Speaker. This is another $81-million Liberal scandal that this government is trying to sweep under the carpet here this morning.

Back to the Premier. In just the past two weeks it has been revealed that this government wasted $12 million on consultants and advertisements, another $28 million in the Windstream lawsuit, and lost another $81 million through an accounting error. I’ll trust the Auditor General’s accounting before I trust this Liberal government’s accounting any day of the week. This means that the Liberals wasted, with all the three scandals over the last week, another $121 million with the stroke of a pen.

We know that this is a former federal NDPer, but congratulations: With these scandals, you’ve now officially become a Liberal cabinet minister in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, how much will families be expected to pay to make up for this latest $121 million worth of Liberal scandal, waste and mismanagement?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I know that the honourable member likes to focus on my past, but this government focuses on Ontarians’ futures.

For those of us on this side of the House, we know that back in 2010 there were accounting practices that have changed in accordance with expert guidelines. All government practices have changed in relation to that. They went from GAAP to the PSAB.

What we’ve done on this side of the House is make sure that we continue to focus on a clean, reliable system. When we’re talking about the details of this accounting change, the opposition obviously has no plan when it comes to energy. They can’t see the forest for the trees. The only thing that they can see are the big coal piles that they would like to bring back into Ontario and start firing up these coal plants with. We have now invested in a clean—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not amused.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Just on Friday, we announced an agreement that will take $70 million of costs out of our system that we’ve actually worked with Quebec over three years in establishing. That will help all families in this province. We’re very proud of that agreement.

Hydro rates

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Premier. Repeating a myth doesn’t make it accurate. The first coal-fired plant that was closed in Ontario was closed by the Ontario PC Party.

Businesses across Dufferin–Caledon are sharing the effects of skyrocketing hydro bills and what it’s doing to their businesses. One business owner told me, “If the government hopes to retain what little manufacturing remains in Ontario they should be very concerned with this issue.... Soaring hydro rates have an impact on our ability to spend on capital expenditures and increase wages.” I agree. This government has destroyed our province’s once proud manufacturing sector because of skyrocketing energy rates, and it is deterring new businesses from creating jobs in Ontario.

Will the Premier finally come up with a real plan to make energy affordable for Ontario businesses?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and answer the question, especially when it comes to the success stories that we have on this side of the House that the government has invested in in helping small businesses right across the province.

The ICI program is something we should all be proud of. Over 300 businesses currently participate in that. It’s 800 megawatts of savings that save all businesses and all families money.

I talked about a few examples last week. Let me bring up another one. The Chesswood Arena in North York received about $56,000 in incentives from the Save on Energy program to upgrade their ice rink control system and lighting. The retrofit not only delivered annual savings of $70,000 but it also improved ice and skating conditions at the rink. I know that these programs help conserve energy while saving businesses money.

We also have many more examples: six auto part manufacturers in Guelph; two food-processing plants in Brampton; 10 assorted manufacturing plants in York region; a textile plant in Woodstock. All of these places are benefiting from the programs that we have in place to help small businesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Premier. Not long ago, I received a letter from Mr. Brian Torrie of Stayner, who wrote to me to say that Ontario’s electricity rates are scandalous. Mr. Torrie is a senior on a fixed income and says that his hydro bill has increased by 35% in the last two years. Like thousands of others, Mr. Torrie finds Ontario’s skyrocketing electricity rates completely unacceptable.

Mr. Torrie wrote that he would like the Premier to visit him and explain why her government has created such a mess with Ontario’s electricity system. Will the Premier agree to visit Mr. Torrie and offer him an explanation?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I thank the honourable member for his question. The important thing for this government to do is to continue to move forward with our programs and our plan on energy and how we can save families and save seniors some money on their electricity bill. We’ve done that, Mr. Speaker. Just last week, we passed the bill that relates to the 8% reduction for helping families and helping individuals and seniors like Mr. Torrie. I think it’s important that the opposition let him know that this is going to happen on January 1, 2017.

Interjection: Good news.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It is good news. We also have the OESP program. I’m not sure of all the details that relate to Mr. Torrie’s case, but if he does heat his home with electricity, then he can qualify, with the OESP program, for up to $75 a month.

I’m more than happy to ensure that Mr. Torrie and all seniors and all families right across this province are aware of the great programs that we have in place to help families and to help seniors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary? The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is also to the Premier. In addition to soaring costs and unreliable power, the government’s energy system has a new way to make it harder for businesses. Louise Severson of Severson Cleaners in Brockville is one of many business owners contacting me about Hydro One’s deposit charges. After decades of being an outstanding customer, Louise had a slightly late payment. She was immediately hit with a $1,300 deposit charge. I think that’s outrageous, but it gets worse: A letter and a personal call from her bank couldn’t void the charge. She had to spend $100 on a credit check.

The Premier can claim that this isn’t her fault, but the buck stops with her. She’s in charge. Does she agree that this is wrong, and will she join me in demanding that Hydro One stop gouging businesses with these charges?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I do want to thank the member for bringing forward that question and talking about businesses within his riding, because we do have programs to support businesses right across the province, from southern Ontario to northern Ontario to eastern Ontario to central Ontario. We have great programs in place that help businesses with their electricity costs, if they’re having a difficult time.

When you look at many of the programs that we offer to help small businesses, I hope that this member is talking to this individual about the saveONenergy program that Hydro One would be able to offer this business, because they are offering these programs to businesses right across the province.

I can talk about many programs. In Thunder Bay, the Canada Malting Co. invested in the saveONenergy program, got about $2 million back in a $7-million cost and they’re saving $1 million a year on their energy costs, creating more jobs—

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

Energy policies

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is for the Premier. When the Liberal government cancelled gas plant contracts for purely political reasons, it cost taxpayers over $1 billion. Does the Premier know how much it will cost the people of Ontario to cancel the $5.5-billion signed contract with Windstream?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When it relates to Windstream, we are well aware that the tribunal has provided us with 20 days to work with our counterparts in the federal government to do our due diligence and take a look at all aspects of this to make sure that we get this right.

But when it comes to our investments in this province and our investments in the electricity system, we’ve actually brought forward 18,000 megawatts of renewable energy. That’s something we should all be proud of. When you look at coal, the next best thing in reducing our GHGs is the 18,000 megawatts of renewable energy that we’ve brought online.

When it comes to natural gas firing, I think that it’s important for us to talk about the Quebec deal. That’s something we should all be very proud of because the two terawatts of power that we are bringing in from Quebec will be directly targeted toward the natural gas peaking plants, which will reduce our GHGs even further.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, Speaker, it’s clear they don’t like this question.

Signing the Windstream contract has already cost taxpayers $25 million plus $3 million in legal fees because a NAFTA tribunal says the contract is still in force and the province has put it on hold. If the government was committed to producing public power instead of signing lucrative contracts with private energy companies, Ontario’s energy system would be free to serve the public interest instead of being tied up in courtrooms and NAFTA tribunals. When Liberals and Conservatives sign private energy contracts, it means putting the interests of big corporations ahead of the needs of the people of Ontario.

How much more are Ontarians going to have to pay because the Liberals signed a $5.5-billion contract with Windstream? How much more?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Of course, I’m happy once again to answer this question.

As I’ve said before, we have 20 days to review this case. The question that the member brought forward is purely speculative. It’s full of speculation. What I can talk about are facts. Fact: We’ve invested in renewable energy. Fact: We’ve invested in nuclear energy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and providing baseload power for the province.

We’re very proud of the system we have in place. It’s clean, it’s green, it’s reliable. On this side of the House, we don’t know where they’re coming from. They’re not in favour of renewable; they’re not in favour of nuclear; they’re not in favour of so many things. They have no plan. Both opposition parties have no plan when it comes to energy. On this side of the House, we have a plan, and we’re acting on it.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: If this is your plan, it’s a very scary thought.

When our government invests in the energy sector, it should be for the benefit of everyone in Ontario. Signing contracts with for-profit private energy companies leaves Ontarians on the hook for billions of dollars if those contracts are cancelled. We saw it with the gas plants. We’re seeing it with the sell-off of Hydro One, which will benefit shareholders over regular Ontarians too.

My question to the Premier is this: What will it cost, this time, to get out of a contract that the government is cancelling to serve its own political interest just before an election?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We’re very, very proud of the electricity system that we have in the province. We have an adequate supply of power. The IESO has told us that very clearly. So when looking at the power that we have in our province, there was no need for us to continue to move forward with the LRP II decision. We were able to suspend that and actually save $3.8 billion to the ratepayers, because we know that’s important.

We understand that some families are having difficulty when it comes to their hydro bills, so finding ways to help them is important for this government. We’ve done just that. We made sure we brought forward our bill that’s permanently reducing bills by 8% come January 1; 330,000 families that live in rural, remote or some northern parts of the province will see that reduction go up to 20%. The ICI program, as I talked about earlier, is helping businesses right across the province, and we’re looking forward to helping them all.

Electronic health information

Ms. Catherine Fife: This past weekend, I was in my riding, and there were lots of questions about eHealth—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Who, please?

Ms. Catherine Fife: This is to the Premier—the modernization of eHealth, the optimization, the leveraging of eHealth. This Premier and her Liberal government seem obsessed with privatization: private energy contracts that build in profit margins for companies, selling off Hydro One to the private sector and now asking their privatization expert, Ed Clark, to figure out the sale price of eHealth assets.

If she is not planning to sell off part or all of eHealth, why did the Premier, and the Minister of Health in his letter, ask Mr. Clark to figure out how much money the province can get for it? It’s a good question.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I have to repeat, and I’ll repeat it as many times as I need to, that eHealth is not for sale, nor are any of its components—the records that are held within. In fact, Canada Health Infoway, to a large degree, inspired us to approach Ed Clark because Canada Health Infoway has valued electronic medical records and the eHealth system in Ontario as providing substantial benefits to the province. It has actually attached a dollar value to that.

I think it’s important, as we look forward to taking advantage of opportunities, new technologies and the strength that we have already seen in the building of eHealth in this province, that we look at the assets that we have and we do an inventory to see what assets we have and we use that to build a stronger eHealth program. We identify if there are gaps; we fill those gaps. It allows us to invest more in public-facing eHealth aspects as well. This is the kind of work that Ed Clark is helping us with.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Clark spent $6.8 million on consultants to come to the conclusion that the province should sell off Hydro One. Now the Premier and her Minister of Health have asked him to put a value on eHealth. Surely Mr. Clark won’t be doing this alone, for free. How much will the people of Ontario be paying the high-priced consultants so that Mr. Clark can make the case to privatize our eHealth assets?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, we’re not selling eHealth. We have no plans to. We won’t be selling it. But it gives me the opportunity to talk about those assets that we’re asking Ed Clark to value. About a decade ago, less than a million Ontarians actually were benefiting from electronic medical records, and today, more than 10 million Ontarians have an electronic medical record. There are 12,000 providers that are providing that service to them, right down to the family doctor or nurse practitioner, where we know that more than 80% of primary care providers are using electronic medical records in their practice.

We have medication histories for all our seniors that are accessible in all our hospital and emergency rooms.

Imagine that. Before, when I was practising as a doctor in a hospital, I would have to go into the backroom and pull the files for seniors, which would often be very big. Now we have immediate access to their medication list for seniors in hospitals.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Modernization, optimization, leveraging, eHealth—we need a privatization thesaurus on this side of the House to keep track of what’s happening with this government.

The Hydro One sell-off has been disastrous for the people of this province. The FAO confirmed that we will be in a deficit position after the next election because of revenue loss. We’ve also seen rates so high that families are forced to choose between saving for their children’s future or paying for their bills. This is the reality of the people of this province.

Consultants are about the only group who have done well by the Premier’s wrong-headed sell-off. The people of this province paid the last consultant bill of $6.8 million. Will the Premier tell us now: How much will it cost Ontarians in consultants’ fees for her to decide to sell off another vital public asset—our eHealth asset?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The third party can try to spin this any way they want, but the truth is, we’re not selling eHealth. We actually want to make it better and stronger and take advantage of the expertise that exists in this province and, indeed, around the world. We’re going to be doing it. It’s explicit, my letter in concert with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, because paramount is the protection of that health data of individual Ontarians.

We have to admit that, even for laboratory test results—we have almost three billion lab test results for nearly 10 million Ontarians stored digitally, stored electronically. We have more than 700,000 hospital reports that are sent digitally every day to patients’ primary care providers so their family doctors can provide better care. This is an amazing system that we’ve built up over the past decade.

We have much more work to do. By having Mr. Clark look at the assets, he can help us understand how we can make a strong system even stronger.

Energy policies

Mrs. Julia Munro: Today, my question is to the Premier. Don Chapman and Jim Chapman are the owners of Lakeview Vegetable Processing. They are here today in the gallery to join us. They have made many efforts to reduce and conserve power. The nature of this vegetable processing work is both energy-intensive and weather-dependent.

This year, their bill is set to exceed $1 million, up 67% since 2013. This hydro usage hasn’t differed much, but the bill sure has.

This year they hired a paid hydro consultant. The consultant says that the best option for them is to actually use more hydro—yes, more hydro; you heard that correctly. You see, by using more hydro, they have a chance to apply to a different class of hydro user.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: They expect that doing so might save them $100,000 a year.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: Premier, my constituents—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I stand, you sit, please.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you for bringing forward that question, because I think it’s very important for us to talk about what we did with the bill that passed last week. We’re actually lowering the threshold for many businesses that couldn’t qualify for the ICI program—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m looking.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very happy to be able to tell them that they actually need to contact their local utility to see if they do qualify for this, because we’ve lowered it from three megawatts to one megawatt. That’s over 1,000 other businesses across this province that can qualify for the ICI program. I know many greenhouse growers in the southwest of the province are very excited about this, because they will now be able to qualify for this, and that savings is significant. It’s up to a third of their electricity bill that they will be able to qualify for by this change that we passed in this House last week.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Haldimand–Norfolk.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Back to the Premier: We just heard about the pressure on the processing vegetable sector and, as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce reports, a 383% increase in hydro bills on this government’s watch.

When will the Premier stop signing energy contracts we don’t need? The LRP II has been suspended, but the Minister of Energy has said himself that projects under an earlier program known as LRP I—that includes all the FIT programs—will still go forward.

With business and residential customers paying the bill, when will the Premier stop selling surplus energy at a loss? When will the Premier restore basic economics—matching supply and demand, for example—and restore rational decision-making to Ontario’s electricity sector?

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, I’m sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I know you are—very sorry.

Minister.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and, of course, answer this question, because on this side of the House, we’re very proud of the work that the Minister of Agriculture is doing with all of our farmers right across the province, meeting the goal of the Premier to make sure that we have 120,000 more jobs in this sector. We’re doing that by making sure that we can work with them when it comes to energy—by the ICI program, for example. We can see the benefits that many of these businesses can get, especially in the agriculture sector, when they reduce their bills from the ICI program. Many small farms will also benefit from the 8% reduction that we’re going to see come January 1.

But the one thing that I do have to comment about is when he talked about “rational.” On this side of the House, we’re very proud of making sure that we closed all coal-fired generation in this province. On that side of the House, the PC Party are very pro-coal. That’s the only way that they can talk about getting things back to the way they were. It’s unfortunate—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Nursing home deaths

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. This hour, we have just learned about a horrific multiple murder investigation in Woodstock and London. Police have revealed that at least eight elderly residents of long-term-care homes were murdered between the years 2007 and 2014. Our hearts go out to the families and loved ones of these victims. But there is a genuine question that people are asking this morning: How do murders go undetected for nearly 10 years inside any long-term-care home in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to join the member opposite in recognizing that this is an extremely distressing and tragic, tragic thing for all of the families involved. I don’t think there’s anyone in this Legislature who would not agree that this is a tragic, tragic circumstance.

I know that the member opposite knows that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on an ongoing police investigation. The police have made it clear that there is no threat to safety, and we now need to let the police do their job.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Of course the investigation is ongoing and the matter is before the courts, but these horrific multiple murders raise serious questions of oversight by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and they need to be asked.

Again, my question is straightforward: How do eight murders happen in long-term-care homes without the ministry noticing?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I do want to echo the sentiments that were expressed by the Premier and the member opposite about how extremely distressing a time this must be for the families who are involved in these cases.

As has been stated, it would be highly inappropriate for any one of us to comment extensively on the ongoing police investigation. Police have made it clear that there is no threat to safety, and we do now have to let the police do their investigative work in this matter.

I also want to inform the House that the Woodstock Police Service has set up a phone number for people to share any information as it relates to the investigation. That phone number is 519-537-2323.

Electricity supply

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of Energy. In 2014, Ontario signed a memorandum of understanding with Quebec regarding electricity trade. The MOU involved an exchange of electricity capacity: 500 megawatts of wintertime capacity was provided to Quebec from Ontario in exchange for an equivalent amount in return for the summer months. This deal was beneficial for both provinces because it helped ensure electricity supply for both provinces when we need it most.

In Quebec, they need electricity during the coldest winter days due to their use of electric heat; in Ontario, we need it at the height of summer. This MOU helped to ensure both of our provinces have the supply that we need at these times.

Last week, Ontario announced with Quebec a landmark agreement which builds upon this existing electricity trade with a new expanded deal. Speaker, through you to the minister, could the minister please inform this House about the new electricity trade agreement with Quebec?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also want to thank the member for that question and her tireless work for her constituents in Kingston.

I was honoured last week to stand with the Premiers, my colleagues and counterparts from Quebec as we announced this landmark, seven-year deal that will help make electricity in Ontario cleaner, more reliable and more affordable.

As the member noted, electricity demand peaks at different times in our provinces and that means there is an opportunity to coordinate our electricity systems in a way that’s beneficial for both provinces. Through the expanded electricity trade deal, our province is set to import up to two terawatt hours of clean hydro power from Quebec annually—enough power to power the entire city of Kitchener for a year.

The deal will reduce our system costs in our province by about $70 million over the course of the deal, and, just as importantly, the imports of cheap hydro electricity from Quebec will offset reliance on natural gas power plants.

I look forward to answering more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you to the minister for that response. One other part of this deal is an agreement around the storage of electricity. Electricity storage is an exciting new field which has many implications for the future management of our system.

Ontario has taken a prudent approach to exploring the value and potential of electricity storage, with many of the technologies still at an early stage. I look forward to future discussions with St. Lawrence College, for example, regarding their energy programs and these new technologies of the future.

One long-standing version of electricity storage is the hydroelectric dam, the ability to store water in a reservoir to be run through a generator only once it’s needed, similar to the system that’s being used at Beck generating station at Niagara Falls. As part of this deal, Hydro-Québec will allow Ontario to take advantage of its hydro storage capacity.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could the Minister of Energy please explain why this type of storage delivers value to Ontario ratepayers?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank the member for that question and for highlighting a very important part of this electricity trade deal. As part of our electricity trade agreement, Quebec has offered to store up to 500 gigawatt hours of electricity for Ontario at night. This power will then be returned to Ontario during the day. For context, these 500 gigawatt hours of power could power about 56,000 homes for an entire year.

The reason this is so beneficial is that electricity is often much cheaper at night. A lower demand for electricity drives down the price and many generation sources, including nuclear, wind and hydro, can produce energy at night that could be used at later hours.

Ontario is able to produce the electricity cheaply at night, store it in Quebec and bring it back to Ontario during the day when it’s most needed. Our government will continue to pursue every opportunity to ensure that we have a clean, reliable and affordable system for all Ontarians.

Hydro rates

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the temperature is dropping and winter is approaching. Ontarians are scared of their hydro bills. I heard from a mother whose hydro bill was almost $600 a month last winter. Every morning, her family woke up in a freezing house. They were left in the cold until she could get the wood stove going because she couldn’t afford the electric heat. She said it was like living in 1900. Even little things like pizza days and art classes had to be cut.

What does the Premier have to say to this mother of three who is scared her family will once again live in the cold because of the cost of hydro?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and answer the question from the honourable member. It’s very important for us on this side of the House to understand that some families are having difficulty when it comes to their hydro bills. That’s why we’re so pleased with our bill that’s actually going to help families reduce their bill by 8%, permanently reducing the provincial HST portion on their bills come January 1.

We also did many things even before that. We ensured that the debt retirement charge has been eliminated for families. The OESP program, which they, I know, don’t like—we on this side of the House absolutely like it. It helps families with $45 a month. If they heat their home with electricity—I don’t know the details relating to the specifics of that family, but if they do heat their home with electricity, they can get $75 a month on top of the other programs that I talked about. That’s a very big benefit for this family.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question back to the Premier: Chris Burton is a manager at Sentry Precision in Ottawa. He reached out to me over the summer. I went to visit him. He told me that Sentry Precision was considering winding down one of their subsidiaries because their hydro rates are just too high. He said, “She couldn’t care less about the number of companies that close due to the high cost of electricity.”

Sentry Precision is one of the many businesses in Nepean–Carleton facing the prospect of shutting down or moving their operations into a more business-friendly jurisdiction.

“Premier Wynne’s government has made it all but impossible to do business in Ontario and be profitable,” he told me. “I have not given an increase to my staff in eight years, not even cost of living. We are in survival mode.”

So I ask: How will the Premier address the businesses like Sentry Precision who can’t afford to maintain cost-of-living increases for their employees? How are Ontarians supposed to be able to—

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

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: To the Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m absolutely sure that the member opposite explained to that business that we are indeed the most competitive jurisdiction in all of North America when it comes to operating a business. I’m sure that she explained to that business that they’re soon going to get an 8% cut in their energy rate, which is a very significant savings. I’m sure she explained that to them. I’m sure she also explained to them that we’ve entirely eliminated the capital tax that business would have been paying, something her party didn’t support but something we did.

I’m sure they’ve also told that business that we now have the lowest effective corporate tax rate in all of North America, 13% lower than the competition in the United States.

I’m sure that member shared all of those facts with the business. I’m very confident that that business, if they do the math, will want to stay in Ontario and continue to grow like so many other businesses are.

Correctional services

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Last week, the minister announced changes to disciplinary segregation in the province’s jails in yet another review, but based on data received by the Human Rights Commission, a majority of inmates are isolated for reasons other than discipline. Some 40% were for mental health, and this Liberal band-aid does nothing to address that.

The data has a name. Twenty-three-year-old Adam Capay was locked up in isolation for nearly four years under artificial light 24 hours a day. I’m sure that I saw Adam when I toured the Thunder Bay jail, and the minister would have, too. How do this government’s changes to segregation help Adam Capay today?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank the member opposite for asking this very serious question, one that we on this side of the House are acting on.

That’s why last week I announced these changes in relation to segregation. I have had an opportunity to sit down with Ontario’s Human Rights Commissioner, Renu Mandhane. I’ve also spoken to the Ontario Ombudsman about this. We’ve introduced changes in our correctional facilities where segregation will be used only as a last resort, where there is no other viable option. We’ve also reduced it from 30 days to 15 days for disciplinary segregation. We’ve created a weekly segregation committee review that will review the cases of every individual in segregation, and we’ve eliminated the loss of all privileges related to segregation. We are improving the data collection.

There is important work to do as part of our transformation in our correctional system, and we’re doing that work.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Segregation is the last resort. It’s hard to make something a last resort when the government has cut all supports and it has become the only option.

This government’s kneejerk announcement about segregation came a day after the minister knew his ministry’s data was going to be released by the human rights commissioner. This government has spent at least $44 million preparing for a lockout that never came. Surely mental health supports to tackle the crisis in our jails is one area this money could have gone to.

Will the government end indefinite segregation longer than 15 days for all inmates, addressing the crisis in corrections and providing mental health supports for those who need it?

Hon. David Orazietti: We are working to transform our correctional system. We have in fact hired about 1,100 staff correctional officers since 2013. We’ve added 36 mental health nurses. We’re adding body scanners to help make our correctional institutions safer. We’ve recently opened the regional intermittent centre in London to help reduce overcrowding.

We take these issues very, very seriously. That’s why we also announced last week a third-party independent review of our entire correctional system in Ontario with one of the keys being the reduction and goal of eliminating the use of segregation in Ontario. But as it stands today, we are using segregation as a last resort, only when there is no other viable option. Those supports for the individual the member opposite referred to are in place in all of our institutions.

School nutrition programs

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question this morning is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. As a mother of two young boys, André and David, who are enrolled with the Toronto Catholic District School Board, I know that our strong education system positions kids to succeed in life, no matter the path forward they choose. They go to school, they work hard and they take on new challenges.

However, it’s difficult for children to learn when they’re hungry. Research shows that access to nutritious meals helps children learn but not everyone has access to nutritious meals, including some of the children in my riding of Davenport. Can the minister tell the House what he is doing to help children in my riding and across the province to succeed?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member from Davenport for her question. I know that she’s a strong advocate for children in her community.

Mr. Speaker, it is so important that young people have healthy diets. We know that not everyone in this province has the opportunity to provide their child with a healthy, nutritious meal. That’s why we have a nutrition program that’s delivered right across the province of Ontario. This program delivers snacks, breakfasts and meal programs to thousands of young people across the province. This is a program that we’ve really built over time. It’s an over $32-million investment by the province. I want to thank volunteers, parents, teachers, principals, and our educational partners for the work they do to ensure that young people get nutritional, healthy diets in their schools.

I’ll finish off in the supplemental.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I want to thank the minister for his response. We have communities across the province that benefit greatly from many of these investments, including communities like my riding of Davenport. Local providers and schools work hard to support kids’ learning and development by making sure students get the nutrition they need. Collectively, they are making a difference.

However, we know some of the most remote communities that struggle with access to nutritious foods in Ontario are First Nations communities. Speaker, my question to the minister is this: Does the Student Nutrition Program reach these communities as well?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Again, I’d like to thank the member for the question. Over 850,000 young people across our province receive some type of nutritional program in their schools or with community partners. We know that there are First Nation communities here in the province of Ontario that have challenges finding affordable and nutritious food.

That’s why we’ve expanded our Student Nutrition Program to over 120 educational settings in First Nation communities that really help support young people as they develop not only their body but their mind. First Nations have worked in partnership with our government to develop innovative program models that meet the needs and strengths in their communities.

We’re going to continue to build on those programs. It’s a $4-million investment this year. We know that there’s a lot more work to do, but we know we’re off to a great start.

Hydro rates

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is to the Premier. Municipalities are in charge of delivering important services to their residents. It’s up to them to ensure that they’re making the most of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. Under this government, hydro rates have continued to skyrocket, and yet they continue to deny they’re the problem.

In May of this year, the city of Oshawa received a hydro bill for street lights. The cost of power for lighting the roads was $3,000. What was the cost of the global adjustment? Almost $100,000, Speaker, which is outrageous.

Can the Premier explain why she’s adjusted the city’s bill to over $100,000, when they’re using just $3,000 worth of power?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Thank you very much for the question. I think it’s really interesting for us on this side of the House to get a question from the Conservative Party, the official opposition, when it comes to issues related to municipal affordability. Speaker, many of us on this side of the House, that are sitting in these chairs, used to sit on municipal councils. The reason that we ran for provincial elections in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m a little concerned that when I ask to keep things quiet on this side, people on this side, while the answer is being put, are provoking as well. It’s not helpful. That being said, keep it down.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bill Mauro: One of the reasons that many of us on this side of the House ran for election in 2003 was because we sat on municipal councils from 1995 to 2003, when perhaps the biggest tax shift in the history of this province occurred when the Conservative Party of Ontario at that time downloaded onto the municipal rate base billions of dollars of long-term responsibility that theretofore they had never been responsible for. So to get a question from the Conservatives about municipal affordability—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary? The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Premier: The hydro disaster is acute for hospitals and long-term-care homes, where electricity bills spiked by as