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

October 6, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Oct-06 (PDF)

L014 - Thu 6 Oct 2016 / Jeu 6 oct 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 6 October 2016 Jeudi 6 octobre 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Special-needs students

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Fiscal accountability

Personal support workers

International trade

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Fiscal accountability

Health care

Human trafficking

Water supply

Human trafficking

Mental health services

Legislative pages

Islamic Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine musulman

Islamic Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine musulman

Wearing of hat

Members’ Statements

Hispanic Heritage Month

Thomas Doherty and Andy Kennedy

German heritage

Wilfrid Laurier University

Niagara Falls hospital

Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day

Oktoberfest

Disaster relief

Abdul Sattar Edhi

Tabling of public accounts

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Bills

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait à la sécurité publique liée aux chiens

Patients First Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux patients

Petitions

Highway ramps

Dental care

Dog ownership

Crown attorneys

Hydro rates

Privatisation des biens publics

Highway ramps

Dental care

Health care funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Water fluoridation

Saving the Girl Next Door Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la sauvegarde des jeunes filles

Albanian Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine albanais

Water fluoridation

Saving the Girl Next Door Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la sauvegarde des jeunes filles

Albanian Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine albanais

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 4, 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. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure for me to rise today to join the debate on Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act. This morning, with the time that I have available to me, I wanted to give an overview of some of the provisions in this bill that we see as most significant. I want to talk about some of the gaps in this bill and some of the concerns that we have on this side of the House about this legislation and point out how it could be strengthened as we move through the legislative process and, as I expect, into committee.

Also, I wanted to give you some context of the need for this bill, based on the reality that people in my community are experiencing when they struggle to find affordable housing in London. Of course, that is an experience that is shared by many, many people across this province, given the crisis in affordable housing that we have had not just in the last decade but for several decades now.

So I first wanted to highlight seven of the key provisions of the bill that I’m going to focus some time on. The first provision, of course, is the Planning Act amendments that will allow municipalities to introduce inclusionary zoning policies and bylaws. This is something that my colleague the member for Parkdale–High Park has pushed for relentlessly. She introduced five private members’ bills on inclusionary zoning.

She has been a remarkable advocate and champion for this kind of policy change because she knows that the evidence is there to support its effectiveness in increasing the stock of affordable housing. That’s why my community, the city of London, has also long been a supporter of inclusionary zoning and has wanted to have that ability within the Planning Act to enact policies and bylaws that would allow inclusionary zoning to go ahead. That’s the first provision I wanted to talk about.

The second provision is around the amendments to the Development Charges Act that will prevent municipalities from levying development charges for second units. Again, in my community, we have just gone through this debate about granny flats. There had been a concern about residences that had introduced granny flats, and there was a lot of opinion on both sides of the issue about whether granny flats and these kinds of secondary units were a good planning tool—whether this is the way that we want to build our community.

I have talked in this House before about the significant public engagement process that we went through in London that resulted in our new official plan. That new official plan recognizes, front and centre, that we need to build up. So granny flats and secondary units are important tools to enable that kind of development that we want to see in our cities and in my community of London.

The third provision I wanted to highlight was the amendment to the Housing Services Act that will change the process that is used to transfer or sell social housing projects. Currently, until this legislation is passed, service managers—that is, the municipality’s or the district’s—were required to get approval from the minister if they wanted to merge, dissolve or sell their social housing agencies. With the amendments that are proposed in this act, they will no longer have to go through that process. They will no longer need ministerial approval if they want to dispose of their social housing projects.

You can certainly imagine, Speaker, that this may raise some red flags about social housing stock that has become burdensome for the municipality. They want to try to remove this deteriorating stock from their assets and they may decide to sell or transfer, and they’ll be able to do that without requiring approval from the ministry.

Now this, in some situations, could be very much a good thing, but in other situations it could compromise the number of affordable housing units that would be available within a jurisdiction.

The fourth provision I wanted to focus on is about the introduction of portable housing benefits. Certainly we have heard repeated calls from municipalities across the province—certainly in my own city of London—for more flexibility. Portable housing benefits do provide a measure of flexibility in terms of providing financial assistance to people so that they can move to other affordable housing units. Our concern, the caveat to this, the flip side to this, is that these portable housing benefits, by providing cash to people, may not in the end do anything to provide more affordable housing or to ensure that someone is able to become securely housed.

The fifth provision I wanted to highlight is around the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act.

Whereas previously the minister was responsible for receiving complaints about inadequate maintenance in rental units where there were no municipal standards, now all municipalities will be required to receive complaints and to send in inspectors to investigate the level of maintenance, or the lack of maintenance, in buildings.

The sixth provision is also around the Residential Tenancies Act amendments that ensure that tenants who no longer qualify for rent-geared-to-income assistance after they have paid market rent for a period of 12 months no longer will risk eviction because of this. Those of us who have had constituents who are in this circumstance, when they have been living in their home for years and years and years—this is their home. They have made it their home. They have all kinds of happy memories. They have invested in improvements in their home. When they find out that they are going to be evicted after they paid market rent for 12 months, it can be devastating.

I had a constituent in my office who was in tears because of a similar situation. She was being asked to leave an apartment where she had raised her family. This was her home, and her home was being taken away from her because of legislation that we had in place.

Finally, the other provision that I wanted to highlight was around the new requirement that municipal service managers enumerate homeless persons within their area. I don’t question that this would provide useful data. There wasn’t a lot of information in the bill about how this enumeration is to take place, and, especially, there were no references in the bill as to resources provided to municipal service managers to conduct this enumeration. So there are still lots of questions about that aspect of the bill.

I wanted to talk a little bit about what’s going on in my community. Of course, all of us in this House, when we review legislation, when we speak to bills that are before us, we think of it in terms of the people that we represent: Will this legislation actually assist the people that we represent? What are the gaps in the legislation? What are some of the changes that would be needed to actually help us advance the interests of our communities and of our constituencies?

In the city of London, there has been a formal embrace of a Housing First approach to dealing with homelessness and affordable housing in our community. The Homeless Prevention and Housing Plan was formalized a couple of years ago. It sets out a multi-year plan, from 2010 to 2024, to address London’s homelessness and affordable housing needs. That plan states right up front that the solution to prevent and end homelessness is housing with supports.

Once people are securely housed, once they have stability in terms of where they live, then they will be able to move on and deal with the complex challenges that many people deal with around addictions, mental illness, trauma, family violence, childhood sexual abuse—and the list goes on and on of the kinds of issues that people have to deal with. Of course, to achieve that level of housing security to enable people to deal with these other issues, we must ensure that there are affordable housing options available to house these people.

In London, we are perhaps a little bit better off than some other communities in terms of our housing affordability. Our rents are lower than the city of Toronto; that is true. Nevertheless, we do face a significant shortage of affordable rental housing.

There are just over 8,000 units of social housing within the city of London, and almost 6,000 of them offer rent-geared-to-income rents. So we do have that stock of affordable housing, those 8,000 units. They are important, but they are stretched to the limit, frankly, in terms of the level of need that we see in the community.

Just over the last couple of weeks, the London Free Press has been running an amazing series of articles about poverty in London. They have drawn on the work that was done by the mayor’s task force on poverty, which culminated in a very impressive document called London for All: A Roadmap to End Poverty. That report gave some statistics about the levels of poverty we are facing in the London area. We have 62,000 Londoners living in poverty. Of those, more than 35,000 people live in extreme poverty, what researchers have called brutal poverty.

The headline in the paper on the weekend: “‘Brutal’ Poverty Plagues London Like Few Other Cities Across Our Region.” So we have 62,000 Londoners living in poverty. We have 35,000 people in London who are living in the most dire poverty.

We also have 11,000 Londoners who are considered the working poor. Their income is below the low-income measure but they are working. That figure in London, the 5% of our population that is considered working poor, is the second highest in Ontario.

Our challenges are great in London. We need affordable housing. It’s the fundamental strategy to enable us to move forward and start addressing these challenges.

You’ll recall I started off by saying that we have 8,000 units of social housing, with 6,000 of these offering rent-geared-to-income. As you can imagine, and I’m sure it will be no surprise, there are significant wait-lists to access the available housing that we have in my community. In December 2014, according to the most recent data from the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, we had about 2,800 households that were waiting for access to rent-geared-to-income housing. On that list, the largest single category of households that were waiting was single adults and couples.

We had 1,540 single adults and couples on the wait-list. We had over 1,000 families on the wait-list, and we had 265 seniors on the wait-list. So there is a real need to move this file forward and to get more affordable housing built in the province.

Bill 7, the Liberal government’s approach to dealing with this challenge, is a start, but one of our biggest concerns with this legislation is that so much of it is left to regulation. There are big statements and big policy approaches; however, the nitty-gritty of the legislation—how it will actually work and what it will actually change—depends on the regulations that are yet to come and that we won’t have an opportunity to debate in this Legislature. So whether Bill 7 turns out to be the solution that we have been pushing for is a big question mark. We don’t know until we see what those regulations look like.

I had mentioned before some of the concerns about the ability of municipalities to sell or transfer their social housing stock without ministerial approval, and also the introduction of the portable housing benefits. Yes, there is a need for greater flexibility, both for municipalities and for those who are looking for affordable housing, but privatizing our social housing stock is not the solution. That would be a very negative consequence if that is what happens as a result of this legislation.

On the issue of portable housing benefits, I think we really have to ask the question: What happens when the cash flows right from the person receiving it to the landlord, when it’s just used as a reason for landlords to increase rent and there is no real benefit to the person who’s receiving that portable housing benefit?

In the final time I have remaining, I wanted to talk about two of the most significant gaps in this legislation that my colleagues and I in the NDP will be raising repeatedly. First, there is nothing in this legislation to bring back rent control to address the two-tiered issue that we have right now, where buildings that were built prior to 1991 have rent control but all of those new builds since 1991 are not subject to any kind of rent control provisions. This is a huge gap. It’s a huge barrier to creating affordable housing that will benefit communities across the province and my constituents in London.

Speaker, as I said, we are supportive of this legislation. It is a start. It’s something we’ve called for for a long time. We’re glad that the work of my colleague the member for Parkdale–High Park has been acknowledged in the inclusionary zoning provisions, but you can be assured that we will have a lot of ideas for amendments that can improve and strengthen this bill, that can help ensure that this bill actually addresses those dire needs of people who are struggling, who are on social assistance, who are in that working poor category who can hardly afford to put a roof over their heads.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: I was just at the desk trying to recall when, as the government, we passed the secondary suite legislation—I think it was about 2010—because I know the member from London mentioned that they just went through a process in her own riding about whether the secondary suites or nanny suites can be used as one tool by municipalities to provide for affordable housing.

The interesting thing about that is that we’ve had it in Toronto for a number of years and it is one very effective tool, because there are many people in our cities, strangely enough, who are over-housed. They’re in huge houses—2,000 to 3,000 square feet—and they may have the potential to rent out part of their house.

For many years, there was so much NIMBYism. I remember that the bylaw officers were constantly called in, when I was on city council, to essentially threaten people with almost the death penalty if they didn’t get rid of their basement apartment or the second suite upstairs. All they were trying to do was provide housing, make a little bit of money if they were on a fixed income or were retired seniors and give people a place to start in housing. So I’m glad to see London is looking at that.

One of the problems is that many municipalities are not doing it. Even that small option which helps they’re not even doing, and they’re making it difficult for people to incorporate secondary suites by putting all kind of roadblocks in their way. I’m glad the city of London came to the conclusion that they’re going to allow them, it seems.

I thank the member for her very thoughtful and very clear explanation of what’s in this legislation. I appreciate her input on this.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I just want to continue in the same vein as the member opposite, which is that he was talking about secondary suites and what an effective tool they can be to provide affordable housing in many of our communities.

There are a few issues with secondary suites that I think make the voters a little bit jumpy. One is that they are concerned about parking. For a lot of secondary suite residents, unfortunately, the transit isn’t viable in the communities where they’re living, and they’re still purchasing cars. Even newly arrived Canadians, one of the first things we hear of them doing, and it’s very unfortunate, is to go out and purchase a used car. So parking becomes a major issue and a major headache in many of the communities where people only have on-street parking or very little parking.

People go and pave over their front lawns to provide parking for these new tenants and then are told to take out the parking. It’s a serious concern.

But the reality is that there are lots of secondary suites that are not following the rules and regulations. They may not be providing the proper safety: electrical safety, water safety, sprinkler systems, exits in terms of fire. A lot of times with secondary suites, we know when we go out campaigning that we can catch that there are other tenants in the house, but they’re kind of hiding from us because they feel they’re not supposed to be there. They’re not registered to vote, and I think they don’t have a voice if they don’t vote.

I fully support everybody in the community who could vote being able to vote and being registered to vote, but I also recognize that those who are in secondary suites have to pay the taxes in their community that provide them the services, the garbage collection.

I think the main concern is those bad tenants that people hear about. I think there are a lot of people who would put in a secondary suite if it was zoned in their area but they don’t when they read all the articles about bad tenants.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments. I recognize the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. It’s a pleasure. I’d like to make comments on the distinguished member from London West, but first let me say, being from Windsor, my hometown team is the Detroit Tigers, but today let me say: Go, Jays! Go, Jays!

The member for London West talked about our colleague from Parkdale–High Park, who introduced inclusionary zoning by way of private member’s bills five times. The member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore has introduced a private member’s bill on inclusionary zoning. We’ve heard from various people that if inclusionary zoning had been brought in 10 years ago, when it was first introduced in this Legislature as a private member’s bill, we would have—on the 10% formula of buildings over 50 units—something like 100,000 affordable housing units built in Toronto alone in the past 10 years, which would really cut into the wait-list.

I read this morning, I think it was on Homeless Hub, that the wait-list now in Toronto—it used to be 76,000. It’s now 85,000 people on a wait-list for subsidized housing just in the city of Toronto, let alone across the province. My understanding is, Speaker, that over 175,000 people, families, are on a wait-list for affordable housing.

So this bill could have done a whole bunch more moving us along in this direction, because there is a poison pill in this bill when it comes to inclusionary zoning, and that makes it an either/or provision. If your municipality uses

section 37, cash in lieu of parking, parkland or whatever, you can’t take cash-in-lieu benefits,

section 37, if you bring in inclusionary zoning.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments. I recognize the member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Speaker, and I recognize the Speaker. It’s nice to be here and nice to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate and comment on the member from London West’s address to the House. I appreciate very much the way she was able to give us a flavour of the work that’s being done in London in affordable housing and some of the rent-geared-to-income suites and such. But a bit of what she was saying causes me some concern, and it’s this notion that privatization cannot be part of the solution. There’s a myopic sense in that party that the only affordable housing that can exist has to be in public control. That’s just not the case.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: No, you’re wrong.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I appreciate that the member from Windsor talked about the 100,000 that could be in Toronto. That’s the right approach. But I don’t think that was reflected in the member from London West’s remarks, where she identified 8,000 affordable housing units in London. I can assure you that there are a lot more affordable housing units in London. They’re just not the ones that are in private control; they’re not the ones that are in public housing control, 6,000 of which are rent-geared-to-income. Because the whole purpose of inclusionary zoning, as was noted by the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, is that you do have an opportunity for secondary suites.

She also talked about rent control being a gaping hole in this legislation. Let’s not kid ourselves. The rent controls that were brought in by the previous NDP government under Bob Rae decimated the affordable housing market in Toronto and other communities in Ontario because it didn’t allow the private sector to continue to build. They wouldn’t; the returns weren’t there. And they weren’t able to keep upkeep. So the housing stock went into a dismal state of repair, which is why it had to be reversed, as it was. Rent controls continue on the previous suites and don’t exist now. I would resist, tremendously, any amendment to this legislation which would bring back rent control.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from London West to wrap up.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I appreciate the feedback that was provided by the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, the member for Thornhill, my colleague the member for Windsor–Tecumseh and also the member for Beaches–East York.

The member for Eglinton–Lawrence talked about granny flats and the importance of these secondary units in increasing the stock of affordable housing, but one of the concerns that we have about this legislation is that there is no deadline for when municipalities will be required to introduce bylaws for second units. That is a concern because it will allow municipalities to continue dragging their heels in moving this forward, on which the member is absolutely right: This is an important tool to help increase the stock of affordable housing.

The member for Windsor–Tecumseh talked about inclusionary zoning and some of the problems with the way that this bill is proposing to move forward with inclusionary zoning. The other big problem is that there is no requirement for permanence. The bill talks about inclusionary zoning, as the member said. It gives these two options for inclusionary zoning, but at the crux it does not have any kind of requirement to ensure permanence of the stock.

Finally, to the member for Beaches–East York, the NDP recognizes fully that the market has a very important role to play, but this bill suggests that just by clearing away a few regulations, the market will step in and solve it. We haven’t seen that before.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate? I recognize the member from Kitchener Centre.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Good morning to you, and good morning to all of my fellow MPPs in the House this morning. I’m going to be sharing my time with the MPP for Barrie and also with the President of the Treasury Board.

I am very pleased this morning to speak to Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act. In fact, I don’t know if you noticed: I was over chatting with the Minister of Housing on this very issue, trying to convince him to come to Kitchener–Waterloo and to Waterloo region to show him the great successes that we had in my region when it comes to dealing with affordable housing. We have a very caring, a very concerned and a very proactive approach to providing a good supply of affordable housing in my region.

When municipalities had this responsibility downloaded to them about 15 years ago by the previous Conservative government of Mike Harris—and I will tell you that in my region—I was working as a reporter then—my local municipal leaders didn’t use the word “downloading”; they used the word “dumping.” They had it dumped in their laps. But they rose to the occasion of dealing with this challenge. I can tell you now that our region has added and now operates 2,700 affordable housing rental units. This is in the city of Kitchener, in Waterloo, in Cambridge, and in Woolwich, Wellesley and Wilmot townships.

These buildings are a mix of subsidized and non-subsidized market units. In all, there are over 30 of these buildings where we have affordable housing units. I will say, to the member opposite in the NDP and her concern about the private stock of housing: In my region, I will say that more than half of these affordable housing units are being provided by private developers who have a very big social conscience. If it were not for them, we would not have all of this affordable housing. I met with some recently who wanted to talk to me about perhaps government grants that are available and how they can provide more.

Again, in my community, where we have groups like the Mennonite Central Committee—their headquarters for eastern Canada are situated in Kitchener—they have a very big social conscience, and this is part of their responsibility, caring about mitigating poverty by providing affordable housing.

I know that our government is going toward this commitment, addressing this issue with affordable housing, and it is very much appreciated in my region of Waterloo. I know that they’re very much looking forward to having a visit from the housing minister and finding out how this bill is going to work and how it’s going to help them. This is very welcome in Waterloo region.

We are certainly welcome in my region of sharing our best practices on how to share an affordable housing strategy, all of our success stories. So for the people who are watching at home right now who might be wondering what the highlights in the bill are, let me share some of that with you.

If it is passed, this bill is going to create a meaningful increase in the supply of affordable housing units. We want to work with municipalities on perhaps expanding zoning to allow for more housing. We want to assure more stability and security for city service managers as well as social housing and not-for-profit co-operative housing providers. If we are going to do this, if we’re going to provide more affordable housing, we do need to listen to the people who are actually doing this and getting their feedback for their best practices.

We want to allow social housing tenants to keep more of their income without having to face higher rents or face eviction. The biggest part of expenditure for most people is your housing. If we can reduce the cost, that person who was low-income, who may be unemployed, is going to save more of their income to do things like provide food for themselves and their family, and other things that they need to pay for.

We’re going to make it easier for municipalities and their corporations to work with the private sector developers to provide affordable housing in their communities. As you heard me say just a few moments ago, I have been meeting with private developers who have a very strong desire to try to add more housing stock to our community.

We’re improving access to affordable housing as part of our plan to build Ontario up. When people have a home, they are going to be happier, healthier and more ready to work, and they’re going to be better able to participate in and contribute to their communities.

I commend my colleague the Minister of Housing for bringing forward this legislation, for advancing it. I encourage all members of this House to support it; I know I will be. I look forward to his visit and I look forward to showing him how we are doing this very effectively in my region.

I also want to add that I’ll be sharing my time with the MPP for Davenport. Thank you very much. I now pass it on to my colleagues.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Barrie.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Good morning, Speaker. It’s lovely to see you this morning, and everyone else. It’s a beautiful day out there, and we should enjoy it. I wish everyone a very happy and safe Thanksgiving.

At this time, I would like to speak about Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act. As I said yesterday, Barrie in particular desperately needs affordable housing. The statistics came out last year saying that the five most expensive places for rental housing are

(1) Vancouver,

(2) Toronto,

(3) Calgary,

(4) Edmonton and

(5) Barrie, Ontario—my riding. That is very sad because you would not think that a community of 146,000 would desperately need affordable housing, but we do.

Throughout the consultations on Bill 7, we heard a common view that municipalities should be given the flexibility to tailor inclusionary zoning to local social and economic conditions. We want to ensure that municipalities have this flexibility, and that includes finding a balance between inclusionary zoning policies and

section

Section 37 of the Planning Act permits the municipality to authorize increases in allowable height and/or density through the zoning bylaw in return for community benefit like daycare spaces, transit improvements and heritage preservation.

Bill 7 would restrict municipalities applying inclusionary zoning from using

section 37 except as provided for in the regulation. In some instances, it might be appropriate for

section 37 and inclusionary zoning to coexist. That’s why Bill 7, if passed, would allow the minister to make a regulation that could specify the circumstances under which a municipality may use

section 37 with inclusionary zoning.

Bill 7 would also help to increase the supply of affordable housing by exempting secondary suites in new homes from development charges. On January 1, 2012, this government enabled municipalities to have secondary suites. In Barrie, we do have secondary suites, and they have helped a bit. However, we desperately need more affordable housing.

If passed, the legislative amendment would require municipalities to exempt second suites in new residential homes from development charges. Currently, a municipality cannot charge a development charge for building a second unit in an existing home. The proposed amendment would help reduce the cost of developing second suites in new homes.

Second suites are valuable because they provide community benefits that include an additional supply of affordable housing rental units, which is what we’re looking for. They also provide income-integrated neighbourhoods that better support public transit, local businesses and the local labour market. They provide job creation in the construction and renovation industry, increased neighbourhood densities and more effective infrastructure use. They also intensify the use of existing housing stock.

Secondary units also provide direct benefits to the individuals that include an additional income stream for a homeowner; options for elderly homeowners to age in place; options for elderly homeowners to house live-in caregivers; and options for families to house elderly family members.

I urge everyone to pay close attention to this bill and pass it. We need this all over Ontario. I support this bill and urge you to vote for it, too.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to be able to speak about the Promoting Affordable Housing Act this morning. As I mentioned briefly the other day when we were debating this, Guelph actually also has a real issue with affordable housing. I think it tends to go with university towns: Students are competing for low rental.

There’s been a lot of commentary this morning about secondary suites. I happened to grow up not too far from the university. In the neighbourhood I grew up in, at least half of the houses, probably, had secondary suites for students in the basement. In fact, that was the way a lot of people paid their mortgage.

But it also provided great housing at low cost for students and actually had the advantage that the landlord lived upstairs so the neighbourhood didn’t become a student slum, which can sometimes happen when entire houses are taken over by students. It was a wonderful solution for helping people pay the mortgage and finding affordable housing for students—and actually found a great husband for me, because my husband happened to be in a basement suite across the street from the house I grew up in. So that’s an added benefit to secondary suites: husband-finding.

The other thing I wanted to talk about was the concept of flexibility in the way we look at affordable housing. Sometimes we have very strict notions about, “We must have social housing that’s like this.” In fact, having a more flexible view allows you to build much more integrated neighbourhoods.

In Guelph, we’ve got some examples of great partnerships, both with private developers and with non-profit. For example, one of the affordable housing projects for seniors in Guelph was actually carried out by the St. Joseph’s foundation. In Guelph, St. Joseph’s health care is a combination of the complex and continuing care hospital, long-term care and outpatient rehab, so they have a lot of outpatient services as well. They also have a lot of land.

What the foundation decided to do was to work with the county on an affordable housing project for seniors, which is great because that means the seniors are next to all those services for seniors. Not only do they have affordable housing; they also have some of the outpatient health services that they can connect to right next door. That’s a really good, effective partnership.

Another partnership that we have that has worked really well was with a private developer who had bought what was sort of vernacularly known in Guelph as the old bus barns. But the old bus barns had a history before that. The old bus barns were actually the pre-Prohibition powerhouse for the old Silver Creek Brewery. For those of you who have watched your TV ads carefully, you might know that Silver Creek was originally Sleeman, and of course Sleeman got shut down during Prohibition for a little bit of bootlegging.

What was the powerhouse eventually became the bus barns for Guelph transportation, and then they outgrew these buildings. A private developer bought the bus barns and had a combined project where the actual old stone buildings got turned into very cool, upscale units, but at the back—again, there was enough property to do this—there was also some affordable housing with lower-income rental units. So it’s this great, mixed-use development of affordable apartments and upscale apartments.

I mentioned the other day that that same developer, Tom Lammer, right now is working on some derelict tennis courts. Again, it will be an affordable housing project for seniors, and it will be a combination of affordable units and upscale units, because it’s a great location downtown. It will be that combination again. It goes to both the concept of flexibility and the concept of inclusionary zoning where you’ve got more than one type of housing, as it were, and in this case all in the same building.

Thank you. I turn it over to my colleague.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Davenport.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It is great for me to rise here today in support of Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act.

The Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016, is part of our government’s update to the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy. The updated Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy will reflect new research and best practices that support Ontario’s transformation towards a better housing system. It will also accomplish our collective goal to make sure that every person has an affordable and suitable home to provide a foundation to secure employment, raise a family and build stronger communities.

Bill 7 introduced legislative amendments to the Planning Act, Development Charges Act, Housing Services Act and 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 development projects through inclusionary zoning;

—exempting secondary suites in new homes from development charges;

—providing local service managers with more flexibility in administering and delivering social housing in their communities; and

—preventing unnecessary evictions from social housing and modernizing the enforcement of property standards in rental housing.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to highlight two changes that will have an immense positive impact on my riding of Davenport, the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario.

In my constituency office, I regularly have conversations with constituents who are waiting for affordable housing. They’re on a list and they can’t get the affordable housing that they require, or they are currently in affordable housing units and they want to stay there. The housing prices in the city of Toronto, as you know, have skyrocketed. My riding of Davenport, being a very urban, downtown Toronto riding, is a prime example of this, where prices have increased substantially in the last year.

There are many seniors who live in my community who immigrated to Davenport from their countries many, many years ago. They want to stay in Davenport—it’s where their local church is; it’s where their local grocery store is; it’s where their neighbours are; it’s where their seniors’ groups are—but they can’t afford to stay in their homes.

Affordable housing, especially in my riding of Davenport, for seniors is an urgent need and in great demand. To help with this, Bill 7 will provide a range of planning, financial and other tools through the Promoting Affordable Housing Act to help municipalities create more affordable housing.

Speaker, one of the most exciting new tools that Bill 7 proposes is inclusionary zoning. It would allow municipalities to require private sector developers to include affordable housing units in their residential development proposals. This would enable the private sector to play a much larger role in providing affordable housing.

In Davenport, there are a number of new developments happening right now. If we were to include affordable housing in these units that are currently going up, it would definitely contribute to improving the housing situation in the city of Toronto.

If passed, Bill 7 would enable, or, where prescribed, require municipalities to pass zoning bylaws for inclusionary zoning. Bill 7 would also require municipalities that pass inclusionary zoning bylaws to provide reports and information concerning the affordable housing units as prescribed, and to establish a procedure for monitoring and ensuring the units remain affordable over time.

By creating these zoning allowances, areas like my riding of Davenport can create a large number of affordable housing units, as there are constantly new buildings being developed in my community.

With inclusive communities, those who are in need of affordable housing are included within the community, leading to a change in the way communities think about affordable housing. This is about changing the way we see others. Inclusionary zoning will help address these issues.

Another important part of Bill 7 I would like to talk about briefly is the changes to

section

Section 37 of the Planning Act permits a municipality to authorize increases in allowable height and/or density through the zoning bylaw in return for community benefits, like daycare spaces, transit improvements and heritage preservation. In Davenport, we are already seeing these discussions happen at many of the community meetings in my riding, as constituents highlight the need for affordable housing projects in Davenport.

In Bill 7, the changes that are being proposed would restrict municipalities applying inclusionary zoning from using

section 37, except as provided by regulation.

So it’s very important, as we continue to debate this bill—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: Today we’re discussing the issue of affordable housing here in Ontario. It’s a real problem in the greater Toronto area and Hamilton. With the rising cost of housing, that means that the cost of rental units goes up as well. We’re all aware of that.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned today is the cost of getting approval for permits to create those secondary suites in the areas once they get approval to rezone and to build secondary suites. Obviously, the municipalities have to provide those permits and do the proper inspections. The cost of applying for a permit for a housing unit in the Toronto area is between $20,000 and $40,000. Well, that cost has to be recouped by the owner of the property, to the renters.

So I think that it really requires better coordination between the province and all the municipalities: how to reduce the red tape, how to reduce the cost of negotiating the permits and how to speed it up—because just here in Toronto, it often takes a year and a half to two years just to get the permits. We could wave a magic wand and we could enforce—our cousins over on the municipal side aren’t very happy when they hear of us forcing things on them.

They like to represent their constituents and their needs as well—but to sit down and work together on how we can get that whole process to move much quicker so that the permits could be issued, the construction can get going and the affordable housing can be achieved the way we want it. We also need to work with the system and ensure that so-called bad tenants are dealt with speedily so that people are interested in having tenants.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Let’s not make a mistake about it: Affordable housing is a crisis in the province of Ontario. Right here in Toronto, where we have mostly elected Liberals, 85,000 are on a wait-list today—85,000. They’re not my stats, by the way. I didn’t make them up or pull them out of my hat. They are from the Homeless Hub. You look at London. We heard the members talk about London—our member, and the crisis she has. We heard the member from the Liberals talk about Guelph and the crisis she has. Everybody knows I’m from Niagara, the Niagara region—not just Niagara Falls, but the entire Niagara.

In the Niagara region, since 2011 we’ve had a 30% increase in families looking for affordable housing. There are 5,500 families on a wait-list; 600 of them are homeless right now as I stand up and speak before you today.

A new piece in affordable housing is seniors. I go to seniors’ homes; I go to places with seniors—Coronation Centre in Niagara Falls. They’re saying that we’ve got to do something for seniors around affordable housing. They’ve kind of been forgotten about, but there’s a crisis there.

I want to finish with something about this weekend. I’ve only got 30 seconds left. I’d like to wish everybody happy Thanksgiving as we go home and enjoy our families and we spend quality time in our homes with our family and our friends, and watching the Blue Jays. But I also want to finish with saying that there are thousands of families that are going home this weekend who collectively are caught up in a crisis, who don’t have a home to go to. They can’t gather with their friends because they don’t have affordable housing. I believe that collectively, in this room, we have to fix that and we have an obligation to do that.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. Chris Ballard: It is a real honour to be able to stand again to speak to Bill 7, one that I introduced just a few short weeks ago, and to hear the comments from all sides of the House. I specifically wanted to thank the members for Kitchener Centre, Barrie, Guelph and Davenport.

I have just two minutes, but I could talk much longer than that about the importance of affordable housing. When people have a home, Madam Speaker, they’re healthier, they’re more ready for employment and they’re better able to participate and contribute to their communities. That’s a given; we know that. Ontario is making several investments to achieve our vision, and I will reintroduce that vision: that every person have an affordable and suitable home to provide the foundation to secure employment, raise a family and build strong communities.

When people don’t have a house, they are in poverty. We certainly recognize that. This is a very complex issue. There is no one answer to making sure that we have adequate and suitable and affordable housing across the province. That’s why we’ve taken the time to talk to stakeholders right across the province many times over, to make sure that we can put solutions on the table, whether it be exclusionary zoning, as we did back in 2011 with secondary suites—that’s another tool. We’re trying to provide our municipal partners and our affordable housing suppliers with the tools they need to provide that mix, and it’s a job that we need to keep doing.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the government members who have offered their, I guess, four speeches with respect to Bill 7, the long-term affordable housing act.

I wanted to respond to the member for Kitchener Centre. She mentioned her experience with Waterloo region. I would agree with her that Waterloo region is in fact a real leader in terms of the provision of affordable housing. Having had the privilege and the opportunity to represent a large part of Waterloo region between the years 1999 and 2007, as we discussed—the townships of Wellesley, Woolwich and Wilmot, as well as a southwestern portion of the city of Kitchener—I had a tremendous opportunity to work with the local officials in Waterloo region and would again confirm that they do a great job and they’ve shown leadership.

I would also add our perspective within the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party: We believe that there needs to be affordable housing for the people of Ontario, as well, but we also believe that there needs to be a large role for the private sector. We remind the New Democrats and the Liberals from time to time that the government can’t afford to build all the affordable housing. We need to ensure that the private sector has a role.

Certainly, through the early 1990s, when we saw a large expansion of the government-run affordable housing program under the leadership of the New Democrats, we used to say, “This affordable housing is anything but affordable for the taxpayer,” because we saw significant cost overruns in projects that were estimated to cost a certain amount and the eventual cost was way out of control.

So we have to keep that in mind too, as we discuss this issue, and ensure that there is an appropriate role for the private sector to ensure that the citizens of Ontario can afford the decent housing that they live in and ensure, going forward, that the legislation, which ensures the system is there, is in the public interest.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from Kitchener Centre to wrap up.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I do want to thank everyone who spoke this morning: the member for Wellington–Halton Hills, you just heard from—we’ve had chats about this issue and a good chat yesterday about some other important social issues in our community; the Minister of Housing, who has advanced this bill; the member from Niagara Falls, who added some very interesting comments, along with his greetings for Thanksgiving; the member from Thornhill; the member from Davenport; the President of the Treasury Board; and the MPP for Barrie. Thank you all very much for the comments that you have made as we chat about Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act.

Speaker, this act is going to update our long-term strategy for providing affordable housing in the province of Ontario. What we aim to do is to adopt some new research and some best practices that are going to create more housing stock for people in the province who require affordable housing. We want to see that municipalities have the ability to compel new development to include affordable housing. We want to give them the autonomy, the flexibility and the power to do this.

We want to be able to alter zoning, as well, because there are some communities where, if they can add attics or basement apartments, that is going to increase the stock. They need to be able to do this without facing any kind of punitive measures. You also heard discussion this morning, Speaker, on allowing secondary units in buildings and homes. We support that. We’re also considering exempting secondary suites in new homes from development charges. I know that there are people in my municipalities who have concerns about development charges and this would see an exception for that.

So giving city service managers more flexibility in delivering social housing and preventing unnecessary evictions from social housing are all part of this act.

I share with you some of the success stories from my region: 2,700 units have been added, a mix of private and public over the years. I commend all the men and women in our province who work in providing affordable housing.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the Legislature today to speak to Bill 7 because affordable housing has been a subject of considerable debate in the Whitby–Oshawa area, but in particular in the region of Durham. Members of the Legislature will know that, while a regional councillor within the region of Durham, I was the chair of the advisory committee on affordable housing, the president of the Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corp. and, last, the chair of the Health and Social Services Committee.

One of the by-products of that process was the development of a new Affordable and Seniors’ Housing Task Force. The task force had a focus in three primary areas, one of which was to review information and the supply of the region’s current rental housing and policy tools and to consider all of the tools on housing policy—in particular, the Durham 10-year housing plan in order to examine all the tools for the municipalities that comprise the region of Durham to support existing social housing units and encourage new ones.

Equally important, Speaker, is to foster collaboration with the federal and provincial governments, as well as businesses, agencies and institutions. As a by-product of all of that activity, the region of Durham will ensure that the outcomes of that deliberation will be provided to the Minister of Housing.

Speaker, I bring forward the Durham perspective because municipal governments are on the front line, responding to community housing needs, and the problems associated with affordable housing are wide and deep, as we’ve heard previously. Any initiatives, based on my experience, that have to be undertaken must be collaborative.

Let’s turn for a moment to Bill 7. There are definite areas where this bill can be improved. For instance,

schedule 2 repeals the elderly person’s housing act, which allowed aid to charitable or municipal corporations that received a loan under the National Housing Act. While this act may no longer be required, the fact that affordable housing wait times for seniors have increased from 2.5 years to 4.4 years shows that more needs to be done, especially within the context of an aging demographic across the province. The basis for that is proven in the statistics that are provided on a yearly basis by the Ontario Ministry of Finance.

Further, in

schedule 3, I’m disappointed that the government has chosen not to amend the requirement under the Housing Services Act for housing providers to purchase natural gas and insurance through the Housing Services Corp. I know that my colleague the member of provincial Parliament for Oxford, in his capacity as the official opposition critic for municipal affairs and housing, has long been an advocate on that issue. In fact, Bill 8, the Housing Services Corporation Accountability Act, which he has introduced in previous sessions as well as this one, seeks to correct this very issue.

Bill 8 would save affordable housing providers money on natural gas and insurance by removing the mandatory requirement to purchase them through the Housing Services Corp. Speaker, Toronto Community Housing alone has said that they could save $6.3 million a year if they were allowed to purchase natural gas at the best price instead of being forced to buy through the Housing Services Corp.

We see this at a time when mayors across the country are appealing to the provincial and federal governments to do more about affordable housing. Recently, the mayor of Toronto said that he was “disappointed that the new government in Ottawa, now being one year in, and the provincial government, being several years in ... haven’t stepped forward with more.” Mayor Tory went on to say that “in the case of the province, they’ve done what I’ll call the tiniest little kernel.”

The previous version of the affordable housing strategy promised that an annual report would be prepared, auditing the progress on the performance indicators, yet they’ve never been released. We’re still waiting for them. The only real outcome is that every year, the wait-list for affordable housing hits a new record high.

In

schedule 4, despite the claims to the contrary, Bill 7 gives the government the ability to implement inclusionary zoning. Now, this is despite the fact that many of the questions from municipalities, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as to how inclusionary zoning would be implemented have not been defined.

In

schedule 5, under the Residential Tenancies Act, we see prescribed maintenance standards for enforcement, which have been downloaded onto municipalities. This change downloads new costs onto municipalities at a time when most are struggling to keep their taxes within the present cost of living.

Speaker, I also read with interest a letter written by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, specifically to its provincial planning policy branch in June of this year. The letter has several recommendations. In particular, it said, “We recommend municipal discretion on issues such as depth of affordability and affordability targets, units set aside, thresholds, incentives and minimum requirements for units developed through inclusionary zoning policies.

“Local housing and homelessness plans have been developed to guide municipal priorities on affordable housing investment and local governments are in the best position to determine when and how to implement inclusionary zoning policies. They are also in the best position to determine who in their community needs access to affordable housing and the type and size of housing that is required.”

The recommendation, which I support, simply stated, was that local municipal authorities are the best ones to determine when and how to implement inclusionary zoning policies. It’s also recommended that the provincial government specify a common measure for affordability that is responsive to Ontarians’ income and not to rapidly rising real estate markets.

Speaker, the letter concluded with the observation that the bill as currently drafted prevents municipalities from accepting cash in lieu of units as part of its inclusionary housing policy. Cash in lieu, it concluded, allows municipalities to set lower thresholds for their inclusionary zoning policies.

Enabling cash in lieu would allow municipalities to finance or incent the development of much-needed affordable rental housing or to further leverage federal-provincial housing programs. We understand the need for more affordable housing but have concerns that inclusionary zoning as proposed in this bill would increase the cost of housing for all homeowners and renters.

Further, after they introduced Bill 7, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing launched a consultation with stakeholders on key questions such as who would be eligible for the units, what percentage of the units should be required to be affordable, and whether that should be up to the municipality. All of these aforementioned questions are concerns that should have been considered and answered before, not after, the legislation was introduced.

Speaker, I also read with great interest a well-researched

article in the Globe and Mail yesterday. The story talked about how affordability for housing in the greater Toronto area has reached an all-time low. However, further to this, they pointed out the red tape that exists, specifically when it comes to permits for building new homes. The story quoted a study entitled New Homes and Red Tape in Ontario: Residential Land-Use Regulation in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which pointed out that long and uncertain wait times are reducing the potential for the supply of housing in the greater Golden Horseshoe.

I’d like to quote the final paragraph, Speaker, because it’s something I wholeheartedly agree with: “World-class, growing regions such as the [greater Golden Horseshoe] can only remain successful if their most important asset—people—can find appropriate housing. Reducing barriers to the construction of new homes can help ensure that Canada’s largest urban area will keep attracting and retaining the best and brightest....”

What’s clear is that we need to reduce the regulatory burden in the system in order to make sure that we have an adequate supply of housing for people in the greater Toronto area. Governing is about priorities, and the Liberal government has prioritized handing out contracts for energy we don’t need over addressing affordable housing and the needs of Ontarians. This government has had 13 years to fix the wait-list, yet we now have more than 171,000 families waiting for housing, the highest it’s ever been.

As I near the end of my speaking time, I’d like to sum up by saying that while we’ll be supporting the bill to go to the committee, we do expect to have some amendments. Bill 7 adds a number of new costs for municipalities, including requiring enumeration of homeless people, administering the inclusionary zoning program, and inspection and enforcement of the prescribed maintenance standards—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it is now 10:15, I will be recessing the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. James J. Bradley: I’d like to introduce to the members of the assembly a person who’s in our gallery today and who is an author. His name is Steve Paikin and he’s the author of the book Bill Davis: Nation Builder, and Not So Bland After All. I was at the book launch last night. I certainly recommend the book and introduce our special guest, Steve Paikin of TVO.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You snuck that one in there. Forget it; he’s just the press.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a few important health stakeholders that we have here with us in the gallery today. It’s a long list, Mr. Speaker, so bear with me.

I’d like to welcome representatives from the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres, the Association of Ontario Health Centres—I’d better speed up—the Association of Local Public Health Agencies, the Aboriginal Health Access Centres, registered nurses of Ontario, Home Care Ontario, the Ontario Community Support Association, and, last but not least, the Ontario Pharmacists Association. Welcome to you all.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s a great honour for me to have two special guests from British Columbia. Please welcome Reeta and Sammy Ahluwalia. They are parents of Ron Ahluwalia, who is a legal counsel in my office as the government House leader. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: About 40 years ago in Oakville, a 21-year-old and a 19-year-old decided to get married. I was the 21-year-old. My wife, Jan, was the 19-year-old. I just wanted to wish her a happy 40th anniversary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s a case of trying to get brownie points any way we can, I guess.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Today, October 6, marks a very special day. There are members on both sides of this House who were elected five years ago. So to the class of 2011, happy fifth anniversary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This jovial attitude is most definitely invited to spill over into question period.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to welcome friends and colleagues from the RNAO: Doris Grinspun, and Carol Timmings from Toronto public health, who’s also the president of RNAO. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to welcome a visitor here today: Ilyas Ally, the imam of the Islamic Dawah centre and the executive producer of “Let the Quran Speak” on VisionTV. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’d like to welcome members from the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition to Queen’s Park today. I look forward to meeting with them later on.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know this is the last day for our pages. I want to congratulate Cameron, the page from St. Paul’s, for his hard work over the last several weeks. He is joined today by his parents: Maretta Miranda, along with Joanna Radbord, are here today.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I notice that a good friend of ours, Darcy McNeill, is in the House. He used to work at Queen’s Park. Welcome again, Darcy.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I know he has been introduced already, but he is from my riding of Davenport. I did want to introduce once again Ilyas Ally from the Dawah Islamic centre in Davenport. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to welcome two individuals here: Mr. Carlo Mirabelli from the great city of Vaughan and Mr. Domenic La Neve from Royalpark Homes. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Speaker, may I add also that Darcy McNeill was instrumental in helping us produce multiple budgets in this House? Thank you, Darcy, for all that you’ve done in the past.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to introduce Erin Morgan. She’s the executive director of the co-op association of Ontario. She’s here with us at Queen’s Park today. She would like an opportunity to speak to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: On behalf of the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, the page captain today is Amelia Spacek. Her mother, Shannon Elliott, is here today; her father, David Spacek; and her brother, Liam Spacek. Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Wearing of ribbons

Mr. Mike Colle: On a point of order: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that the members be permitted to wear special purple pins to recognize Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence is seeking unanimous consent to wear a ribbon in honour of the day that has been proclaimed. Do we agree? Agreed.

Visitors

Mr. Arthur Potts: I hope I’m not too late. I would like to introduce a neighbour and a constituent, Theresa Agnew, who is the executive director of the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario. Welcome again to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Colleagues, we have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery His Excellency Pavlos Anastasiades, the High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus, and his wife, Maria. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency. Thank you for being here.

I thank and welcome all of our guests. It is therefore now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Each and every day I hear another story from another family or senior who can’t afford their hydro bills. Some parents have had to cancel their children’s extracurricular activities. Long-term-care homes are being pushed to the brink. I’ve heard from hospitals that have to cut necessary medical staff to pay their hydro bills. Seniors will have to leave their heat off because they can’t afford the bills.

Why is all this happening? Because the Auditor General revealed that this government overpaid for renewable energy by $9.2 billion.

So my question to the Minister of Energy is this: Tell me if the $1.3 million in donations to the Ontario Liberal Party was worth overpaying for hydro contracts by $9.2 billion.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. You are already giving me signals that I may have to tighten things up a little, and I will if it’s necessary. I’m asking you to stop now.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about hospitals. I was very proud to be at my hospital in Greater Sudbury, Health Sciences North, which actually worked with Greater Sudbury Utilities, saving $300,000 a year in electricity because they use one of the programs that we brought forward. We’ve got so many programs out there to help small businesses, hospitals and long-term-care centres that they can take advantage of this. Many long-term health centres can save up to 34% if they get on the ICI program. We’ve got programs out there that are helping organizations right across the province.

In terms of fundraising, I want to know why you’d have to pay $2,000 to golf with the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, come to order. And if it sounds like it’s going to sound now, I’ll move to warnings. Thank you.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Minister of Energy. Since the minister does not want to talk about the donations to the Ontario Liberal Party and the contracts that should not have been signed, we can try something else.

I want to read to you a quote from the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. He said that the Ontario Energy Board “certainly should not be justifying a rate increase based on the fact they believe there was too much conservation ... because that sends the wrong message.”

Mr. Speaker, it certainly does send the wrong message. It’s absurd, but Hydro Ottawa is doing exactly that: trying to raise rates for those who conserve. So far, the Minister of Energy refuses to stand up for those people.

Does the Minister of Energy agree with the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and will the Liberal government finally condemn what Hydro Ottawa is doing and say very clearly it is unacceptable to charge more for conserving? Yes or no? Will you do it?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I was very pleased to be with my honourable colleague in the Soo talking about all the great programs we’re bringing out to help the families in Sault Ste. Marie and area and to help families in Ottawa.

In relation to the OEB, the OEB has done a very good job at being a quasi-judicial organization and at arm’s reach from the government. They’ve made sure that they’ve actually seen rates go down when asks have come in place.

Let me show you their strong record of reviewing rate applications with the consumer in mind, Mr. Speaker. When Hydro One asked for a rate increase for distribution, it received a 9% reduction for its capital request. Hydro One, once again, asked for a rate increase for transmission and received a 3% reduction for its capital request. When OPG applied for a 6.2% rate increase in 2011, the OEB denied that request and lowered rates by 0.8%. The OEB has a good track record of consumers in mind.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy: The Minister of Energy does not want to talk about the donations to the Ontario Liberal Party for these renewable contracts. The Minister of Energy does not want to talk about the fact that they’re now charging people more for conservation.

I don’t think the minister understands how this is affecting families. Let me tell you about a letter I got from my own riding of Simcoe North, from Don and Carolyn Copping from Penetanguishene. They are two seniors, 73 and 80. Don and Carolyn own their own home, but they still have a mortgage. They have energy-efficient bulbs and they use the air conditioner as little as possible. They even kept all their appliances off for 16 days this summer, but they still can’t afford their hydro bill. It’s a significant amount of money. Seniors are being forced to the brink.

So my question is, rather than window-dressing, will this government finally help Ontario seniors when it comes to out-of-control hydro bills?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I do hope the honourable member is telling that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I’m going to remind the chief government whip that holding things up as props is not allowed in the House. I will have them confiscated if it happens again, and I will offer him—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I will offer him a warning.

Please, finish.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do hope the honourable member is telling that family about the OESP, in which seniors can qualify for up to $75 a month off their bill, and come January 1, these families as well will be getting that 8% reduction once the legislation passes through this House.

Also, I’m hoping he’s telling those families about that saveONenergy program, to work with their utilities, to make sure that they can find other ways of reducing their electricity bills, because we do have many programs in place to help these families.

But when it comes to fundraising, I know it costs $2,000 to play as a person with the Leader of the Opposition, but also, to have a steak at Barberian’s Steak House, $5,000 a plate.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock. New question?

Special-needs students

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Acting Premier. I have an email from a mother of young boy named Conrad. Conrad has autism and attends Yes I Can Nursery School. Let me share what his mother had to say: “Yes I Can has been life-changing. We don’t say this lightly. It has changed the lives of us, Conrad’s parents; it has changed the lives of his sisters. And most importantly, has had an enormous impact on the life of Conrad.”

Can the Liberals please explain to Conrad and his family why Yes I Can will be forced to close their doors?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Associate Minister of Education.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. Absolutely, our government wants to give our kids the best start in life. That’s why we are making sure that we’re moving more than $1 billion towards child care in this province on a yearly basis.

In addition to that, we are now transforming the way we deliver child care. What we are doing is moving our capacity to 100,000 new licensed spaces over the next five years.

Applause.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you.

When it comes to Yes I Can daycare and ensuring that our children there get the best start in life, I want the member opposite to know that we are actually providing the city of Toronto with $351.7 million in order to ensure that the child care spaces and centres in the city are taken care of. Some $300,000 of that is being moved forward to Yes I Can child care.

In addition to that, there was one-time transitional funding that we moved forward to the centre. That funding was one-time transitional funding and—

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

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Your transformation is leading to the closing of the doors of Yes I Can, which has been doing exceptional work in the city of Toronto.

Back to the Acting Premier: The Liberals keep telling us that Yes I Can can talk to the city, but it won’t do any good. There is no mechanism for the city of Toronto to provide operating funds. In fact, a director of the city’s children’s services branch wrote exactly that to the school: “There are no operating funds available to your agency outside of [the current] mechanisms.” I repeat: “no operating funds.”

Mr. Speaker, will the Liberals stop passing the buck and give Yes I Can the sustainable funding they promised nine years ago?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: First of all, $351.7 million going to the city of Toronto to ensure that the child care spaces and centres in the city are getting the support they need, I think, is a lot of money.

In addition to that, as I mentioned earlier, $300,000 is being moved forward and, in addition to that, this particular centre got one-time transitional funding of $150,000. Actually, it was moved forward more than once. It was one-time transitional funding in the end totalling $450,000—$450,000 that was only supposed to be one-time transitional funding to enable them and to ensure that they were coming up with the plan they needed in order to be able to take care of a sustainable financial plan.

But let me tell you about our transforming of child care. That is going to be starting off from 2017 and over the next five years. We are working on that plan and—

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

Interjection.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The Minister of Children and Youth Services just chirped, “This is a private operator.” Is that really the issue? Is the problem that they are a private child care operator instead of a public one—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Through the Chair, please.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Back to the Acting Premier: I want to share more of what Conrad’s mom had to say. She asked that we “imagine the immense feeling of relief we as parents feel, knowing our son with special needs is being taken care of as if he is a member of the school’s family.”

She asked you to “try and visualize the look of joy in Conrad’s sisters’ eyes as they heard him say his first word, sing his first song, or best of all, play with them.”

Conrad’s mom added, “This school has changed all of our lives, and we can’t imagine” life without it.

Will the Acting Premier tell Conrad and Conrad’s mom, dad and sisters why Conrad won’t be able to attend his school any longer?

Interjections.

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

I would also appreciate the conversations that are going on between caucuses while the question is being put, not to take place.

Minister?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I really look forward to the opportunity to talk about what we’re doing in child care because I really think that this is a historic initiative, and it really shows the vision—

Interjections.

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

I will make the same comment as I just made for another group of people: The conversations will stop here.

Mr. Han Dong: She started it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t need the member from Trinity–Spadina to armchair-quarterback. I am not impressed.

Answer, please.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: That’s why we have committed to transforming the way we deliver child care in this province.

We understand that that’s a conversation that can’t go one way. It has to happen with a number of the stakeholders out there and parents and people who are actually informed about what our child care system needs in this province. We are getting ready to have consultations across the province and have those conversations to find out where we should be looking and concentrating our efforts.

I want you to know that when we came into government in 2003, the party opposite had actually supplied parents in this province with 10% of the spaces that children needed when it came to child care. We immediately moved forward to double that capacity, and now we’re moving forward to double that to 40%.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The mayor of Toronto says he’s discussing the sell-off of Toronto Hydro with the Premier. My question is: Does the government think it’s a good idea to sell off Toronto Hydro?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the leader of the third party for that question. Ultimately, decisions on how to manage Toronto Hydro are at the discretion of the mayor and council of the city of Toronto. The province will not interfere with what is an important decision under municipal jurisdiction.

In fact, we on this side of the House are looking at broadening our decision with Hydro One. The decision is facilitating key investments and infrastructure priorities right across the province that are improving lives and the quality of lives of people of Ontario.

There are a few examples, and I know I’ll be able to get more in the supplemental, but $13.5 billion is being invested in the GO regional express rail in the GTHA, with quadruple the number of weekly trips, to 6,000. There are so many great infrastructure projects going right across the province. I’ll get more to that in my supplemental.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government is not only leaving the door wide open to selling Toronto Hydro—and it indeed is, in fact, willing to facilitate that sell-off with brand new tax giveaways—but there are more than 70 local hydro utilities in this province. It begs the question: Which other local hydro utilities does this government hope will become private for-profit corporations?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Back in 2012, the LDC panel presented a report that talked about the Ontario Distribution Sector Review Panel. It recommended that LDCs merge to create eight to 12 regional LDCs through mandatory consolidations. The panel suggested that this would result in a net benefit of roughly $1.2 billion, in present value terms.

After the consolidation report, this is actually money that we can go and put back into the system to continue to put downward pressure on rates for ratepayers. Consolidating is actually something that the panel is recommending. If you look at California, for example: With a population of 30 million people, they have four LDCs. We have 72. We have voluntary consolidation out there, and it’s something that would benefit the ratepayers.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The bottom line is that selling off Hydro One and selling local hydro companies might be good for the minister’s friends and the people at the top that the Liberals tend to actually spend a lot of time helping out, but it’s not good for everybody else. It’s lousy for everybody else, because it’s families and businesses that pay the freight for the benefits that actually accrue to the very few people at the top with these privatization schemes. Guess what? Families and businesses in this province simply cannot afford it.

While the Premier might like to pretend that she has no say over the cost of hydro, it’s simply not true. We know that these privatization schemes increase the price of our electricity across the province of Ontario. Selling off the hydro system absolutely means bills will go up. The cost of electricity is four times higher than it was when this government took over. Why is the government making things worse when they could be saving the people of this province by stopping any further sell-offs?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I do have to say that it’s disappointing to hear that the great work that was done by this panel with some great people who put a lot of time and effort into this to recommend this—

Interjection: Like who?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: One person who’s very well respected by all parties is Floyd Laughren, who was on this committee that brought forward this report.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? We’re finding ways and continuing to find ways to save billions of dollars for ratepayers. The voluntary consolidation is one way that this could happen.

In terms of the broadening of the sale of Hydro One, I was talking earlier about all of the great infrastructure projects that are happening across the province. I know I talked about the GO regional express and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. One billion dollars is being invested in the infrastructure for the Ring of Fire. The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund is being tripled to $300 million—not only $20 million coming into my community; $173 million on Highway 69.

I know I’m running out of time, but we keep having more and more infrastructure investments right across the province.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Liberals and the Conservatives once again voted in favour of privatizing Hydro One and helping to privatize local hydro utilities. Can the government tell the people this: On what page of their platform did it say that they were going to dole out tax giveaways worth over $100 million to help privatize even more hydro utilities in this province, including Toronto Hydro?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I’m very pleased to rise to answer this question, because I know the platform talked about jobs and growth. The investments that we’re making with the broadening of the sale of Hydro One—I know I didn’t have enough time the last time, so let me continue: The Hurontario LRT in Mississauga and Brampton will provide 20 kilometres of new, modern, reliable rapid transit beginning in 2022, thanks in part to a $1.4-billion investment by this government. Another $1 billion will support phase 2 of Ottawa’s LRT expansion.

I know I talked about $173 million coming to help expand Highway 69 to four lanes. That’s doing great things for us in the north. Not only is it making our highway safer, but it’s actually bringing more jobs and growth to our communities because we have opportunities for businesses to see us as part of the 400 series of highways. I want to really thank the Minister of Transportation for seeing the importance of that and investing in that.

We’re doing great things right across the province, building jobs and building this province up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, everywhere I go in Ontario, people tell me that they can’t afford their hydro bills. This government is not understanding where the people of this province are at. They tell me that they are bitterly, bitterly disappointed in the Premier and her party because the hydro sell-off is making life harder for folks instead of making life better, and that is not what was promised to them during the last election.

When people tell me they can’t afford a privatized Hydro One or the sell-off of their local hydro company, it begs the question for me: What does the government think? Does the government think these people are wrong? Does the government think Ontarians are wrong when they’re saying we shouldn’t be selling off our hydro system?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The only thing that’s wrong, Mr. Speaker, is the understanding that the NDP has when it comes to the broadening of Hydro One. The OEB sets the rates. The sell-off and the—the broadening of the sale has nothing to do with it.

But we do recognize that some families are having a difficult time with their electricity bills, and so we have those six programs in place: the OESP program and the LEAP program. We also have the northern Ontario tax credit. We eliminated the debt retirement charge. On top of that, we brought forward our speech from the throne, which has an 8% reduction for all families right across the province, and 330,000 families living in rural, remote and northern communities will also see a 20% reduction. We’ve actually recognized that some families are having difficulty and we’ve put in place programs to help.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what the Liberals don’t understand is what 80% of the people of this province want, and that is to maintain a public electricity system in the province of Ontario for our generation and generations to come. That’s what they don’t understand. They want to know that there’s going to be a good future for them and their families right here in the province of Ontario.

They know the Conservatives aren’t the answer. They know that will lead to more cuts and more privatization, but they feel that the Liberals have let them down in a very, very big way. Instead of stopping the sell-off of Hydro One, the government is taking that bad idea and one-upping it by clearing the way for the sell-off of local distribution companies, of local hydro companies.

Speaker, people want hope for the future. Will this government stop the privatization of our electricity system and do what 80% of the people in this province actually want?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: What the people of Ontario want is actually jobs and growth, and this government is delivering. We’re building this province up.

Again, they’re not understanding the concept that we have a quasi-judicial organization called the OEB, which is our regulator, and the regulator is the one that sets the rates.

But what we’ve done by building infrastructure is we’re making sure that we’re creating jobs and growth right across the province. We’ve also invested heavily in renewables. We have 18,000 megawatts of renewable energy in this province.

Do you know what’s really important is the—

Interjection: What did Frances Lankin say?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Yes, exactly—the $4.3 billion that we’re saving in health care costs. And you know what? This year, Toronto’s Vital Signs Report came out, and let me quote: “Premature deaths and hospitalizations as a result of air pollution have dropped by 23% and 41% ... since 2004.” That’s a record that everyone should be proud of.

Interjections.

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

New question?

Fiscal accountability

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. This week, the government released unaudited financial statements without verification from the Auditor General. This is unprecedented in Ontario’s history. It’s clear this government has something to hide. They refuse to co-operate with many independent legislative officers. They continue to break their legal obligations, and now they are viciously attacking the credibility of the Auditor General.

But the people of Ontario know better. They trust the numbers of the independent non-partisan auditor, not the numbers of a government mired in waste, scandal and mismanagement. I ask the minister: Will you stop attacking the credibility of the Auditor General?

Hon. Liz Sandals: What I wanted to point out was that I think you missed a comment yesterday that the Auditor General made, which was to confirm that in fact our 2015-16 bottom line is accurate. Of course, that’s because cabinet made a regulation, the purpose of the regulation being to resolve, for this year at least, the dispute between the Auditor General and the public servants who are our accountants. We needed to resolve that. Cabinet made a regulation saying to use the auditor’s numbers, which is exactly what we did in the financial statements that we released. So in fact, as I pointed out yesterday, our numbers agree with her numbers, and our current year—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: The Auditor General has now confirmed a number of troubling revelations. The deficit is $1.5 billion higher than the government’s projections. Debt increased more than $20 billion during last year. Taxes imposed by this government have increased to a record of $91.8 billion this year. That’s up more than 20% in the last five years. Under this government, Ontario is now both the most indebted and the most taxed province in Canada. That just doesn’t even make sense. It does not add up.

Rather than address their financial waste and mismanagement, this government continues to attack the credibility of the auditor. I ask the minister: Will you come clean and apologize to the Auditor General for attacking her credibility?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think one of the pieces of information that is missing in that little catalogue is that, in fact, Ontario has the lowest per capita program spending of any province or territory in Canada, of any jurisdiction. So when you actually look at our per capita program spending, we have controlled that very, very successfully, which is why, when you look at our deficit projection in the 2015 budget, you would see it was $8.5 billion. When you look at the actual deficit we achieved in the last year, according to the Auditor General, our deficit is $5 billion. That is a $3.5-billion improvement on our position in the budget, and it shows we will be able to balance, as we promised.

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

I’m sure the members would forgive me my interruption. Given the time, and we don’t know what is going to happen shortly, I would like to introduce in the House, in the members’ gallery, from Beaches–East York 37th and the Beaches–Woodbine 35th and 36th Parliaments, and now a member of our Canadian Senate, Frances Lankin.

I won’t start the clock until the question is put.

Personal support workers

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Acting Premier. People deserve to have confidence in our health care system, but all too often Ontarians are let down by this Liberal government. This morning, we’ve learned that the health ministry was spending $2.5 million a year for an outsourced PSW registry that never did what the Liberals promised. For four years, the Liberals failed to provide oversight to make sure the registry was working for the people of Ontario.

Why did this government spend so much time and so much money on a PSW registry that did not help home care patients, did not help families and did not live up to the Liberals’ promises?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It is true that following a review of the registry, I made a decision to suspend that registry. We felt that on a go-forward basis, we would work with our stakeholders and partners to actually improve what the registry is fundamentally set out to do, and that’s to protect the safety and security of Ontarians and to provide an important resource for both caregivers and those who might want to employ a PSW, and also for organizations that are in the business of employing them. So we’re working on that.

But I have to say that I’m so proud of the efforts of this government and the success of this government in elevating our PSWs across this province, beginning with a $4-an-hour wage increase that that party voted against, and also in working to establish a common curriculum as well. It’s really about not only providing that confidence to Ontarians, but elevating this important profession and giving them the respect that they are due because of the hard work that they engage in each and every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Back to the Acting Premier: PSWs do extraordinary work every day, and families deserve to have total confidence that their government is looking out for them. But the failure of the PSW registry shows that the Liberals are more interested in making big, flashy announcements than in actually helping people.

In 2011, five years ago, it was the Acting Premier who promised that the PSW registry would “promote greater accountability and transparency.” But it never did that. In fact, the government’s secret report found that home care clients and family caregivers could not rely on the registry to actually help them.

Why did this Liberal government fail to keep their promise to front-line workers, families and hundreds of thousands of people who rely on home care across the province of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are keeping our promise. They had no promise to our PSWs, and it’s only when we introduced important measures—a $4-an-hour wage increase for our PSWs; a $10-million training fund, which is rolled out and is providing support to allow our PSWs to further enhance their training; a common curriculum.

We’re working across the board with our PSWs—which they have never done—and we’ve made those commitments and we’re following through. Ontarians are better off as a result and our health care system is better off as a result of the hard work that our PSWs do every day.

International trade

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for Minister of International Trade. In June of this year, the Premier unveiled a new cabinet and a number of new ministries. Notably, the portfolio of international trade became a stand-alone ministry for the first time in the history of Ontario.

In my riding of Kitchener Centre we have a number of businesses that currently export or are looking at growing internationally. I can tell you that I have ongoing conversations with many stakeholders who are looking forward to this. They couldn’t be more excited with the creation of this new ministry.

Could the minister please tell us how his new ministry is going to better serve businesses in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity. I want to thank the honourable member from Kitchener Centre for asking and also for her business outreach in her area.

I was so pleased when I heard that the Premier would be creating a stand-alone international trade ministry. Since then, I have travelled extensively to numerous municipalities in the province and met with countless businesses and foreign dignitaries. Everyone I have spoken with shares that excitement.

International markets play a critical role in the growth of Ontario’s economy. This new ministry will allow me to focus on bringing jobs and investment back to Ontario as part of our commitment to grow our economy. Whether it be convincing overseas companies to invest in Ontario or assisting Ontario companies in going global, our ministry will help connect Ontario to the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. I’ve invited him to come to Kitchener Centre to speak to my stakeholders about this new Ministry of International Trade.

The Premier and the minister have said they have very big plans for the new Ministry of International Trade as part our promise to grow our economy. Specifically, this government’s commitment to trade missions was noted in both the 2016 budget and in the throne speech that was brought forward just a few weeks ago. I know that the minister has participated in a number of trade missions over the past couple of years.

Could the minister please explain why these trade missions are so important to growing our economy here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: Again, I want to thank the honourable member for asking the question. In business, relationships are key. Trade missions allow our government to meet with business counterparts in person: We can prove to them why Ontario is where they need to invest in a way we never can over email or telephone.

In just two years, trade missions have secured $3.7 billion in investment to the province. We have connected Ontario businesses with opportunities abroad, brought jobs to municipalities like Cambridge, Waterloo and Kitchener, and promoted Ontario worldwide.

We will continue to participate in missions to key markets abroad and will continue to build on this success. We are living in a highly globalized world. We must make our mark worldwide.

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Mr. Robert Bailey: Speaker, to you and through you to the Acting Premier: Last Friday, I received a call from Lonnie Cope, a constituent of mine in Petrolia, a first responder with more than two decades of experience responding whenever and wherever he was needed.

Lonnie told me that the workplace traumatic stress program at the London Health Sciences Centre, which he has been utilizing to deal with symptoms of PTSD, is being cancelled effective December 2. London Health Sciences Centre says there’s no support from your government to keep this program running. Lonnie is being told that the next closest place that he can access the same services now offered by the workplace traumatic stress program is in Toronto, hundreds of kilometres away from our community.

The workplace traumatic stress program at London Health Sciences Centre closes for good in eight weeks. Will your government commit today to stepping up to support this program before the December 2 deadline?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you for the question.

Certainly, I think the interest the province now has in post-traumatic stress disorder and the impact it has had on first responders in this province has really accelerated over the years. WSIB now has a program in place. Those people who are first responders in our province now have presumptive legislation. The ease of obtaining that treatment has been accelerated over the years. One of the centres we have used at the WSIB is the London Health Sciences Centre.

As we take a look at services that are made available to our first responders, we’d obviously like to see them provided on a province-wide basis.

I will take the question from the member and talk to the WSIB again to see if these changes are indeed in the best interests of the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Back to the Acting Premier: Earlier this week, CTV News London, a station in your town, reported that the workplace traumatic stress program at London Health Sciences Centre was closing because of a $500,000 annual shortfall in program funding from your government. First responders and clients of the workplace traumatic stress program have called this news devastating.

It takes a special type of person to risk their own health and safety to rush to the aid of others in an emergency. Every community in Ontario depends on these brave individuals in a time of crisis.

To the Acting Premier: Will you commit today to fully funding the workplace stress program at London Health Sciences Centre so that first responders in our province have access to treatments and services where they need them?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks again to the member. I know that he’s asking the question in a sincere manner. I think all members of this House understand what we haven’t done in the past when it comes to our first responders, and that treatment for PTSD is something we should do in the future and something we can get better at.

As we examine the services that are available to first responders around the province, obviously we try to make those services as localized as possible. The WSIB, which is an independent agency, strives as hard as it can to make sure people don’t have to travel long distances to obtain those services.

I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I think it’s a sincere question. As I said, I will interact with the WSIB—the board of directors and the people who are running that organization—to make sure we’re providing services in the way we should.

Fiscal accountability

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier.

Never before has a provincial government released unaudited financial statements. What’s more astonishing is that several sections from these statements were missing, such as the financial statements from the WSIB, the Ontario Clean Water Agency, the OEFC and the former Hydro One Brampton.

Yesterday, I asked the Premier to explain why these sections were missing; she could not.

During the public accounts committee yesterday, I was repeatedly told by government members that the WSIB statements had been posted. I checked again this morning, but they are still not there. What is the government hiding by withholding the WSIB statements?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I do want to assure the member opposite that the WSIB economic statement for 2016 is available online, as is the 2016 sufficiency plan update. All of the material related to the WSIB will in fact be included when we are able to table the public accounts. So I do want to assure the House of that.

I also want to assure the House that, while we are obviously in the process of collecting documents and having them printed, all of the finances of these various agencies have been accounted for in the financial statements that were made available earlier this week.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It is my understanding that the chair of the WSIB signed off on the financial statements weeks ago, but they are still not posted. The statements are complete. The government refuses to publish them. It refuses to explain why.

There have been growing calls for an Ombudsman investigation of the WSIB by injured workers who say that they were denied benefits that they are entitled to. I raised this yesterday at public accounts. There is great interest in the accountability of the WSIB to the public, certainly from injured workers.

Why is the Premier withholding the WSIB statements? Publish them now.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that question. The statements have been available online for quite some time. In addition, the numbers that are in those statements I think are something we should all be proud of in this House.

The WSIB has been an organization that all parties, when they’ve been in government, have tried to organize and have tried to run in a better manner. I think what we’re seeing coming out of the WSIB, with the figures and with the numbers that the member is talking about, is a very good news story. We passed historic legislation last year that’s included in these numbers, reinstating, for the first time, full indexation of WSIB benefits—something that the opposition, the NDP, took away from injured workers.

When you look at this, you see full CPI applied in the way that it should be. By 2018, all injured workers, both partially and fully disabled, are going to receive their full CPI. That’s what’s contained in the figures. Those figures have been available online.

Health care

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, in the spring, you introduced the Patients First Act to further improve patient access and experience. This bill, formerly known as Bill 210, included a plan to transform the health care system into one that puts the needs of the patient at its centre.

I’ve often heard concerns from my constituents in Davenport—and really concerns from many Ontarians—about access and the ability of our health care system to meet the growing needs of Ontarians for today and into the future. I’m pleased that our government introduced a bill that would help modernize our health care system to better respond to patient needs.

Speaker, can the Minister of Health please update this House on the government’s plan to put patients first?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Davenport for this important question, and I want to once again acknowledge the abundance of talent that’s represented by our health care sector partners who have joined us in the gallery today. It’s an important day, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve listened to Ontarians and we’ve heard their concerns. I want this province to know that this government is committed to making sure our health care system directly reflects patients’ needs.

Later today, I will reintroduce the Patients First Act, which would, if passed, put patients at the absolute centre of a truly integrated health care system. It would give Ontario’s 14 LHINs the ability to connect all parts of the health care system, including primary care and home and community care, to improve the planning and delivery of front-line services to patients. This will mean easier and more equitable access to care and better coordination and continuity of care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I know our government has worked hard to ensure that patients are at the centre of Ontario’s health care system, and I understand that the proposed system changes would strengthen local health care planning and increase efficiency to allow for more funding to be directed to patient care.

I’m also pleased to hear that our government is recognizing the importance of the French language in the provision of health care services and honouring our commitments to meaningful engagement with our indigenous partners.

Speaker, can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please tell this House about what this proposed legislation could mean for Ontarians?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thanks again to the member. The Patients First Act, if passed, will be the next step in our government’s efforts to build a better Ontario for patients. Our plan includes priority initiatives that we know are important to Ontarians, including expanding access to home and community care and ensuring that every Ontarian has access to a primary care provider.

These proposed legislative changes reflect our vision for creating a truly integrated system that facilitates local health care planning to ensure that patients receive more equitable access to care that meets their needs, establishes a formal relationship—importantly, Mr. Speaker—between our LHINs and our local boards of health to support joint health services planning and, most importantly, ensures that patient voices are at the heart of a system that is accountable to patients and connects them with the care they need.

Human trafficking

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Attorney General. Over the last few months, I’ve travelled across the province meeting with police and front-line service providers who expressed frustration about the government’s lack of action on human sex trafficking.

Just last Friday, I was in Hamilton meeting with local police and victim organizations who echoed the same frustration. They told a story of a girl at a local university who was pursued by a fellow student and was convinced to go on a date with him, but he proved to have other motivations, and manipulated her into a situation where she was trafficked. What this shows is that this can happen to anyone, and it is happening across the province as we speak. The government may say they’ve taken action but to date, no one on the front lines is clear on the details.

My question to the Attorney General is: Is the government ready to admit they can’t keep up on human sex trafficking and they are failing the children and all the other victims of this evil, evil crime?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I thank the member for the important question. We know human trafficking is a complex issue, and our message to those who engage in this horrible crime is very, very clear: It will not be tolerated in Ontario, in none of its forms. That’s why we launched our strategy in June. Up to $72 million is committed to this initiative, and action is under way. There are many actions under way across a number of different ministries, including—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ahem. We were doing quite well. Keep it that way, please. Thank you.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We are setting up the provincial anti-trafficking coordination office with community and social services. We’re establishing a provincial human trafficking prosecution team . We’re expanding a quick victim response team and enhancing the Victim Crisis Assistance Ontario program. Many other initiatives are under way that I can speak to in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is just a message, because there is no action. I’m going to go back to the Attorney General. I’ll remind the Attorney General that his own predecessor is on record as saying, “We don’t know enough about human trafficking.” Front-line service providers and workers do know, and they are exasperated that there is still nothing advancing the law to support them in fighting this horrific crime. In fact, the legislative measures in my private member’s bill, such as a protection order, could have directly protected the victim in Hamilton I just mentioned. Legal changes and awareness efforts are part of the solution.

My question to the government is simple: Will you bring the Saving the Girl Next Door Act up for debate at committee, and will you support it through to the end?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: This member was part of the round table on sexual violence and harassment. She was very active in that, and I acknowledge her efforts for that. But she also knows that our strategy is comprehensive, multi-ministry and involves a lot of different investments, and there are dedicated resources and a coordinated planning process. So our strategy is much, much broader than creating a task force or the legislative changes in her Bill 158.

A cornerstone of the strategy, as I mentioned, is the human anti-trafficking office. It requires a lot of work by different ministries, different levels of government and police forces. This is complicated. It will take time to solve, but we’ve already taken steps. We’re investing across the system. I hope she joins me in supporting the investments we’re making to end this horrible crime.

Water supply

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Water should be a public trust. Last week, I met with people from Guelph, including two city councillors, who are very concerned about the government’s rubber stamping of permits to take water. It’s clear that we need an Ontario water strategy to ensure that there is enough clean water for people today and for generations to come. We need to see change now.

The President of Treasury Board thinks concerns about water are based on misinformation. Does the rest of the government feel the same way, Speaker?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you to the honourable member opposite for the question. We have been doing a lot of work on zero waste and climate change and probably have about the heaviest environmental legislative agenda of just about any government in many, many years. This is the intersection of all of those problems. There are waste issues, there are environmental issues, and, with the terrible droughts that we’re having in climate change, we know these are going to become acute.

We’ve been working very hard over the last year with environmental groups and with industry. We will soon be bringing forward a very aggressive program to protect groundwater, to ensure issues of water pricing.

I am very interested in hearing from the parties opposite and the member opposite. I would be happy to sit down with her to ensure that the input of her party is reflected in the actions of the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What seems worrisome to myself and others is that the government seems to think that the way to protect water for generations to come is to simply charge more. Well, that’s not good enough, Speaker, because that simply means it goes to the highest bidder. Instead of ensuring that there’s good, clean water for drinking, growing food and sanitation, it’s just going to be about who can pay a higher price.

People deserve a real strategy that puts the public interest first, that’s based on the idea that all Ontarians should be able to access clean water, that has sustainable long-term planning and that isn’t based on commodifying one of our most precious resources. Absolutely, it’s time for a full review of the permit-to-take-water system and a comprehensive, evidence-based Ontario water strategy to ensure access to clean water for all Ontarians in this generation and for generations to come. Does this government agree?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Yes, we agree. To go further than that, I take that as very constructive criticism from the leader of the third party, and I appreciate it. I share her concerns. She is quite correct, as far as I am concerned, that simply charging for water is not the solution. It is more complex.

As the member for Guelph has expressed, we have a complex farm, agricultural and food community here. We know that our food security and our water security and the great work that farmers do and the great work that’s being done by OMAFRA and the University of Guelph is also important. We don’t see the agriculture and food industries here as the problem; we see them as important parts. I think the member from Guelph has articulated that.

She has also articulated to me the importance of water conservation because she is very aware that in her area, as in the Cambridge area, they have some of the most water-stressed areas in the province. We have to look at this through the lens of water stress and the role of municipalities in being able to manage regional water. I think the member opposite will be happy to see all those things reflected in our actions.

Human trafficking

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is to the minister responsible for women’s issues. The media has been reporting that Ontario has become a hub for human trafficking. Every day, more victims are being forced into the sex-trade industry and trafficked across the province and the country.

Human trafficking is a deplorable crime that has long-lasting sociological and psychological impacts on survivors. It overwhelmingly targets young women, girls, boys and, particularly, those in indigenous communities.

I know our government takes this issue very seriously and recognizes the devastating impact human trafficking has on victims and their families. Minister, could you tell me what steps you are taking towards combatting the heinous crime of human trafficking in our province?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Brampton–Springdale. Again, it’s an important question on this very serious issue of human trafficking. We know that some of the most vulnerable people in our society are at the greatest risk of being trafficked, and it’s our duty to act decisively and effectively to protect them from exploitation.

Human trafficking, in all its forms, cannot be tolerated. That’s why we are making the investment of up to $72 million. I want to say two things about that, Speaker: It’s focused on supporting survivors and it’s focused on holding offenders accountable for their horrific actions. We will not tolerate this. So we will have more support for survivors and more mechanisms in place to hold offenders accountable.

I’ll speak more in the supplementary about the different aspects of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to thank the minister for her answer and for the hard work she has been doing to make our province safer from human traffickers. I know that the minister has been working with other members of cabinet on various initiatives that will make Ontario a safer province. These collaborations across ministries are important to ensuring that our most vulnerable members of society are protected from traffickers, that human traffickers are caught, and that we have strong supports in place for survivors.

Can the minister please describe some of her work across government to address these important issues?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Again, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of the measures we’re putting in place to combat this horrific crime. For example, with the Ministry of the Attorney General, we’re working on enhanced justice initiatives to support effective prosecution of human trafficking crimes. We’ve already begun to hire crown prosecutors for a provincial human trafficking prosecution team. With our Ministry of Children and Youth Services, we are strengthening support for youth leaving children’s aid societies, and we are enhancing protocols between children’s aid societies and police services.

These are just a