Journal des débats 2012-avril-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: First off, I was pleased to see the Speaker enter the chamber this morning sans cane, and I trust that you’re feeling better and are recovering and healing, so it’s great to see that you’re feeling great.

Speaker, I’m pleased to stand today on behalf of the New Democratic caucus to speak on Bill 19 to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, which the government claims the aim is to make rent more affordable and more predictable. The government proposes a rent increase cap for private landlords in the very profitable rental housing industry at 2.5%.

Speaker, I forgot to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kelowna—Kenora–Rainy River. Kelowna is a wonderful place as well, Mr. Speaker, it really is. But Kenora–Rainy River—they don’t have a Rainy River in Kelowna.

The government proposes a rent increase cap for private landlords in the very profitable rental housing industry at 2.5%. When I say “very profitable,” the private rental housing industry is one of the only industries that has consistently proven to make money due to rising property values.

Bill 19 will do almost nothing to address Ontario’s crisis in affordable housing or provide for Ontario tenants’ right to livable, well-repaired and safe units. Further, Bill 19 will not deal with the over 50,000 to 60,000 units that were exempted from rent control provisions. This failed experiment to exempt certain units from rent control was supposed to foster a climate to produce more affordable units, and that just never happened, Mr. Speaker. And Bill 19 is not retroactive. It does nothing to protect those tenants who have already undergone this year’s rental increase in accordance with the guidelines.

Speaker, Ontario’s most vulnerable are tenants, and in no particular order they are also seniors; they are children; they are single parents raising families; they are the working poor; they are those on social assistance, like Ontario Works; they are the disabled; they are immigrants, refugees and people of colour. I also wonder, Speaker, if the government has turned their mind to what affordable means to the most vulnerable.

Speaker, as I stand before you with the same concerns as my colleagues in the NDP, I truly believe that the government here has missed the mark on their efforts to make housing more affordable and more accessible. For instance, 1.3 million Ontarians pay more than 30% of their income on housing; 120,000 Ontario families live in overcrowded conditions; 80,000 Ontarians live in substandard or unsafe housing that requires major repair; and at that time, 142,000 were on the affordable housing wait-list, and that has grown to 152,000 households on the wait-list, and growing. On average, the wait is 10 years to get into affordable housing. People die waiting to get into these affordable housing units.

The insecurity today, compounding the lack of affordable housing, because of the risk utility costs, such as hydro and gas bills—energy costs will increase another 50%. One of the reasons I am so proud to stand on this side of the House, as the only party that has taken the effort from the outset of this Parliament to introduce a measure that would offer tenants and offer Ontarians a break, finally—that’s something that we haven’t heard, certainly for eight years, at this level—a break in their home heating costs, where we know those costs are ever-escalating and they add to the burden that is managing a household budget.

We also see on this side of the House that home heating, particularly in Canada, is something that we shouldn’t necessarily allow corporations to gouge our residents on. It’s something that is a necessity, certainly in the northern regions of our province, where folks heat with oil, likewise in all the other regions of the province. In some areas, folks have to determine whether they pay for their heating or pay for food. That is a reality. It may sound clichéd, but it is a reality in today’s economy where so many are out of work and so many struggle to just get by.

The income level of Ontarians is stagnating and declining. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to keep the rent increase guidelines in line with what was happening in the real world for tenants. In the real world, tenants are losing their jobs, facing demands for wage freezes and rollbacks or living with a zero increase on social assistance. We know that has been the prescription by this government in terms of tackling the deficit. They tend to want to place that burden more and more on those who can afford it less and less. In the real world, the average rent is over $1,100 for a two-bedroom apartment, and there is no limit on what a landlord can charge a new incoming tenant.

Even those who are well employed or seniors, who have to work hard all their lives, are feeling the pinch with the cost of living. The middle class is shrinking, of course. Half of all tenants spend more than 50% of their income on rent, and there are tenants who are making the choice between groceries, medication costs, sending their children on class trips or signing their children up for music or sporting activities rather than their rent.

Good housing is basic to individual and population health, as bad housing policy leads to a heavy burden of poor health, premature death and increased costs. Dr. Gary Bloch, a family physician and University of Toronto professor who founded Health Providers Against Poverty, said in a March 28 news article—he makes the link between poverty to the much-needed social supports for those on low income and the enormous damage to his patients’ health. He is quoted as saying, “And I worry this will result in our society being less healthy, which should be the number one goal of the government.” And shouldn’t it be the number one goal of society, not only of governance, but our neighbours?

0910

Mr. Speaker, I’ve always approached my politics quite simply as wondering that—you know, I take into consideration my neighbours, my neighbours to the left of me, my neighbours to the right of me, not in the political sense but in the literal sense. I figure if the neighbour to the left of me is struggling, which they are, finding it hard to find a job or having to have three jobs, finding it hard to make ends meet, and the neighbour to the right of me is struggling as well, then what I figure is that I’m either taking too much or not giving enough.

Certainly, in light of the government’s actions in the recent budget, we see that there is really no balance. They certainly are taking too much from those who can least afford it and definitely not giving enough to those who need it. That’s why, once again, I am so proud to stand on this side to offer some real, constructive proposals to the government side, and I hear and I sense that there’s a little bit of—they’ve had some auditory engagement here. Their ears are a little bit more open than I think they ever have been. I see the member listening. He is listening intently, and I thank him for that, because not only are these provisions and proposals that I think will do them well as a government, bringing back some measure of respect—

Mr. Jeff Leal: My mother always told me to listen.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: That is a good thing, and it’s never too late to start, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the member will start listening today, as we are on the verge of what could bring us into another election. But yet again, I think that the ideas, particularly around increasing the inventory of affordable housing in this province, an issue that’s come before us at a time where it’s critical, where our economy has really clobbered the most vulnerable in this province, those working poor or those who had lost their jobs after years of secure employment—we have to acknowledge that. It’s an investment. It is a provision within this province that I think will trickle up.

There’s something that you never really hear about: What about the trickle-up effect? What about when we take care of the poor? What about when we take care of those who need assistance, that it actually helps society get better on the way up? It’s something that I think is never factored in in this House, that we can actually help those at the bottom, and by doing so, it helps everyone else. That’s why I use the reference to my neighbours. I know that if I’m able to dedicate my life and my resources and ensure that my actions are contributing to some fairness in the society, my neighbour to the left of me and my neighbour to the right of me are going to be doing all right. It may sound altruistic but it’s certainly something that I think we can use more of in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve spoken just briefly on this bill. I will pass my time to the member from Kenora–Rainy River. I appreciate the time given to speak on the bill. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Kenora–Rainy River.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to speak on Bill 19, an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act, especially with regard to capping annual rent increases from 1% to 2.5%. In preparing for my discussion today, I spent a lot of time going over the remarks of my colleague the MPP for Welland on this subject. I believe she raised a number of important points about this bill and the affordable housing crisis that is facing our province. But rather than repeat the member for Welland’s remarks, I will try to build on them and I’ll try to bring a northern perspective to the table, because the challenges that we face in the north with regard to affordable housing are at times very similar but at other times very different than those being faced by members in southern Ontario. I dare say that, in my region, a rent increase cap might be a little less effective than proposing a cap on utility bill increases, which is something that I’ll touch on a little later in my speech.

But before I go too far, I do want to draw a distinction, which I think that my party does quite eloquently, between the rhetoric that’s been used in this debate—so much of the rhetoric in this debate has been focusing on the term “landlord.” I want to be quite clear that there are some exceptionally good landlords out there. Generally, these landlords aren’t looking to make a huge profit or living off of their properties, but instead are in situations where maybe their piece of property is more than one building, which is actually quite common in my region, or they’ve either moved out of town and they were unable to sell their property, or various other circumstances that have led them to focus more so on paying their expenses rather than profiting on the backs of others.

I do think that my party does a pretty good job of making this distinction in its proposal to require those who rent out six or more units to be a licensed landlord in the province. I think it draws a fairly clear distinction between those who may, for one reason or another, own a couple of properties and those who are actually in the business to make a profit.

I’d also like to say that there are many good landlords out there who do profit from their investments but do so in a way that’s respectful of their tenants and their tenants’ needs. In fact, there are many instances where landlords have had their property destroyed by bad tenants and have been forced to incur costs that are well above anything that they could ever possibly recover from the tenant to repair or replace the unit. So I just wanted to make that distinction.

There are good landlords and there are bad landlords, just as there are good tenants and bad tenants. Ideally, the Residential Tenancies Act would protect both sides in a fair and respectful manner. But with that in mind, I’d like to look at some of the concerns I have with this bill and the Residential Tenancies Act in general.

One of my greatest concerns is lack of consistency, both for tenants in general and those seeking affordable housing. When an individual is looking for a house or an apartment to rent, they have to look at two completely different models: those that are all-inclusive versus those where utilities and rent are actually separate.

I think it’s fair to say for many people who may be starting out—and it may be true for all people—that determining this difference in value can be quite difficult. It’s difficult, for those who are looking for a place to rent where utilities are not included, to really determine, based on the former tenant’s bill, whether their costs will be in line with that or not. Some people look at the former tenant’s bill and say, “Well, I’m frugal. I don’t use this or that. I don’t use a lot of electricity. I’m sure I can keep my costs down. I may be more accustomed to living in a cooler climate.” But then they can be hit with an exceptionally high bill shortly thereafter. The same could be said for landlords who rent their premises as an all-inclusive sort of deal.

I know of a situation, and actually it’s a little comical. It was with my husband before we met. He was renting a unit. What happened was that one day his landlord approached him, and she was concerned about the high consumption of electricity that he was using in the apartment. This was after she had already gone to Hydro One and asked what could possibly cause this spike of hydro. She was concerned that he had a grow op going on, because the spike had been so high.

Interjection.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Turns out it was a coffee maker. You would not think that a coffee maker would cause that kind of a spike, but my husband drinks a lot of coffee, so he had it plugged in most of the time. So what she ended up doing in that situation, to kind of minimize the costs that she was spending, was she bought a very expensive, energy-efficient coffee maker to bring those costs down. Of course, with the cost of hydro soaring so much in recent years, I’m sure more and more landlords are moving away from this all-inclusive model, because it simply poses too much risk and it’s just too expensive. Especially where I live, it’s very much the case.

In my region, I’m not so convinced that this proposed amendment is going to make that big a difference. With the downturn in the forest industry, many communities in my region have a substantial number of vacancies, and there are a number of opportunities for individuals to rent places for near cost, simply because the real estate market has tanked. There are many people who need to leave the community to find a job elsewhere, but they’re unable to sell their house, so they’re forced to rent it. It’s very hard to sell a house, as I said, when the industry has taken a hit. People aren’t buying houses, and we’re seeing houses that go for over $100,000, $150,000, selling for as little as $20,000 to $25,000.

0920

So it’s difficult for people who are renting multiple complexes or complexes with multiple units to make a profit and to sell those. This situation is really quite different from what’s happening in Toronto right now, where you have very profitable hotels that are being shut down in order that condos can be built.

Utilities, on the other hand, are a real killer in our region. The price of electricity has gone through the roof, and so has the price of fuel, such as home heating oil and also electricity. That too is another thing that people don’t necessarily think about when they are looking to rent a place. I know I have an experience where I rented a very small place in rural northwestern Ontario, outside of any kind of formal municipality. It was a small 800-square-foot place, and my monthly bills were in the range of $500 to $700 just to heat the building, and that was not including any electricity or anything like that.

I would like to touch a little bit on affordable housing, as my colleague from Welland very aptly and skilfully discussed the other day. The truth is that many of the affordable housing units that we have built in this province, at least where I live, were built 30 to 40 years ago. They were built quickly and they were built cheaply. So, in many cases, they’re insulated poorly. They’re poorly ventilated, and some of these units have the electricity and the heat included, others do not.

So here we have a situation—I know when I was a constituency assistant, before I ran in the Legislature, I had a couple people from Red Lake call down, and they were very concerned, because they didn’t have a lot of money. Their subsidized rent was about $85 a month, but their hydro bills, when they came in, were in the neighbourhood of $700 to $800. How does that make sense? When I talked to the area district services board, who provide the subsidized housing units, they said that unfortunately they aren’t able to provide it for everybody, and for those folks in those units that they do provide everything included, sometimes they’re subsidizing in the neighbourhood of $3,000 a month just for electricity.

The point that I’m trying to make is that this bill does go a ways towards capping some of the profits that landlords can make, but it does very little for those who can afford to rent the least, whose utilities are already spiralling out of control. I’d like to see this bill do more to address that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: It was interesting. I listened very, very intently to the member from Essex and to the member from Kenora–Rainy River. They made a significant contribution to the debate on Bill 19 this morning.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, if we roll back the clock to 1975, it was then that Stephen Lewis, who had become the Leader of the Opposition after the 1975 provincial election, pressed the Davis government to bring in rent controls in the province of Ontario. That was the product of co-operation in a minority government, the kind of co-operation that we’re fostering each and every day that we’re in this chamber.

But you know what’s really important to the people who rent in the province of Ontario? Stats Canada released some information this morning that is terrific for Ontario. Ontario posted employment gains of 46,000, all full-time jobs, in March. It reduced the unemployment in the province of Ontario from 7.4% to 7.2%, the lowest in three years. Since March 2011, Ontario has increased employment by 1.3%—over 89,000 new jobs in the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. That is good news.

I certainly want to make sure that the members of the opposition—of course, they have some problems with Stats Canada. Their federal brother in Ottawa, when they were posting Stats Canada reports, threw that guy right under the bus because they didn’t like the work that they were producing on a month-to-month basis.

It’s really interesting. We bring in a budget the last week of March; 46,000 new jobs during the month of March. Mr. Speaker, we’re providing the platform for growth in the province of Ontario, something that’s so important for people who rent in the province of Ontario, because when the economy is solid, people are making new investments in rental housing across the province of Ontario, and certainly providing the opportunity for more people to rent as more people have jobs in this great province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: It was like listening to stereo this morning, with the member from Essex and the member from Kenora–Rainy River. To some extent, I admire and respect the fact that they stand here for “people of modest means,” as they describe it themselves. And I do think it’s shameful that your husband keeps leaving the coffee maker on; I would say that. That’s shameful. It’s costing you a fortune.

First, I want to start by saying that this is very important: This is Easter weekend, and I wish everyone a happy Easter. I hope the bunny is good to them. But I’m not surprised that Dalton McGuinty is not good to us. In fact, this is what this bill is about. What it does—there’s nothing in this bill. I don’t know why we’re spending this much time on it. All it actually does—I’m going to read it to you. There’s one section; actually, it’s half a page. You could download this bill and it would cost you two cents, and it doesn’t do very much. Here’s what it does. One clause, this is all it does; I’m going to read it to you: “The guideline for a calendar year” should not be less than 1% and not more than 2.5%. That’s all it does. It’s a rent guideline.

So we support it. I have no idea why we’re spending this much time, when the economy of Ontario is going over the cliff. What’s more important, the underlying cause here, as we approach Easter, is that there’s 600,000 families that can’t afford to live here any more, in Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities is an elitist; I get that. He’s a Toronto-based condominium type person, and probably quite wealthy, and it’s not affecting him. It’s my constituents that I’m standing up for, who can no longer afford to pay the electricity bill in their apartment. This is the truth of what I speak to, and it’s a shame that this morning we’re wasting this much time on such trivia.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: This morning I just wanted to introduce a particular seniors’ group out of Elliot Lake who are very active in the community and speaking on behalf of seniors. They’re called the Seniors’ Action Group of Elliot Lake. They, along with many other seniors’ groups in Algoma–Manitoulin, have really grave concerns when it comes to affordable rent, making the proper choices at the end of the month, looking at, “Am I paying my full prescription? Am I paying half my prescription? Am I going to be able to meet the rent at the end of the month? How much of an interaction am I going to have with my landlord?”

I just want to go back to the comment that my colleague from Kenora–Rainy River made in regard to the coffee machine. How many of you actually think that that coffee machine is on to heat the home? Well, I’ll give you another perspective, which is actually a factual one. That coffee cup that they warm up every morning actually warms up their hands, because they’re making the choice of closing their power or their hydro or their heating sources inside of their apartment, and this is them taking that opportunity to warm up their elderly hands. That’s factual. That’s happening right now.

So some of these changes, yes, they’re light-hearted, but you know, in hindsight it actually is happening. So we need to make those changes. We need to make what is required in order to help a lot of our community members. I commend this group. They’re referred to as SAGE; again, they’re the Seniors’ Action Group of Elliot Lake. They are a fantastic organization that are really big advocates for issues and concerns that are affecting not only seniors in Elliot Lake but the community of Elliot Lake. I take my hat off to them and I look forward to working with them and listening to a lot more of their input that they can provide to me so I can do my job effectively here.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Oak Ridges–Markham.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s certainly a pleasure to rise just for a brief time in support of Bill 19 and to comment on the remarks made by the member for Essex and the member for Kenora–Rainy River. Why I’m so proud to be a member of this government is because I think this Bill 19 shows clearly that we have a very balanced and prudent approach to matters. What we’re doing here is a matter of protection for both the tenant and the landlord. There are two parties obviously involved, and I just say to the member for Durham, who finds this bill trivial, I don’t think that 29% of all households in Ontario which in fact are tenant households—that’s well over a million households—would find this particular bill trivial.

0930

It’s clearly something that is going to continue: our very responsible way of allowing affordable housing and stable housing for renters during these somewhat turbulent economic times. I think it shows that balanced approach that we’ve adopted over the last five years.

I think it’s interesting to note that average rent increases over the last five years have only been 1.7%. Actually, since I have a number of figures here, I did do the average during the NDP time in government. The average rent increase between 1991 and 1995, I’ve calculated at some 4.5%. So, in a similar economic downturn, I think it’s quite clear our government has in fact made rental housing even more affordable.

This rent guideline, capping rents at 2.5%, not falling below 1%, is a good balance for both the landlord and tenants. I urge all members to support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Essex, you have two minutes to respond—the member for Kenora–Rainy River.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I’d like to address some of the comments that were made here. I would like to thank the members from Peterborough, Durham, Algoma–Manitoulin and Oak Ridges–Markham for their comments, and I’d just like to comment on a few of them.

I know the member from Peterborough talks about how we just—we’re exploding with jobs in Ontario. I’m not sure where their Ontario ends, but I can tell you that it definitely doesn’t include the northwest, because we are not rolling in jobs.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Or the southwest.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Or the southwest, right. Maybe just the GTA, maybe it doesn’t go much beyond there.

With regard to the comment from the member from Durham, I think part of it is, when people think about their energy consumption, they think of things like, “Am I leaving the oven on a lot? Do I have the heat turned unnecessarily high?” They don’t think about something like a coffee maker. I think most people are kind of blown away to realize how much electricity a coffee maker actually uses. But I can tell you, since that conversation with this landlord, he actually returned the coffee maker to her and he bought a carafe, which we use all the time, and he gets a lecture quite often about keeping the coffee maker on too much. But I do agree with the member from Durham when he talks about how this bill does very little. I mean, it caps increases, but it doesn’t do much for the people who are already struggling to make ends meet. It doesn’t mean a lot in the grand scheme of things.

I know that the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities didn’t speak formally, but I heard his interjections that if we think that the economy is bad here, we should perhaps move to Michigan and see how bad things can really be. I’m just wondering, is that really the position of this government, that we should model our economy after what’s happening in Michigan? Maybe we try to raise the bar a little bit more, and I respectfully suggest that maybe we raise that bar.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings to announce that there has been more than six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader indicates otherwise. Government House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, we would like the debate to continue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member from Mississauga East–Cooksville.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak. I’d like to thank everybody else who has spoken. Although, I’m a little baffled as to what coffee makers have to do with Bill 19, which is primarily about regulating the guidelines on how we set rent increases. Anyway, I guess I will just add that I would like to speak to the member after to find out why she’s talking about coffee makers and not about this particular bill.

I’m delighted to speak to Bill 19, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, 2012. This is a bill that is very important to my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville. Anyone who has recently visited Mississauga will know that it’s no longer a sleepy suburb of Toronto. Instead, it’s a very happening town, with its own downtown core full of high-rises, including the stunning Marilyn Monroe building, which has given Mississauga a very easy-to-identify skyline. I know that my fellow members from Mississauga—from Mississauga South and Mississauga–Erindale—will agree that I think Mississauga today has a much more distinctive skyline than the city of Toronto.

Interjection: I agree with you completely.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you.

I’m delighted that all of this is in my riding. I’m indeed privileged to have the downtown core as part of my riding. That includes Square One—which, by the way, gets more visitors than even Niagara Falls per year. I’m very proud of that.

Interjection: Let’s put a casino there.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’d be happy to host one—city hall, the Living Arts Centre, the Art Gallery of Mississauga, Hammerson Hall, and the list goes on.

All of this is to say that my riding has a large number of high-rises. It’s an urban, downtown core with a lot of rental buildings. So anything to do with rent guidelines is of huge importance to me and the folks in my riding.

This proposed legislation is an excellent piece of legislation that balances the concerns of tenants with those of landlords, because this balance is key to any sustainable system that ensures that rents remain affordable.

Before I launch into the specifics of the bill, I would like to take a few minutes to paint an overall picture of rental housing in this province. I’ll start off by saying that this issue is important to me and my riding, but I also know that there is probably no corner of Ontario that does not have renters. From the smallest towns and villages of Ontario to Toronto, there are renters everywhere. Young families saving up to buy their first home, new immigrants moving into their first home, students studying far away from home, young people on their first jobs, people struggling to make ends meet who cannot afford a place of their own, newly divorced or separated people struggling with their new circumstances: Renters come in all ages and all demographics.

I have myself been a renter, as a new immigrant and as a student. I still remember the excitement of being able to move out of my basement apartment in North York on Micmac Crescent to renting a brand new condo on Mclevin Avenue in Scarborough. I still remember the excitement of feeling that I was moving up in life when I rented a small bachelor unit at Harbour Square overlooking the lake right here in downtown Toronto. I still remember the rent back then in 1996. It was $900 a month, including a parking spot. A few months later, the excitement wore off as I realized that if I was ever going to be able to save enough money to buy my own place, I could not pay so much in rent, and so, quite reluctantly, I moved from the ritzy place downtown, right on the lake, to a place where the rent was lower but the view was no longer the lake.

So I know all about the opportunity cost of renting and how important it is to make sure that rents are affordable, whether it is for a new immigrant who is working two jobs to make ends meet, a young family saving to buy their own place, a single parent struggling to make do on one salary, a senior on a fixed income, or any Ontarian, for that matter, who is renting.

Just how many people rent in Ontario? Well, about 29% of all Ontario households rent. That means that about a third of Ontario households or families live in rental units. This includes private rentals, social housing and transitional housing. To put a number on it, there would be about 1.3 million households that rent in Ontario. This bill that we are debating would cover about a million of these households. So, Speaker, this is a really important bill when you think about the fact that it’s going to impact close to a million families in Ontario.

The goal of this bill is very, very simple. It provides stability to rents in Ontario. Under the current system, rents are indexed to inflation or, more accurately, the consumer price index. Put quite simply, annual rent increases move with the rate of inflation. This has worked quite well in the past, but recent fluctuations in Ontario’s consumer price index have resulted in a 2012 guideline that does not reflect the economic circumstances of those who rent. These proposed amendments will change the rent increase guideline to provide more certainty, both to renters and landlords.

0940

What exactly is the new guideline? I know we’ve talked about it a little bit in this chamber already, but I’d like to very quickly go over it. Essentially, the guideline remains the same, but what we are doing is, we are providing a floor and a ceiling to it. What this means is that in years when the inflation rate is such that the rental guideline increase under the current rules would be less than 1%, the rental increase floor would be 1%. What this does is it ensures that landlords get a reasonable rate of return on their investments. Conversely, should inflation be runaway so that the current formula results in rent increases greater than 2.5%, the increase will be limited to 2.5%. The proposed changes, if passed, would provide stability and affordability for renters during these uncertain economic times, and at the same time recognize that landlords require modest rent increases so that they have an incentive to maintain their rental properties.

The bill also has another provision. It would require that the annual rent increase guideline formula be reviewed every four years. I think this is a very, very important clause in here, to allow for a regular review as time, circumstances and the economy change. Maintaining the current guideline formula—just provide a floor and a ceiling—is what essentially this bill is about.

So why are we making these changes? These changes are important, given our current economic circumstances. I’m proud to say that under the Liberal government, on average, rent increases have been very modest of late, yet there have been some swings in the rent increases that make planning and budgeting difficult. Let me give you an example. In 2011, the rent increase was minimal. In fact, it’s the lowest rent increase on record; it was 0.7%. But in 2012, under the current guidelines, it was 3.1%, so that’s quite a bit of a swing. While the rent increases themselves may not be outrageous, it’s the swing between 0.7% in 2011 and 3.1% in 2012 which makes it difficult for renters to budget their money.

When averaged out, the average rent increase over the past five years has been a reasonable 1.7%. Like I said, it’s the year-to-year swings that can be challenging for people, especially those who are on a fixed income or on very tight budgets. What this bill does is let a renter know that, at most, her rent will increase by between 1% and 2.5%. It lets the landlords know that at the very least they will get a 1% rent increase. It provides two things that everyone needs, especially people on tight budgets: stability and reasonability.

I said earlier that this bill is also fair to landlords, because not only does it allow a 1% floor; it also allows landlords to increase the rent by more than 2.5% by applying to the Landlord and Tenant Board for above-guideline rent increases in cases, for example, of extraordinary increases in municipal taxes and charges, in cases of capital expenses that are allowable, or increased costs related to security services.

This bill is just another positive step in the long list of things this Liberal government has done to help renters across Ontario. Our record speaks for itself. The Residential Tenancies Act in 2006 established strong rent regulations to keep rent affordable for tenants. We have afforded tenants across Ontario the lowest year-over-year increase of any government in recent memory, at an average of just 1.9%, and as I mentioned earlier, last year the rent increase was just 0.7%, the lowest on record in the history of Ontario.

As always, this bill is the result of broad consultation. We have heard from thousands of tenants, landlords and housing providers before coming up with these changes. Personally, I know that this is just the sort of thing that people in my riding need: affordable, predictable rent increases.

I wholeheartedly support this bill. It is about the lives of everyday Ontarians, making their lives just a little bit better. In an inherently uncertain world, what this bill tries to do is to inject a little bit of certainty—and I don’t know how anybody can argue against this—certainty and reasonable rents for my friends and constituents who live on Paisley Boulevard; certainty and reasonable rents for my friends and constituents who live along Bloor Street just east of Dixie; certainty and reasonable rents for my constituents who live along Bloor Street just west of Dixie; certainty and reasonable rents for the many students and young professionals who rent in the downtown core in the new high-rises all around Square One.

As many of you know, my riding houses the wonderful Sheridan College, so we have a lot of young people now in Mississauga in the downtown core, living there, pursuing their college and university degrees for three, four years. They rent a lot of spaces in my riding, and it’s really important that I be able to advocate on their behalf and ensure that their rents are affordable.

Certainty and reasonable rents for the folks who live along Hurontario in all those high-rises that dot that street in my riding from the 403 to the Queensway; certainty and reasonable rents for my friends who live in all those buildings along Confederation Parkway; certainty and reasonable rents for my friends who live in Park Tower; certainty and reasonable rents for my constituents who live in all those Kaneff buildings in my riding; certainty and reasonable rents for all my folks who live in the iconic Absolute towers; certainty and reasonable rents for all my friends who live off Havenwood and those who live off Dundas; certainty and reasonable rents for all those people who live on Mississauga Valley Boulevard—Speaker, I could keep going on and on because there is no end to the number of rental buildings in my riding. There are so many rental and condo buildings in my riding, and certainty and reasonable rents for so many people cannot be anything but good, not just for people in my riding but for people all across Ontario.

The reason I know the names of every street in my riding is simple. It is because I have visited every building in my riding not once but multiple times. I have knocked on their doors and listened to their concerns, and I know that affordable rent is very, very important for every single constituent of mine.

It is so important for you folks back home that you can have some extra money left over for a piano class. That’s what this bill is about. It’s about ensuring that people on tight budgets can budget properly and have a little bit of money left over for those extra things that make life a little bit better: a little bit of extra money so your daughter can go to that math class; a little bit of extra money left so that when you finally make that trip home, you can buy gifts for the folks back home; a little bit of extra money to buy the pretty dress your daughter has been bugging you for; a little bit of extra money left over so that you can save some money for the down payment you need to buy that home you have always wanted.

Mr. Speaker, this is essentially what this bill is about. It’s about allowing us a chance to chase our dreams, small and big, and turn that into a reality. That is what this bill at its very essence is about. It’s a little disappointing when members on the opposite side try and turn this into an issue about heating or electricity. Those are all good issues, but I think this bill should be debated on its own merits, which is about providing certainty and reasonable rents for Ontarians—for every Ontarian across this province. It would be nice if the debate could be limited to the basic premise of this bill rather than talking about home heating or coffee makers or whatever else it is that my respected colleagues on the other side want to talk about.

This bill is very simple and I really hope that it will have the support of the entire House. I really cannot find anything wrong with it. All we are doing is ensuring that the rents are pegged to inflation, but we provide a floor and a ceiling and we make sure that it’s fair to landlords as well, so that reasonable housing stock in Ontario for rental buildings continues to grow and everybody has a good, reasonable return when they are a landlord.

I know that many of us here are renters. Many of you rent here and I’m sure you would appreciate that your rents, wherever they are in downtown Toronto—I know many of you are from ridings across the province and you rent downtown here. I’m sure you would appreciate the certainty as well.

So let’s just stick to the facts and let’s not muddy the waters by discussing all sorts of irrelevant issues that have absolutely nothing to do with this bill.

I have been talking to renters in my riding about this bill. I have been telling them that this is a great bill but it’s conditional: It can only pass the House if we get support from across the aisle. So they’re counting on you folks to vote in support of this bill so that they can be assured that they will have affordable housing.

0950

In conclusion, Speaker, all I’m going to say one more time is that this bill is about allowing Ontarians a little bit of flexibility, letting them have a little bit of money left in their budget so that they can save for the future; so that they can provide an education for their children; so that they can buy that home they’ve always wanted; so that if they’ve immigrated, Canada does truly become the land of their dreams and they can own their own home. That is what this bill is about.

I’m really looking forward to all-party support. This is one of those good, motherhood bills. There’s absolutely nothing wrong. It’s fiscally prudent, and I look forward to support from everybody.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 19. Rental affordability is an important aspect of quality of life for Ontarians. It’s understandable that we should be concerned with it and that we would work to ensure that rental rates stay reasonable.

Maybe it’s a given that we are disappointed from time to time. I think this is a thin bill that is doubtful to change anything. It doesn’t appear to address some of the pressing issues that are facing landlords and tenants across the province at the moment, and it seems like evidence of the growing disconnect between the government and the people of Ontario.

Bill 19 doesn’t appear to contain measures that would do anything to create more affordable housing spaces or help municipalities cope with the mounting costs of operating their existing stock of affordable housing. It won’t help open up new rental units or encourage landlords who are wrestling with the mounting burden of HST and skyrocketing hydro costs.

My predecessor, Joyce Savoline, who watched over this portfolio in her capacity as PC municipal affairs critic, cautioned the government time and time again that Ontario’s rental housing stock was eroding as a side effect of the arrival of the HST. To that, I would add that the side effects of the government’s extravagant green energy policy and its lavish feed-in tariff program have made matters worse.

Now the government is asking tenants to absorb the cost of the government’s blue-sky energy policy. If this government wants to help tenants and landlords in Ontario, it can start by returning the attention of the House to Bill 4. That bill was approved by the majority of this House, and it deserves to be brought back here for third reading. I will not, however, be supporting Bill 19.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to stand to respond to the comments from my colleague from Mississauga East–Cooksville. She mentioned a couple of issues in regards to families having a little bit of extra money at the end of the day for that dress that my daughter has been bugging me for. How did you know my daughter’s been bugging me for a dress? Except, we’ve got to add the HST on to that. What about those piano lessons that I’d love to put my son in? We have to add the HST on top of that. What about some of the soccer lessons and all the other incidentals that we’d love to provide for our families? Yet, on top of that, we have to add the HST on to everything—one of the measures that this government was in cahoots with their federal partners in enacting on the backs of the residents of this province.

The other thing she mentioned a couple of times was the certainty of reasonable rents—I think I’m quoting you well—certainty in reasonable rents. Of course, we would all love to have certainty in every measure of our lives. I’d certainly like to know how long I’m going to be on this earth for, and I certainly would like it to be for another 100 years, but that’s not reasonable.

We do agree that there has to be some certainty, but there’s some hypocrisy in that message. There’s some hypocrisy in those talking points, because at the same time you’re saying that you’re going to provide certainty in rents, from 1% to 2.5%, you’re saying that for all public sector workers, there is no certainty that their wages are going to be increased—no certainty whatsoever.

What you’re saying in fact is, the only certainty is that you’re not going to be able to afford the things you did the day before we enact this budget. That is really sending a signal that times are going to be tougher under this Liberal government, under the budget as it is proposed today. That’s why we’re pleased to bring in some other measures that maybe will give the certainty that people can live affordably and comfortably, with dignity and respect.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m not sure what province some of the members opposite are living in.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, we just had 46,000 full-time jobs created this month in this province and over 3,000 part-time jobs. That’s a record that neither party opposite—certainly, it takes many years for Manitoba to create that many jobs, and I know a little bit more about that than many members here.

We have arguably the biggest construction boom going on in the city. You cannot walk a block without seeing a half a dozen tower cranes. There is no city in North America or in the Western world right now that has the construction boom that this province has—dramatic growth rate.

You’re right: It’s because of this party. We’re in favour of the HST, as is the party opposite’s federal cousin. That reduced the friction of investment.

If these folks actually understood the economy, Mr. Speaker, they would have to do nothing more than walk three blocks, knock on one of the construction companies and ask the manager of the property—the member from Burlington should do this—about what the impact of the HST has been on reducing the cost of construction, which is then passed on to tenants in lower rent.

My mother, who is about to become one of Ontario’s newest citizens, is out looking for apartments this week, and she finds it extraordinarily affordable, high quality, loves the city. I think she’s more enthusiastic, Mr. Speaker, about this province than many of the members opposite. We sometimes in our generation take for granted the extraordinary economic boom and great times.

To my friend from Kenora–Rainy River, who made the comment about Michigan, go to Michigan where they have a 14% job recovery. Here we’ve created about 341,000 jobs and 121,000 net last year, over 46,000 this month alone. That’s why we need to manage rent, because the demand for housing is unprecedented.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Mississauga East–Cooksville did a great job in speaking towards a bill that’s actually two lines. The entire bill is two lines.

Hon. James J. Bradley: He must have borrowed Vic’s tie.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, Vic has a great collection of ties.

I commend her because she has been trying to speak on this bill for some time, and I commend her for that. But I think the member from Burlington made a very insightful remark on Bill 4. We passed a bill—the people listening this morning should know—the NDP had a bill, and we supported them in that bill, to take the HST off home heating. We actually believe in—do you know, that’s going to affect the most vulnerable in our society. That would have given the normal person—right now, there’s a bill in committee, Bill 30. Bill 30 is about healthy home renovation or something like that. You have to spend $20,000, but to spend $20,000, there’s like $1,500 worth of tax on that, and they give you a $1,500 tax credit. This is a shell game. This thing here does nothing.

This bill should be passed now. They’re in charge. All it does is control rent between a 1% increase as a minimum and 2.5%. This is a tragedy that we’re spending this time, and the economy of Ontario is going towards the cliff, accelerating towards the cliff. There are 600,000 families that can’t even afford to pay their rent and they’re laughing about it. They’re not paying attention to Ontario’s future, and especially the pages here on their last day before Easter, their future is at risk. As I see it now, this bill does nothing—does nothing.

We’re wasting all this time when we should be talking about some of the things the auditor said. The auditor has got it. He knows that we have a structural deficit in Ontario. The deficit is $16 billion. The debt is soaring toward $400 billion. And they’re laughing about it. I can’t believe it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Mississauga East–Cooksville, you have two minutes for a response.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I just heard the member from Durham speak about the fact that there are a lot of families who cannot afford their rent, and I agree with him. But where we and you differ, sir, is that when you had the chance to govern this province, those 600,000 families that you talk about were cut off social assistance. That’s not the Liberal way; that’s the Conservative way. I’m sorry to say that, since you brought it up. I stand by this bill. It’s a good bill.

I’ve heard some criticism about the HST again. Well, this bill has nothing to do with the HST. This bill has to do with providing affordable and certain rents to people across Ontario.

1000

I want to make one thing clear: This bill is only going to become more and more important in Ontario, because more and more people are choosing to rent, sometimes just because of their lifestyles, as well as the fact that our demographics are such that a lot more people are living in urban areas by themselves and they often prefer to rent. This bill is only going to become more important. You just have to look at the construction cranes across Ontario, which is a good thing for the economy, where a lot of rental buildings and condos are being built, and many of them will be for rent. There are going to be more and more people renting for certain portions of their lives. Eventually, I hope everybody has a shot at buying that dream home.

So this is a very important bill. We stand by it. It’s a very simple concept: The rental increase is pegged to inflation, which is fair, but we are providing a floor and a ceiling. I’d appreciate if everybody stuck to the facts and just discussed the bill on its own merits rather than bringing in extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with this bill. Thank you so much.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Rod Jackson: It’s my pleasure to stand before my colleagues in the House today and speak to Bill 19, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Rent Increase Guideline), 2012, on behalf of the PC caucus today. The PC caucus cannot support this Bill 19, because we believe it’s a piece of ineffectual and narrow legislation. The bill will not decrease costs for tenants or for landlords, it will not assist in opening up more rental units, and this piece of legislation is so narrow that it will not offer protection to those who are most vulnerable and need the protection the most. Bill 19 does nothing to improve anything for tenants or landlords.

According to the minister’s own statistics, the average rent increase was 2.1% in the past 10 years and 1.7% in the last five years. These two figures fall within the arbitrary 1% and 2.5% range prescribed Bill 19. The bill will do absolutely nothing in terms of rent increases in Ontario. This is just another piece of window dressing we’ve become accustomed to from the other side of the House.

Under the current rent increase guideline, too many Ontarians, 1.31 million tenant households, are stretched to the limit trying to pay their household bills, including their rents. We know that some 20% of these households spend more than 50% of their income on rent. We have hundreds of thousands of people without work, while the HST and soaring hydro rates, along with increased fees, are eating away at what little disposable income Ontarians and people in Ontario have. Bill 19 will not change that reality, Mr. Speaker.

As for landlords, their operating expenses increase 6% each year. The government’s ill-conceived energy and tax policies are driving landlords’ costs through the roof. Under Dalton McGuinty, hydro rates have increased eight times since 2003, for a total of 84%—nothing to be proud of if you’re talking about affordability for families—and if you’re a family with a smart meter in your home, well, you’ve seen your bill go up a staggering 150%.

Also, the HST is driving up repair and maintenance costs for landlords. We must keep in mind that repair and maintenance costs are not subjected to any cap. The HST increased the cost of many services that landlords require; now subject to HST are snow removal, landscape costs, home improvement services. And the list goes on—it goes on and on and on.

Nickel-and-diming the people of Ontario to death is just not the way to do it. We need to get the job done. Landlords are losing money keeping their units available in the market. Landlords will either have to bear the costs themselves or pass the costs down to their tenants. Bill 19 will not change that reality either. The HST left some rental housing providers no choice but to use funds from their reserves. Reserve funds are meant for unexpected repairs and maintenance, and are a safety net to ensure the safety of their buildings, Speaker. When we do this, we’re lowering the quality of the places where people are already living. If you’ve seen some of them, as I have while knocking on doors in Barrie, it’s a disgrace, some of the conditions people have to live in.

Bill 19 fails to protect tenants. The rent increase guideline only applies to tenancies that have lasted longer than 12 months. In the real world, tenants move around. Landlords can increase their rents above the rent guidelines when their new tenants move in. The Residential Tenancies Act and Bill 19 are silent on these kinds of turnover rent increases. According to the CMHC, although the rent guideline for 2011 is 0.7%, apartment costs actually rose by 1.8%. This is a direct result of turnover rent increases, Speaker.

The former member from Burlington, Joyce Savoline, has repeatedly warned the government. She repeatedly warned the government that Ontario’s rental housing stock was deteriorating as a result of the implementation of the HST.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Cam Jackson liked rent control.

Mr. Rod Jackson: You guys have got to get out of your time machine here.

According to the CMHC, the Ontario vacancy rate has decreased from 3.4% in the spring of 2010 to 2.2% in the fall of 2011. The steady decrease in the vacancy rate in Ontario and the high cost of living as a result of this party’s HST only exacerbated the problem with turnover rent increases. Average Ontario tenants are finding it increasingly more difficult to acquire affordable housing. Bill 19 could have offered more adequate protection to tenants, and sadly, Speaker, it’s powerless in terms of protecting tenants against unaffordable turnover rent increases.

Affordable housing is an essential need, especially in Barrie, Speaker, where 5,000 families—not people, 5,000 families—are waiting for affordable housing.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the members on the government side to come to order, please.

Mr. Rod Jackson: The Ontario Human Rights Commission declares, “The right to shelter, to have one’s own bed to sleep in, a roof over one’s head, a place where one’s person and possessions are safe is a human right.” Having a place to call home gives people the basis on which everything else in life begins. Without it there’s no hope to maintain employment or get education and necessary training to break that cycle of poverty.

All tenants should be protected against unaffordable rent increases. However, 300,000 tenant households are living in accommodations that are not even covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. This is a long-standing flaw of the act, Speaker. When one of these 300,000 tenant households goes to the tenant advocacy agencies, they’re being turned away because they are not covered under the law. Bill 19 was an excellent opportunity to extend protection to these families, yet the government chose to do nothing to help the 300,000 households and just apply their window dressing.

Bill 19 fails to address the real issue, Speaker. Bill 19 was introduced by the minister as her response to the one-year anomaly that we saw with rent increases going from 0.7% this year and the 3.1% increase we saw the following year. The root cause of these anomalies was not economic instabilities, as the minister calls it; the root cause is the government’s inability to properly manage Ontario’s economy, plain and simple. It is the government’s decision to force the HST on Ontarians in their blind pursuit of costly energy experiments, with absolutely no regard to the impact on the hard-working families of Ontario and their hydro bills.

The guideline is based on the Ontario consumer price index, and we all know it’s the minister’s and the government’s policies that caused the cost of living in Ontario to soar in the past several years. The rent increase guideline has just spiked up with it. If Bill 19 is going to do anything at all, it’s going to limit landlords’ and tenants’ ability to adjust to new economic realities by arbitrarily limiting the range of rent increases to 1% to 2.5%.

Why won’t the government focus their efforts on cleaning up their economic mess instead of proposing frivolous amendments? Bill 19 is just completely missing the mark. The tenants’ groups know this legislation won’t really change a thing. It’s an attempt by the government to really be seen as doing something at a time when I believe real, substantive change is necessary. It’s quite ironic that this government has crafted a piece of legislation to narrowcast a message to such a select group of stakeholders, and even the group they’re trying to appease has called it a failure.

Bill 19 presented a real opportunity to carry out more effective and beneficial reform of the rental housing system and cut red tape. For example, the government could have simplified the system and offered more help to landlords navigating through the bureaucratic system.

I’d like to quote from a small landlord from Brockville: “Not many have the time, the patience or the resources to litigate these matters. It is the opinion of a small landlord that the system, which has seen benefits over the years, has to be simplified, the process more friendly.... One has no idea until they experience this bureaucracy from a person with no idea of where to start, the frustration of where to turn or what to do now. To go to the tribunal to be turned away because of an incorrect process, incorrect form” being filled out, “to hear that the tenant has access to duty counsel, while the landlord has no support.” That’s a quote from a small landlord.

In conclusion, the PC caucus simply can’t support Bill 19, Speaker. It’s not in the best interests of Ontarians. It’s window-dressing, a smokescreen at best. The minister should go back to the drawing board and do some substantive thinking and get a real bill that does real things to help the people and landlords of Ontario.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I would like to welcome my parents and mentors to the Legislature today: Gary and Susan McNaughton, owners of McNaughton’s in Newbury and from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: While we’re on a roll, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my mother, Mary Murray, my best friend and soon to be one of Ontario’s newest residents, who is in the members’ gallery.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I’d like to welcome the family of page Emma Lang, with us today. They’re here from Vermilion Bay: Her parents, Karl and Debbie, and her brother, former page Zach Lang. I’d like to welcome them.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I have the pleasure of welcoming an official delegation from Argentina, who are here to meet with our organizing committee about the successful bid and plans to host the 2015 Pan/Parapan American games. Please welcome María Celia Sánchez, Minister of Sports for the province of San Luis; Ivana Bianchi, National Congress representative of San Luis; Hernan Cancio, San Luis program manager of sports events; Luciana Vajnenko, project manager for Gliocchi Marketing Agency; Ignacio Jakim, legal representative for Gliocchi Marketing Agency; and Aaron Glyn Williams, manager of partner relations at Toronto 2015. Bienvenido a Ontario.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: I’d like to introduce a couple of guests from the University of Windsor here, some fine representatives from Windsor: Andre Capaldi and Caroline Jacobsen. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, you continue to insist that the Canadian charter will not allow you to implement a legislated public sector wage freeze, but two decisions have recently made it clear that a legislated wage freeze can be implemented in a situation where there are pressing fiscal circumstances.

There are 600,000 unemployed people in Ontario. Ontario’s deficit is now three times larger than the other provincial deficits combined, and we spend $10 billion annually on interest payments. If these are not pressing fiscal circumstances, I don’t know what are. Minister, when are you going to stop putting Ontario’s future at risk and legislate a public sector wage freeze?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, 46,000 more Ontarians had a job last month than did the month before. The economy is growing again. Our tax plan for jobs and growth is working. The budget plan for jobs we’ve laid out is the right plan. We do have to get back to balance by 2017-18, and we will. We will do it by working with our partners in the public and broader public sectors.

It was interesting: The federal government had a wage freeze, but when did they do it? They did it after consultation. They did it after bargaining. By the way, their wage freeze wasn’t a freeze; it was 1.5% per year. So we don’t need a lecture from them about how to do things.

What I can tell you is, our jobs plan is working. More Ontarians are working. Unemployment’s lower than it has been in three years. The future is bright—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The reality is that we still have a net job loss since re-election. We still have almost 600,000 unemployed people in Ontario, and it’s simply not acceptable.

The international credit rating agencies agree with us. On April 3, Moody’s stated that “Canadian federal debt is low and the trend is favourable,” but they continue to warn Ontario of a possible downgrade and question your ability to stick to your stated fiscal plan. Mr. Speaker, this is attributable to nothing else than eight years of outrageous Liberal spending.

Minister, every day that you waver on the question of a legislated wage freeze increases the chance of a further downgrade in Ontario’s credit rating. Why are you taking these chances with Ontario’s future?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That member and her party and their federal cousins ought to stop running down Ontario. You are undermining our growth. You are undermining our future. You are going to cost jobs. Mr. Speaker, it’s time they stand up for this province. It’s time the Conservatives across the country—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do know what is up, and it’s the volume. Now, I have reminded members in the past that when I’m asking for quiet and we finally do settle down, it is not the time for the last interjections. It is the time in which I want quiet.

Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: There’s only one party in this House that’s running down Ontario, and that’s this Liberal government, by refusing to take the necessary action to save our economy.

The reality is, your party is all over the map on this credit issue. On the one hand, you’re saying the charter prevents you from taking action. On the other hand, you’re saying you’ll take action if you need to, somewhere down the road. You’ve already said, on Monday, that the budget has built in zero increases for public sector workers. So if you truly mean to hold it at zero, instead of just talking about it, the time for action is now. Stop the charade. Save the province $2 billion and legislate a public sector wage freeze.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government, this party, will continue to stand up for Ontario. We will continue to create jobs. We will work our way back to balance, and we will do it by working together with all Ontarians.

It is time for that party—their idea of a jobs plan is to hire poll clerks and DROs and sign companies, to have an election. I think they’re trying to undermine our credit rating by their comments and the comments of the federal government. I ask them, I urge them, to work with this government, work with all Ontarians: 46,000 net new—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have been—actually, I’ve been a little bit patient on this little outburst, but I wish I had a magic bullet, and the magic bullet would be to have you hear yourselves.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t need that.

I’m trying to be sincere about how we are here, and I ask each of you, inside, to figure out how that is going to work.

New question.

1040

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, the Minister of Health is now on record with a menu of excuses for not stepping in to stop the waste of millions of dollars and the erosion of patient care at Ornge.

Yesterday, the former Minister of Health confirmed what we’ve been saying for months. In his sworn testimony before the public accounts committee, Mr. Smitherman confirmed that none of the excuses proffered by the minister are credible, that in fact the minister not only had authority but also had the responsibility.

In case, Speaker, you missed Mr. Smitherman’s CTV clip last night, here’s what he said: “If I was the minister, there’s no way in hell that Chris Mazza makes $1.4 million,” said Mr. Smitherman.

Speaker, now that the minister has been indicted by both the Auditor General and the former Minister of Health, how much longer will she insist on holding on to her job?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The former minister and the current minister both have acknowledged the challenges with Ornge and both have acknowledged that the important steps we’ve taken to deal with the situation are very important. Let’s just review them.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the call for performance agreement being weak—you know, in the bill we have before the House, we’ve got a new performance agreement. We need to pass the bill, Mr. Speaker. The bill has stronger conflict-of-interest rules, increased audit, more detailed financial control—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland and the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and the Minister of the Environment will come to order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has acted in an appropriate fashion, in a timely fashion, as information became available. We stand behind her. We stand with her, as does her predecessor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: Interesting, but not surprising, that both the current and the former minister have bonded on this issue. Both have been subject to a scathing Auditor General’s report. Both have been exposed for failing to exercise their oversight responsibilities and for protecting the public interest and for allowing the waste of millions of scarce health dollars. Neither accept responsibility for the scandal over which they preserved—Mr. Caplan took the fall for Mr. Smitherman. We’d like to know who the current minister is going to designate as her scapegoat.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the new minister brought in a new performance agreement. She has put in place a new board of directors. She has put in place new senior executives. These are all the appropriate steps that needed to be taken. They were taken in a timely fashion. We’ve called in the police to look at criminal matters, Mr. Speaker. That’s an appropriate thing to do, and we will continue to make the changes that are important to ensure that what happened doesn’t happen again.

I’m proud of the role the minister has taken in this. She’s done the appropriate thing in a timely fashion.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, it’s clear that the wagons are being circled. The member for Willowdale was dispatched yesterday to obstruct the hearings to protect the Premier. The government House leader is scripted with embarrassing speaking notes to protect the minister. The Premier refuses to answer questions. The minister refuses to accept responsibility. The government refuses to respect the express will of this Legislature to form a select committee. And now, shame on the government House leader for refusing an express motion of the public accounts committee to continue hearings next week.

I ask the Premier, just how long does he think and does this government think that they can hide the truth?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Frank Klees: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think it may be time to update the House. Yesterday, all I could hear at question period was that we were somehow trying to prevent testimony in front of the public accounts committee. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform members: yesterday, 12:30 p.m., Wendy Tilford, Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Innovation; 1 p.m., George Smitherman, former Minister of Health; 1:30 p.m., Jamison Steeve, principal secretary to the Premier; 2 p.m., Ian Delaney, board chair of Ornge; 2:30, Cathy Worden, chief of staff, Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation. And I’m pleased to inform the House that there is a robust list of witnesses who are currently being scheduled for the weeks ahead as the public accounts committee continues this very important investigation into the Ornge controversy, one which is, as appropriate, being guided by a counsel, despite the efforts of that member to have the counsel fired yesterday.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Premier indicated that he didn’t want to comment on specific proposals around the budget, and I respect that. But can the Deputy Premier confirm today that protecting health care is, in fact, a priority of this government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we did that in the budget. We did that when we created family health teams. We did that when we hired 9,000 nurses. We did that when we increased medical school spaces by 23%. We did that by building 38 new hospitals in Ontario.

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm unequivocally that this government is firmly committed to improving health care across Ontario. We’ve laid out a bold new plan for a better future, a more efficient future, and we welcome the ideas that the leader of the third party has on all of these important issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As the Deputy Premier knows, we’ve heard from thousands of everyday people across Ontario who want health care to be a priority, but they’re worried. They’re worried about a proposed budget that will leave them waiting longer for the care that they need. In communities across Ontario, we’ve actually seen emergency rooms closed and we’ve seen nurses laid off. And that’s with higher funding than what’s currently being proposed by this government’s budget. People tell us they’re concerned about the deficit, but they want front-line care to be the priority.

Will the Deputy Premier agree that the patients waiting in the emergency rooms, not the CEOs in the boardrooms, need to be our priority?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m proud of the fact that Ontario now has the shortest wait times in the country for many major surgical procedures. I’m proud of the fact that we have nurse-practitioner-led clinics. I’m proud of the fact that we’re introducing birthing centres. I’m proud of the fact that we’re increasing funding for home care by 4%.

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, we do put the priorities on front-line services. That’s why we’re keeping nurses in emergency rooms. That’s why we’re keeping teachers in classrooms. All the steps that the Minister of Health and this government have taken have improved care for all Ontarians. There’s still more to do. I look forward to working with her and her colleagues as we continue to build the best health care system in the world.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the lead-up to the budget, the Minister of Finance promised to take a hard line against the growing public sector CEO salaries, but the budget revealed a lot more of the same solutions that have not been working. Families have been told before that CEO salaries were frozen, but this year’s sunshine list came out, and we saw a slew of executives getting raises yet again. When a hospital CEO gets more in a raise than most families can earn all year as their salary, there’s something definitely wrong.

Does the Deputy Premier think that the government’s measures thus far to get CEO compensation under control are actually working?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government and this party are interested in more front-line nurses, and we’ve put them in place. We’ve expanded access to home care. We’re building long-term-care beds. Mr. Speaker, we just brought forward legislation that creates the home retrofit credit, which will help seniors stay in their homes longer. This government and this party are all about the best possible health care; as the Minister of Health says, the right care in the right place at the right time. This budget builds on this government’s record of building a better and stronger health care system for all Ontarians.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Deputy Premier. Ontarians are worried that this budget doesn’t do enough to spread the burden. They need assurances that vital health care services are going to be protected.

1050

A lot of people in rural communities, Speaker, like Grimsby are justifiably upset that their promised new hospital has been put on hold by this budget. Patients are being made to feel the pain while hospital CEOs bask in the glow of the sunshine list.

Jane from Owen Sound says, “Hospital CEOs are making ludicrous amounts of yearly salaries but yet we still [get] cut[s] [in] hospital housekeeping services.” Lisa from Gananoque writes, “I would like to see a commitment that front-line workers in [hospitals] will not be cut.”

What does the Deputy Premier say to people like Jane and Lisa who see hospital CEOs’ salaries climb while front-line jobs get cut?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Here’s what Mark from the OHA says, Mr. Speaker: “The government has put forward and funded $5 billion in capital projects for hospitals. That’s a terrific amount of money that’s gone, in my view, to places that really need it in investment.”

We have made record investments in new hospitals and new health care facilities, and we’re proud of that.

Yes, we’ve had to slow down because of the financial circumstances we find ourselves in, but as we continue to build a bigger, better and stronger economy, we’ll have the revenues in the future to move on those projects. We’re proud of what we’ve been able to do today. We will continue to build on that progress, Mr. Speaker, because Bob and Pete and Jill and Gail all across Ontario want us to do that, and that’s why they support this government and this party—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians simply demand that we make the best use of our resources, Speaker. That means putting dollars into front-line care, rather than into huge salaries and outrageous perks for the public sector executives.

Lily from Clinton writes, “Salary [and bonus] caps [for hospital CEOs] are a good idea.” Will the Premier listen to concerned Ontarians like Lily?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of all the capital projects that are starting to come online over the next three years—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: But if there’s an election, Mr. Speaker, they all get put on hold, and that’s what the risk is.

I say to the leader of the third party: We have to get back to balance by 2017-18. It’s not good enough to put out ideas, not cost them properly and, in fact, add to the deficit.

I look forward to hearing the rest of the ideas that the leader of the third party is going to bring forward. I look forward to working with her on getting these new hospital projects into the ground and under way. We will build more facilities, as well as improve home care. The right care in the right place at the right time: That’s what this party and that’s what this government are about.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, people in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones. We’ve seen this finance minister’s numbers bounce around from budget to economic statement to budget. It’s quite funny.

People understand, very seriously, though, Speaker, that the province is facing tough challenges. New Democrats understand that as well. People are willing to do their part. But when they see hospital CEOs make off with huge salaries and outrageous perks, they don’t feel like this government is looking after their best interests.

Linda from Sydenham writes, “I looked for a cap [on] hospital execs ... as well as elimination of bonuses.... Instead, this government is calling on the ordinary family to make sacrifices while the wealthy are not being forced to experience financial pain.”

Will the Deputy Premier explain to Ontarians what this government is prepared to do to distribute precious health care dollars in a fairer way?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll remind the leader of the third party what this government’s commitment is. Since 2003, we now have the shortest surgical wait times in the country. There are 3,400 more doctors working in this province, and 2.1 million families have a family doctor that didn’t have one before. There are 12,600 more nurses working in this province than there were in 2003.

Now the Minister of Health has introduced a bold new policy that will help us move forward in this century to provide the right care at the right time and in the right place. That’s what this party is about. That’s what we’re going to debate. Those are the investments we’ve made and that’s what the future’s all about, Mr. Speaker. That’s what all Ontarians care about.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Deputy Premier.

Yesterday, when Mr. Smitherman was in front of the committee, he did acknowledge that the Minister of Health had the full authority to step in at Ornge and that the performance agreement allowed her to intervene. That’s certainly contrary to what we’ve been hearing in here.

We also heard the Premier’s right-hand man, Jamison Steeve, say, “We as a government could have, and should have, done a better job.”

Instead of taking responsibility, it now appears that the government is shamefully scapegoating the defenceless staff at the Ministry of Health. So I ask the Deputy Premier, do you endorse these tactics, and will you today affirm your belief in ministerial accountability?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: All of us on this side of the House are proud of the fact that we’ve brought in a new performance agreement, that the minister moved to replace the board, the senior executives.

We are going to support the legislation that is before this House that creates protections for everything from whistle-blowers through to better financial accountability. We have taken and the minister has taken the appropriate steps at the appropriate time, as information was available. We’re happy to be in front of committee. Yesterday you alleged that we were blocking it. The House leader has indicated how many of our staff are prepared; the Premier has taken dozens of questions, and the Minister of Health.

We’ve taken all the appropriate steps in a timely fashion as information became available, and we’re also looking at the police investigation that’s going on. That will add another piece to this situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I say again to the Deputy Premier, you know, despite what you’re saying, and your Premier and your minister have said, you have had all along the authority, as confirmed by Mr. Smitherman, to step in at Ornge, and you did not. The performance agreement allowed you to do it and you did not. You ignored the red flags. You didn’t provide the oversight; we saw that in the report. And now you are engaging in a campaign of misinformation, stalling and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I will do so, Speaker.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: And now it appears that the ministry staff are being maligned and you’re trying to deflect responsibility on them.

I ask you today, instead of putting this campaign to smear others into high gear, will you show some integrity and hold the appropriate person accountable—the Minister of Health—and ask for her resignation?

Interjections.

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

Deputy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Health took the appropriate steps at the appropriate time to deal with this circumstance and has answered questions on and on.

We have brought in a new performance agreement, a new board, new executives. We have legislation before this House that provides for stronger conflict-of-interest rules, increased audit, more detailed financial control, allows the minister to recover unspent funds, better public reporting, a new patient advocate, and links to pay-for-performance for executives.

All that’s before this House in the form of legislation—all of that, Mr. Speaker. That builds on the Auditor General’s report, the minister’s response, and the fact that the police are looking at this as well.

But instead of dealing with that legislation, that party wants an election. They want this legislation to die on the order paper instead of dealing with the real issues that are important to Ontarians. The Minister of Health has done all the appropriate things in a timely fashion as information became available. We stand behind her and the good work she’s done—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. On Ornge, the current Minister of Health has blamed everything and everyone: a faulty accountability agreement, our federal tax status, opposition MPPs, and, of course, Mr. Smitherman.

Yesterday, the former Minister of Health said, “I just personally am not convinced, having again reviewed that agreement, knowing the ministry was the paymaster for the organization and with the powers of persuasion ... that there was not sufficient power to bring the organization to heel.” Why doesn’t the buck stop with the minister?

1100

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I again have to remind the member opposite that the minister has taken the appropriate steps in a timely fashion as information became available. We have said that. She sent in the Auditor General, who is an impartial source. He did a good piece of work on the challenges that came to be as a result of the original performance agreement. We’re glad that he was there, and he acknowledged the important work the minister has done in dealing with a situation, frankly, that’s unprecedented. We await the results of the OPP investigation as well. I’m confident that the minister has taken all of the appropriate steps in a timely fashion to address a situation that is unprecedented. We look forward to working on this more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, again my question is to the Acting Premier. The problem is the blame game. This government’s blame game is disgraceful. He had his faults, but under Mr. Smitherman’s watch the salaries of Ornge executives were public. Here’s another quote from Mr. Smitherman: “I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would have tolerated a situation where Dr. Mazza ended up making $1.4 million and where the organization lost its focus.” Apparently, secret sky-high salaries were something this minister was perfectly willing to tolerate. Why is this government letting the Minister of Health keep her job?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Health took all the appropriate steps in a timely fashion as information became available. We have a new performance agreement and a new board. No issue has had greater scrutiny by this House or by the media than this, which is appropriate under the circumstances. We have great confidence in the minister. We have great confidence in the new performance agreement. We’re very supportive of the bill that’s before this House. We’re very supportive of the fact that she called in the Auditor General. We’re very supportive of the fact that after the forensic audits were done we called in the police. The Minister of Health has acted honourably. She has acted quickly and appropriately as information became available in what, frankly, sir, is a very unprecedented set of circumstances. She’s done a terrific job—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Jeff Leal: Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, yesterday the member from Thornhill spoke about the economy as if it was all doom and gloom. He believes, and the PC party believes, that our economy isn’t on the right track. However our recently released budget has been well received by people of all political stripes right across this great province. I believe that our budget has struck the right balance. Will the Minister of Finance please tell us Ontario’s 2012 budget is moving Ontario forward and creating jobs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yesterday we were hectored that the Ontario economy is not working. In fact, we now know—44,000 new jobs last month alone. It builds on the 121,000 jobs that were created last year. Employment now is back to where it was before the greatest recession in this country’s history since the downturn of the 1930s. Consumer spending is up. Business investment is at record levels. The economy is getting better. Jobs are coming back. This province is going to lead and continues to lead. We’re proud of our record, we’re proud of the budget and we’ll speak more about this in terms of the jobs that are coming in the future. But to the member, 46,000 net new jobs the very day after this member said we were losing jobs—no credibility, no plan.

Mr. Jeff Leal: The Minister of Finance provided us with a comprehensive and full answer. Ontario gained half of Canada’s total. We added 46,000 jobs to our labour force. The number is eight times what the economists expected—the biggest single month result since last September.

Minister, the member from Thornhill said that our budget doesn’t have a jobs plan and instead is heavy on rhetoric. He showed that he can count by listing off how many times he saw the words “consult,” “discuss” and “negotiate” in the budget. Well, I did some counting of my own: The word “jobs” appears in the budget 92 times. The word “economy” appears 88 times. In fact, all 69,354 words in the budget provided a strong plan for our economy and jobs.

Minister, can you discuss how Ontario is moving forward to a balanced budget while creating jobs and protecting health care and education?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The party opposite may think 46,000 jobs is a laughing matter. We’re proud of that; we’re proud of all Ontarians.

They have a jobs plan, too. They’ll hire poll clerks and DROs. This will be a great boon for robocallers, Mr. Speaker, which their federal brethren have used so much.

Instead of an election, we ought to be focused on working together to build on the gains we’ve made in the last months. This economy is starting to take hold again. Vehicle sales are up. The economy is growing. Working together, we can keep building on this. We can create real jobs, high-paying jobs, more than the rest of the country last month—save and except they want to give poll clerks and DROs jobs, Mr. Speaker. Not us. We need a steady hand to keep this thing moving forward.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the House leader. Speaker, members will know that the member from Willowdale is favouring his left side. The reason for that is no doubt as a result of the jabs that he received yesterday from the member for Guelph, who was jabbing him in the ribs to get him to raise his hand to vote against sitting next week for the public accounts committee. Now, perhaps the member from Guelph wasn’t aware that he had already made a public commitment that we sit next week as a public accounts committee. To the member’s credit, he abstained from the vote.

I say to the House leader now, given the fact that even the member from Willowdale was willing to sit next week, will he gather up the courage and say no to the political operatives in the Premier’s office and call that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock, please. I’m going to permit the question, but I am going to remind everybody, on both sides, that this is the House business, and it’s not common for us to talk about committee work. I would remind us to stay focused on the business of the House, but I will ask the House leader to respond.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I had a chance earlier to talk about the witnesses that appeared in front of the public accounts committee yesterday. The clerk has been working diligently to put together a robust list of witnesses for the next planned meeting of the public accounts committee.

The member talks about the fact that they want to meet next week, but what he hasn’t told the House is that there are no witnesses to call next week, because debate and discussion went on, and in fact, there were no motions passed. So meeting next week, during constituency week, when many members of this House—I would suggest all members of this House have commitments back in their ridings, a chance to be in their constituency. Mr. Speaker, there is quite frankly no business for the committee to do.

We have plans to meet over the next Wednesday, the next following Wednesdays, when there’s a very robust list of witnesses.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: At the risk of using unparliamentary language, I have to say that what the government House leader has just said is not true. We have a list of some 20 witnesses that we can call within 24 hours who would love to be here. Will the House leader admit that what he’s doing is simply obstructing a direction of the public accounts committee that we sit this coming week? He is now thwarting the expressed will of this House on two occasions: one, the expressed will of this Legislature that we have a select committee and now, the express will of the public accounts committee on which his members have the majority.

Will he agree to call a meeting of the public accounts committee for this coming Wednesday? We will supply witnesses gladly.

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Milloy: The will of this Legislature is set out in the standing orders in terms of the meetings that are held of the Legislature and and constituency breaks in-between. During that constituency break—we’ve just had a budget—members of this Legislature have commitments, have meetings, have events planned in which they can go back and reconnect with their communities. That has been the tradition of this House.

1110

The honourable member talks about a motion that was sprung at the last minute during a session. From what I understand, due to his delaying tactics, they never got to vote on future witnesses coming forward.

The clerk of the committee has been tasked with putting together a robust series of witnesses who will be testifying at the public accounts committee over the regular meetings, which are scheduled for the following weeks.

We have co-operated with the opposition to bring these hearings to go, and we’ll continue to co-operate with them.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

M^me France Gélinas: My question is to le vice-premier ministre.

Yesterday, the Canadian Institute for Health Information released data on hospital performance. It reveals that Ontario spent more on hospital administration than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Is the government willing to stop this sad situation and put a hard cap on CEO salaries?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d remind the member we have a lot more hospitals than the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker, so that kind of makes sense. I’d also remind her of what Mr. Drummond pointed out to us: that, in fact, Ontario’s expenses are the lowest per capita in the country.

We welcome the findings of the Canadian institute of health. We thank them for their report. They’re a leader in public accounting. We believe very strongly in keeping track and measuring. We’re the first government to introduce those kinds of things. We will embrace this data as a tool to improve patient care.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome that report. The member opposite can take numbers any which way. As I understand it—I haven’t had the opportunity to read the whole report myself—Ontario hospitals actually stand up very well to the rest of the country, in part as a result of the increasing investments we’ve made in health care since 2003.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M^me France Gélinas: Well, let me spell it out for the member. Ontario administrative costs, as a percentage of total costs, are the highest in Canada. Ontario spent more on hospital administrators than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

The province is moving ahead with pay-for-performance that gives CEOs huge bonuses. The pay-for-performance—let me quote what the Harvard School of Public Health says about pay-for-performance: It does not improve patient outcomes, but you keep moving on this way anyway.

The government is letting pay-for-performance balloon the bonuses of CEOs while taking away from patient care. Is the Deputy Premier willing to put a hard cap on CEO salaries to make sure that we come in line with the rest of Canada and that precious dollars go to health care?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that in 2003, we had the longest wait-lists in Canada. We started tracking that for the first time, keeping track of wait times for major surgical undertakings, and now we have the shortest in the country across a number of them.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member opposite that we are moving to more home-based care, keeping seniors in their homes longer. That is the important part of the budget. That’s the important part of what the Minister of Health has done in terms of the bold plan she has outlined to provide better care at the right time and in the right place.

We’re going to continue to make those investments and focus on what’s important to people: better care at the right time in the right place.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question today is for the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation. I’ve heard a lot about positive job creation in the Legislature of late: 170,000 jobs announced in the budget last week; 800 jobs created just last week through the province in the auto sector.

It’s evident that Ontario is rebounding in our economy. Things are turning around. People are looking to invest, which is great for Ontario. One thing, however, that has been missing is a discussion about the impact in the construction industry. I’m getting calls in my riding in Pickering–Scarborough East about this.

Can the minister please give an overview of the construction sector in Ontario and explain what benefits Ontarians will see in the growth of the economy?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Ontario’s construction sector is indeed healthy, and it’s growing. In fact, just look around the greater Toronto area today. You’ll see more cranes than at any time in our history. Construction jobs are up 17% from 10 years ago. In 2011, employment in construction grew by 3.2%.

Opposition members have repeatedly scoffed at our efforts to create construction jobs. They refer to them, Mr. Speaker, as temporary, but the fact is, there are more than 480,000 Ontarians working in the construction sector today who strongly disagree. Unfortunately for those construction workers, the PCs would rather cause an election than support a budget that creates another 100,000 jobs, through our infrastructure investments in that budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Jobs are a very serious issue in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East and all of Ontario. It’s encouraging to hear how the government’s plans continue to create jobs.

We’ve also heard a lot about the 2015 Pan Am/Parapan games in recent months. People in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East are absolutely thrilled that the aquatic centre is coming to Pickering–Scarborough East—right in my riding—and will be the home of a state-of-the-art aquatic facility, a wonderful legacy facility. Ontarians are excited about hosting a major international sporting event because of the opportunity the games offer to create a lasting economic, social and athletic legacy for our province.

My question to the minister is, how are the preparations for the games contributing to our economy and how are they creating jobs?

Hon. Brad Duguid: To the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the minister responsible for the 2015 Pan Am Games.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member of Pickering–Scarborough East for her question and for her enthusiasm. I share that excitement, and I am pleased to tell the House that work is well under way to deliver an outstanding set of games. In fact, joining us in the gallery today are visitors from the government of Argentina, and they share our excitement, too, and have come to see how Ontario is preparing to host this great event.

The 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games will be one of the single largest economic drivers in the greater Golden Horseshoe region over the next three years. As you know, Mr. Speaker, construction has already begun on the Pan Am village in the West Don Lands. That project alone is 5,200 jobs. We’re creating greater investment in new and existing sports and infrastructure. That, sir, will create 15,000 jobs in construction and game operations, on top of the 5,200 jobs at the athletes’ village. Mr. Speaker, we’re excited and proud to host the games and to help deliver thousands of new jobs to Ontarians.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question today is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, your government’s failed energy strategy is drawing ire from thousands of families in Ontario. Now it seems that your failed policies are affecting developers. Minister, the proverbial blades are falling off here. Two lawsuits have been launched against your government and, just recently, this week, a $1-billion lawsuit from an offshore wind developer.

Minister, last week, the first lawsuit was tagged at $300 million. This week’s lawsuit is $1 billion. How much can we expect next week’s lawsuit to be? Minister, can you tell us, the taxpayers of Ontario, how much this is going to cost and who’s going to be footing the bill?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Just so I can get some clarification on where the party opposite is going, my recollection is that they supported the decision not to proceed with the power plant in Mississauga. I thought that was the case. I’m hoping that’s still the case. My recollection was—and maybe things have changed, because you never know which way the wind blows—that they were supportive of the moratorium on offshore wind, and maybe that’s not the case. It would be enormously helpful, Speaker, to have their advice on these important issues.

We have some things that we agree on. We agree on a moratorium—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just spent 60 seconds listening to people heckle while the question was being put from your own side and the same happening when the people are answering. You’re having two different conversations while people are asking the question and trying to answer.

1120

Hon. Christopher Bentley: There are issues that we agree on: We agree on a moratorium on offshore wind and we agree that the power plant should not go on that site in Mississauga. We invite the party opposite to join us in working for the people of Ontario and not force an unnecessary election.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Minister, the National Post headline today was, “The Ontario green energy ship is taking on water....” Minister, you’re the captain here. Why can’t you admit that your energy experiments are failing? Your government has created this mess. If you can’t handle this file, step aside, or be responsible and immediately cancel these unaffordable FIT contracts. Minister, when will you admit that your unaffordable energy nightmare has failed?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Last night I was at the AgriSolar board meeting in Chatham, meeting with hundreds of farmers, rural Ontario residents, who are enthusiastic about green energy, who are participating in green energy and who gave the energy approach a standing ovation just last night.

Over the next two years, we’re going to see more wind, solar and bio hooked up in Ontario than ever in our history. We’re going to see more parts for that manufactured in Ontario than ever in our history. We’re going to see more jobs created in Ontario than ever in our history. It’s time that the party opposite focused on the real issues for Ontarians—jobs, which last month were up; prosperity for our communities, which last month has been up—instead of forcing an unnecessary election, costing us millions of dollars.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr. Jonah Schein: This question is for the Minister of the Environment. Waste haulers in Ontario currently require a licence—it’s called an environmental compliance approval—to transport and dispose of toxic waste. Even with licensing, the Auditor General has found discrepancies in the transport of hazardous waste in half of the cases. Given the risks to human health and the environment, why is this government reducing oversight of the transport of hazardous waste by removing the requirement for licences in most cases?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member would know, of course, that in fact it is not happening that there’s a reduction in oversight. The oversight continues as assiduously as it has in the past.

The Ministry of the Environment has, on its front line, a number of people who are working on these issues. You should know that one of the challenges that we face is that many have not moved into the electronic age in that particular field, as I have. I recognize that, as they do, we will be able to do things even more expeditiously than we have in the past.

So I want to assure the member that we have addressed many of the concerns that the Provincial Auditor has brought to our attention. We in fact begin addressing those as soon as he brings them to our attention, even before the auditor’s report happens to come out, whenever it does during a particular time during the year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jonah Schein: Contrary to what the minister says, there are real concerns here. Ecojustice and the Canadian Environmental Law Association do have concerns about this.

Cost-cutting and deregulation now seem to be the priorities of the Ministry of the Environment, not protection of Ontario’s air, water and land. In his recent annual report Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner reported that the ministry budget has fallen by 45% since 1993 and that the ministry does lack the capacity to enforce environmental regulations.

Now the McGuinty government is moving ahead with yet another cut: a 9% cut in the budget to the ministry. Is the government removing the requirement for a permit to transport toxic waste because it no longer has the resources to pay staff to license these applications?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I want to assure the member that, unlike the mid-1990s, when the NDP government of the day was confronted with difficult circumstances, we are ensuring that all front-line services are being maintained within the Ministry of the Environment.

There are difficult decisions that do have to be made. I remember that the NDP government in Saskatchewan in the 1990s had to, they believed, close 52 rural hospitals in all of Saskatchewan. So everybody looks at all of these issues and tries to determine how to do things as efficiently as ever. We believe that, through moving into the electronic age in the Ministry of the Environment, we are going to be able to deal with these matters expeditiously and efficiently, as I know the people of Ontario want to ensure that we are going to do.

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Our government understands that we need to continue to strengthen our economy and position our province to create and attract more jobs. This means we need to protect the services that Ontarians need most, including our support to help unemployed older workers get back on their feet. That’s the only way we can continue on the positive trend that the employment numbers have shown this morning. Half of all jobs created in Canada were in Ontario. Our focus on job creation and employment is working.

The targeted initiative for older workers, or TOW, is an important program that helps my constituents upgrade their skills and work experience for unemployed workers ages 55 to 64. Is the minister still committed to supporting older workers through TOW?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member from Windsor West and also recognize the extraordinary leadership she has provided, not just as an MPP but in a lifetime of service as the executive director of employment and social services for the city of Windsor. We are very lucky to have such an informed voice in this House.

This is a challenging program, because it is a program for smaller communities and rural Ontario. The funding under this program, under agreement with the federal government, is restricted to communities of under 250,000. As has happened with so many other things, this program is being severely curtailed by the federal government, our principal funding partner. This will hit hard our smaller and rural communities who are struggling. They don’t have some of the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —and the intensity of economic development that we have in some of our larger cities. So I’m hoping all members will take time to put some pressure on the federal government to come to the table on this agreement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: The minister has mentioned that thousands of older workers continue to be ineligible for the TOW program because of its eligibility criteria. I would like to join the minister in calling on the federal government to support hard-working Ontario families.

As the former director of employment and social services in Windsor, I certainly know the benefits of this program and all the retraining and supportive programming that we have available. We need the official opposition to co-operate with our government so that we don’t trigger an unnecessary election that would further harm the economy and put our families at risk. We should be putting the interests of Ontarians ahead and work forward on our five-year plan to balance the budget.

What is the minister doing to ensure that all Ontarians have access to employment services?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We are continuing with our commitment, which is over $1 billion. This provides 170 service providers with 327 funded service delivery sites. So far in the last fiscal year, we have served over 610,000 Ontarians. In addition to that, our colleges and universities are driving about an 86% employment rate upon completion, and it was mentioned earlier that we have 46,000 new jobs this month alone. One could say that might be an aberration, except that since June 2009, we have had 345,000 jobs, over half of all the jobs created. That’s a successful job strategy if I’ve ever heard of one.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games. Since he has yet to release an updated budget, I did a little research of my own. What I found is that the sunshine list could best be described as a supernova list when it comes to reading the explosive salaries of the TO2015 organizing committee. It starts with the CEO at over $550,000 per year, and others coming in at just under $300,000 per year. That’s only 17 people costing Ontario families $21.6 million by the time the games start.

When will the minister release the budget so we can confirm that we can afford these astronomical salaries and ensure Ontario tax dollars are not being wasted?

1130

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister responsible for the Pan Am Games.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I appreciate that the member opposite is also concerned about the viability of these games because of how critical it is for all of us to have a successful games going forward. That is why we’re providing the necessary oversight. That is why we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that every aspect of the game is concerned.

We now have the majority of the games signed. We have a little bit extra to go, but we will do everything necessary to ensure that it’s done.

I’m very confident in the outstanding work that 2015 is doing to ensure that we have a relevant and very adequate set of games.

I, again, congratulate members from the other countries who are here witnessing the good work that we’re doing and complimenting the actions that this government has taken.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: I thank the minister for his generalities, but the thing is, Ontarians have the right to know how much the Pan Am Games are costing them and if they can afford it.

It isn’t just those organizing committee salaries that are the issue. We don’t know who’s on the organizing committee. Only 11 people appear on the website that we’re always referred to, yet 17 people were discovered on the sunshine list. Then there’s also the board of directors, the management and the secretariat. Redundancy is waste. The only thing that is clear is that the minister’s arm’s-length governance over the games is costing us an arm and a leg.

Can the minister please let the hard-working people of Ontario know when we will see the budget? This is not your money, Minister. Tell the people of Ontario where the budget is.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I can assure the member opposite we have taken the necessary steps to ensure that salaries and whatnot are being taken care of. I, too, have shared those concerns with our management and with 2015.

But I also recognize that this is a very complex set of games that are being undertaken. In over 80 years, not once have—this is one of the largest. It’s two and a half times the size of the Vancouver and Calgary games. We’ve got over 10,000 athletes and officials visiting. We’ve got a number of venues that are being prepared right across the Golden Horseshoe, and we make no apologies that we want the region to benefit from the investments that we’re making around these games, creating 15,000 new jobs.

It’s outstanding, the work that’s being done. I congratulate all those who are participating. I welcome the opposition’s input as well in terms of what we move, going forward. That’s why I’ve welcomed him to my office on a number of occasions on this issue.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Acting Premier. Constituents in my riding are concerned about their local hospital services. Hospitals in my riding cannot plan for the coming year with only words of assurance. The fact is that this government has ignored the needs of smaller hospitals, and the frozen base budgets spelled out in the budget will equal deep service cuts.

This government’s new funding scheme is silent on how many smaller hospitals in my riding, like Manitoulin Health Centre, Espanola general hospital, Lady Dunn Health Centre, will be able to keep providing the necessary services.

Instead of empty assurances, does the Acting Premier have a detailed and fully costed plan that he is willing to share with us today?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes, it’s called a budget, and it takes a number of important steps. The Minister of Health has laid out an exciting and bold plan to improve health care in northern Ontario. It builds on our record of creating a northern medical school. It builds on our record of increasing health care facilities across northern Ontario. It builds on all of the important initiatives we have taken to shorten wait times for northerners. It builds on the assistance we’ve provided to northerners. When they need special treatment outside of the north, they have to come down here.

So this government’s record of achievement in health care, particularly for the north, is unparalleled. We’re proud of it, and we’ll continue to build on that solid—

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

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I beg your indulgence. I neglected to do this at the proper time, but I would like to introduce Darwin and Jennifer Groskleg, parents of page Abbigail, who is serving here on her last day.

Thanks for joining us today to the Grosklegs and thank you for Abbigail.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On a point of order: I would ask the Speaker just for some clarification. The Speaker seemed to intimate today that discussion in the House on the business of committee was perhaps not appropriate or standard procedure. I would warrant that it is, particularly in this instance, being with the House leader. So I would ask for a ruling on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First, let me thank you. It is a point of order. Let me be clear. It is a long-standing practice of the House that matters before committees should be dealt with in the committee. I allowed the question because, in my mind, it had a connection to a matter that the House may be required to consider. If we come to page 506 of the O’Brien and Bosc House of Commons Procedure and Practice for the fuller discussion of this matter, it says in part, as I indicated to the member from Newmarket–Aurora, “When a question has been asked about a committee’s proceedings, Speakers have encouraged members to rephrase their questions.” In this case, what I said was that the committee House leaders and the committee business is to be inside the committee.

VISITOR

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’d ask the entire House to join me in welcoming my father, Dr. Jagtaran Dhaliwal, who has joined us in the members’ gallery today.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is Holy Thursday. There are a number of us in the House that are of a Christian denomination—a very important holy day, and I would ask that this House not sit after private members’ public business this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is the member asking for unanimous consent?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we have unanimous consent on this point of order? I hear a no.

The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I would ask that the Deputy Premier might consider correcting his own record when he said that the Minister of Health called in the Auditor General. That is not a fact; the Auditor General was not called in—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. You know that’s not a point of order. A member has to correct their own record.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we exit and we see too many people leave, I think it’s a good practice that we bid farewell to our pages, as this is their last day.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do believe I have another point of order. The member for Cambridge first.

Mr. Rob Leone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would actually ask that we have some clarification on some of the rulings that you’ve made with respect to some of the language we’ve used. I know that in oral questions we’ve used the word “cover-up.” We’ve used the words “misleading the House.” I want to note, personally, that in the federal Parliament yesterday during proceedings in oral questions, those questions inserting the language “cover-up” and “misleading” were permitted by the Speaker in that House, Mr. Speaker.

It’s part of the opposition’s duty to hold the government to account. I believe that it would be in order for us to ask questions, trying to get to the bottom of some of the questions that we’re seeing on that side of the House. At the federal Parliament yesterday, Mr. Speaker, they were talking about the F-35 fighter jet procurement program with respect to the Auditor General. I ask that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not necessarily to interrupt the member, but I made out clearly what his point was, and the short answer to that is there is actually no list that exists. It is the will of the House and the Speaker in terms of interpreting the intent of the question or the comment being made. Quite frankly, it has been traditionally done by the Speaker to set the tone of the House.

I want to hear one more point of order, from the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, we’re saying goodbye to the pages. I know they would love to be here an extra week, so I’d ask unanimous consent that we sit next week.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As we continue to move down in my ruling of this particular point of order, my knee has given out twice so far; I just wanted to let you know that. We have had a request for unanimous consent to sit next week. Agreed? I heard a no.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: With respect, to go back to my original point of order, I recognize your response. However, in this particular case, the public accounts committee has directed a motion towards the House that sits with the House leaders—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would let the member know that I’ve made a ruling on that point of order.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: If I could speak to the point of order raised by my colleague from Cambridge, I understand the convention in this House—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve ruled on that already.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me, on both sides. I’ve already ruled on that request. Thank you very much.

This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1141 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The Liberal government has announced that they are having a fire sale of Ontario Northland. I believe that this is a blatant attempt to keep North Bay and Timmins out of the Ring of Fire. It is my job as MPP to do everything in my power to see that North Bay and the northeastern corridor, up through Timmins and beyond, join in the Ring of Fire, the biggest mining find in this century. The Ring of Fire is out there for grabs and we need to be focused on developing jobs and opportunities.

In addition, I have already submitted two order paper questions to the government asking how they plan to fund Ontario Northland pensioners without any further employee contributions or matching government contributions after the sell-off. I have discovered that any sale of Ontario Northland will cost the government $150 million just for the unfunded liability in the Ontario Northland pension.

The Liberals show a saving of $100 million in the budget, but nowhere does the budget show them paying out the $150 million to protect the pensioners. So I say, the north’s communities need answers. I think what the Liberal government has done to North Bay is awful. I think it was cowardly not to announce it in North Bay, and I think it was politically motivated.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Miss Monique Taylor: In January of this year it was reported that 59,000 children, women and men in Hamilton relied on the Ontario disability support program or Ontario Works. A single individual on Ontario Works receives $599 a month. That doesn’t even cover the most basic necessities for food and shelter. Some 18,432 Hamiltonians turn to a food bank each month; 8,526 of them are children under the age of 18.

I commend the people at Hamilton Food Share and the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction for their work to help Hamiltonians deal with the circumstances that they’re facing under these startling statistics. I thank them for speaking out and bringing these figures to the attention of the broader public.

In a news release issued earlier this week, Joanne Santucci, the executive director of Hamilton Food Share, said, “Many emergency food programs across the city have been reporting a significant increase in need—particularly for infant baby formula.”

Tom Cooper, director of the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction, said, “The Ontario budget will deepen the crises facing many hungry children and adults in Hamilton.”

We need a balanced approach to balancing the budget. If belts need to be tightened, let’s understand that some are already at the last notch and can’t go any tighter.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. Phil McNeely: Over the last few years, the global recession and the needed focus of employment and economic growth have taken our focus off of a critical problem that will define the legacy that we leave for our children and grandchildren. That critical problem is climate change. The changes to our environment will pervade every aspect of our children’s and grandchildren’s lives and will spare no country, province, city or family.

Scientists are virtually unanimous in their belief that climate change is mainly man-made and is principally caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC calculates that in order to avoid a dangerous change to our environment as we know it, we need to reduce the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million. CO₂ in the atmosphere is now at 393 parts per million, and by the time we close all our coal-fired plants in 2014, the CO₂ concentration will be 400 parts per million. The increase each year accelerates.

Canada’s record is one of the worst, and only action by the provinces, especially BC, Quebec, and Ontario, has helped to offset the Harper government’s complete lack of action. Canada’s greenhouse gas production continues to increase.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the point where changes will not be reversible and will be catastrophic. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act. The stakes could not be higher and the need for urgent action could not be clearer. Ontarians have made great strides by reducing the burning of coal and thereby reducing greenhouse gases by 26 million tonnes per year. In 2014, we will be the first government to stop using coal.

I urge all members to support green energy and conservation as we in Ontario lead by example.

MILTON QUARRY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Milton quarry operated by Dufferin Aggregates, a division of Holcim. As the largest working aggregate quarry in Canada, Milton quarry has been an important part of the Halton community and economy since it began its operations in 1962.

As a leading supplier of aggregate for the construction industry in the greater Toronto area and other adjacent municipalities, Milton quarry has contributed to the success of some of the largest construction projects in Canadian history, including Highway 407 and Pearson International Airport.

Having had the opportunity to visit the site and learn about how it operated, I can attest to the quality of work undertaken by the quarry and its employees. Having planted trees at the site at the annual tree-planting events, I can also attest and tell you how proud I am of the company and their commitment to rehabilitating the site. They have been a leader in the industry for quarry rehabilitation and water management. Ongoing rehabilitation plans at Milton quarry will eventually see the site evolve into a community park and wildlife sanctuary for all residents to enjoy.

The Milton quarry has also supported the health care of local residents through contributions to the Milton hospital, which for years has been in need of expansion, and today the planning for that expansion is taking place. The Milton quarry has also been a supporter and partner of local community and environmental organizations, including the Bruce Trail and Scouts Canada.

In recognition of its environmental and community commitments, the Milton quarry has won over 50 industry and community awards for property enhancement, progressive rehabilitation and community relations.

Congratulations on their 50th anniversary.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: On Friday, March 23, another black Friday for the people of northeastern Ontario, the Liberal government announced the intended sale of the assets of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and the death of the Northlander passenger train.

The government uses all the right words, big words like “divestiture,” and promises of an enhanced service, but northerners no longer believe the government’s line, since they also promised not to privatize the ONTC.

The official opposition predictably derides the government’s plan to kill the ONR. They spread the word that the answer to all the north’s problems is to elect them. But they wanted to kill the ONTC in the first place. Has the leopard changed its spots? Well, on April 2, when asked if a Tory government would cancel the ONTC decision, the member from Nipissing said that the sale would be too far gone for the Tories to reverse it and it’s not a given that new owners will downsize operations.

Thousands of people have expressed their shock with this decision. How will seniors and others travel to medical appointments in Toronto without a passenger train—10 hours on the night bus? What about students? What happens when even bus service to small towns in the north is also cancelled? What about the 1,000 jobs? What about the pensions of the people who built Ontario’s development road?

Speaker, the people of the north extracted the natural resources that built this province, and we are doing so again. We have every right to demand equitable service and honest answers.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Like the rest of the world, Ontario has faced some challenges in recent years. We’ve overcome a sluggish US economy and uncertainty in Europe, and now we’re seeing some positive signs of economic growth in our province—we heard this morning about the wonderful job creation we’ve had.

Our government continues to make thoughtful choices to build on this kind of growth.

1310

With Ontario’s economy gaining momentum, we are taking strong action with our plan to balance the budget by 2017-18.

I believe we’re making the right choices for Ontario families. Our plan will make sure all of Ontario’s students are able to reach their full potential. And we’re choosing to protect health care by asking seniors with the highest incomes to pay more for their prescription drug costs, so Ontario can invest in supports for all seniors.

I am proud of the choices we are making to create jobs and protect vital services, but I am disappointed that the Conservatives are playing politics instead of working with us to build a stronger economy. In fact, they vowed to vote against our budget without even taking the time to read it and without making the effort to strengthen it.

With Ontario on the path to recovery, the PCs would cut recklessly and take us off track. But our government has a plan to keep the economic recovery on track by taking strong action to balance the budget and create jobs for Ontario families.

HIGHWAY 7/8

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Many of my constituents have concerns about the government’s plans for Highway 7/8. It matters especially to those who live along the route between New Hamburg and Stratford. Here are just a few of the issues that matter to them: heritage preservation, safety considerations, the environment, regional traffic flow, movement of agricultural equipment, the impact on residents and businesses in Shakespeare, and fair consideration of property values, among many more concerns. These issues matter to them, and they matter to me.

In December, I requested a comprehensive briefing by Ministry of Transportation officials on the plan for Highway 7/8. In January, a briefing took place. I expressed many of the views and concerns I’ve heard from my constituents.

In February, I met with ABC, the Agricultural Business Communities group. In March, I attended Perth county council’s joint meeting with the councils of Perth East and Perth South. I listened as councillors spoke up with tough questions for ministry staff and AECOM staff.

Here’s what I’m asking the Minister of Transportation: He needs to listen carefully to my constituents’ views. The minister needs to do his homework. He needs to show he’s listening, and he needs to show us that our concerns are being addressed.

QUEST FOR GOLD PROGRAM

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I want to thank and recognize several of my constituents who were awarded funding under the Quest for Gold Ontario assistance program. The 2012 Quest for Gold recipients from the riding of Scarborough Southwest were nine. One is present today. His name is Daniel Alvarenga, who is here with his cousin Luis and his mother. I want to thank them for coming here today.

I also want to mention the other recipients: Amy Armstrong, Abdi Dini, Crispin Duenas, Marlon Laidlaw-Allen, Leanna MacLean, Reed May, Kyle Smith and Justin B. Spencer.

These nine athletes were awarded over $41,000 from the government of Ontario, because they have demonstrated at provincial, national and international sporting events that they’re among the best athletes in Ontario.

The Quest for Gold program was established in January 2006 to provide financial support to athletes from Ontario so they can continue their pursuit of athletic excellence at the highest levels of national and international competition. Some specific objects of the Quest for Gold program are (1) to courage athletes to stay in Ontario to live and train; (2) to compensate athletes for earnings lost while training; (3) to increase access to high-performance coaching; and (4) to enable athletes to successfully pursue excellence in sport while fulfilling their educational goals.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating all these remarkable athletes as we continue to support them and all amateur athletes who inspire Ontarians to engage in physical activity and sport.

PRESCOTT AND DISTRICT
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AWARDS

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m proud to rise today to salute the people and businesses honoured last week at the annual Prescott and District Chamber of Commerce awards banquet.

Among the honourees was the Spencerville and District Optimists, whose incredibly dedicated membership was recognized with the Rev. Gerry Ring Memorial Community Service Award for two decades of tireless work for youth. The award was accepted by club founder and former township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal fire chief Jim Purcell. He’s one of eight charter members who remain among the club’s 27 members.

Generations of young people growing up in the Spencerville area owe some of their greatest memories to the countless events and activities either organized or supported by the Optimist Club.

Award winners that night included South Grenville District High School student Tamara Amell, who took home the prestigious Connie Dickey Memorial Youth Award. The Dragon Garden restaurant received the Mike Boyles Memorial Corporate Service Award, and Ian Farthing, the dynamic artistic director of the St. Lawrence Shakespeare Festival, was named Community Artistic and Cultural Contribution Award winner—very fitting, given that this year marks the festival’s 10th anniversary.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the awards ceremony, but, reading from newspaper coverage, I was moved by how humbled and appreciative the winners were to be recognized for their efforts to make life a little better around them. It’s important that we take a moment and thank them.

I want to commend the Prescott chamber and its executive, including president Dan Roddick, for another outstanding celebration of business excellence and community achievement.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’
PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members’ public business, such that Mr. Fedeli assumes ballot item number 28 and Mr. Nicholls assumes ballot item number 51.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
AND RESPONSES

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS /
AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am very pleased to be able to rise today to tell the House and tell the people of Ontario that next week I will have the honour of welcoming to Ontario the members of the aboriginal affairs working group. This group includes Premiers and Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs from each of the provinces and territories. I just want to acknowledge that it was our current Minister of Economic Development and Innovation who initiated the creation of this group, and this is the fourth year in which it will be meeting.

It also includes the participation and support of the leaders of the five national aboriginal organizations: the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

L’Ontario présidera la semaine prochaine ce groupe pour la quatrième fois, la toute première fois pour moi. J’attends avec impatience le début des débats.

I’m very much looking forward to this meeting next week.

In the 2012 speech from the throne, our government committed to “continue to work hard to close the socio-economic gap between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal Ontarians.” The work of the aboriginal affairs working group represents a concrete step toward closing this gap. For the past three years, the working group has provided national leadership as it works collaboratively on issues that are critical to improving conditions for First Nation, Inuit and Métis people.

The group’s priorities include increasing graduation rates for aboriginal students, supporting economic development in aboriginal communities, and taking action to end violence against aboriginal women and girls. This is not something that we can accomplish by going off in separate directions across the country. Success requires all of us working together. La réussite exige que nous conjuguions nos efforts.

And we need a strong and committed federal partner. Mr. Speaker, I’m going to emphasize that. That’s why I’m urging the federal government to join our working group and to contribute to these very important discussions.

Take, for example, one of the most troubling issues: the rate of violence against aboriginal women and girls. Across Canada, the rate of violence against aboriginal women is triple that of non-aboriginal women. Aboriginal women make up only 3% of the female population, and yet murdered aboriginal women represent 10% of female homicides in Canada.

Ici, en Ontario, notre gouvernement collabore avec les communautés autochtones sur plusieurs initiatives pour aider les victimes de la violence et pour prévenir toute forme de violence.

1320

We recognize that we need to work and look at the root causes that affect the safety and well-being of women and girls in the aboriginal community. That’s why our government established the joint working group on violence against aboriginal women, which provides a forum for Ontario ministries and aboriginal partners to work together to effectively address violence against aboriginal women. We’re teaching children and young men that violence is not acceptable, and we’re providing justice and victim support services that help individuals and communities heal. But it’s clear that we have to look at this very serious issue holistically, together with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, addressing the pressing issues faced by aboriginal people is an economic and a social imperative. Our well-being is interconnected. To build a stronger Ontario and stronger Canada, we must build stronger aboriginal communities, working with aboriginal communities.

Aboriginal communities represent the province’s fastest-growing potential workforce. It’s estimated that by 2036, a quarter of all workers in northern Ontario will be aboriginal. That’s why we’re working hard to increase the participation of First Nations and Métis communities in areas such as mining, forestry and green energy. Our government has created a number of initiatives to help aboriginal communities prosper and benefit from economic opportunities. The northern training partnership fund provides skills training to help aboriginal and non-aboriginal northern Ontarians participate in and benefit from emerging economic development opportunities like the Ring of Fire. Through the new relationship fund, we provide increased economic development and skills training opportunities to help aboriginal communities work and partner with business and government. And to support Métis economic development, we’re providing up to $30 million over 10 years through the Métis Voyageur development fund. These initiatives will provide First Nation and Métis communities with the support they need to benefit from Ontario’s economic developments.

Monsieur le Président, les jeunes autochtones constituent le segment qui croît le plus rapidement dans notre pays et, par conséquent, représentent une partie importante de l’avenir de l’Ontario.

The aboriginal youth in this country and in this province represent one of the fastest-growing parts of the population, and so they are a key part to the future of the province. And yet, in Ontario, aboriginal people are three times less likely than non-aboriginal Ontarians to obtain a university degree. Across Canada, the high school dropout rate for aboriginal youth is 2.5 times the rate of non-aboriginal youth. And to me and to our government, and I think to everyone in this House, what’s most troubling is that that gap is widening. We know how important an education is. Our government has made it a priority to ensure that all children in Ontario, including aboriginal children, have the best possible educational opportunities available to them. I will be the first to admit, as a former Minister of Education and now as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that that work is not done. We know that there is much that has to be done, and I want to reinforce our government’s commitment to aboriginal students in our provincial education system.

J’aimerais réaffirmer l’engagement de notre gouvernement vis-à-vis des apprenants autochtones dans notre système provincial d’éducation.

Our aboriginal education strategy has been designed to help improve opportunities for off-reserve First Nation, Métis and Inuit students, whether they live in remote areas or urban areas. So, with the launch of that strategy, the Ontario First Nation, Métis and Inuit education policy framework, we have made system-wide change to address the needs of aboriginal learners in the province, in our provincial schools, and we’ll continue to work to increase all Ontario students’ knowledge and awareness of First Nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, history and perspectives. I think that is a frontier for us as government, to make sure that not just aboriginal students but all students have a better sense of the history of First Nation, Métis and Inuit cultures. I believe that the keys to the success of these initiatives lie in the development of good, collaborative relationships and mutually beneficial partnerships.

Nous devons collaborer plus étroitement, à savoir les gouvernements, les formateurs et les partenaires autochtones, pour améliorer le milieu éducatif.

We’re very proud of the record that we have, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to education in Ontario, but the reality is that only the federal government can resolve the disparity in funding between education on First Nation reserves and education delivered in the rest of the province.

In the most recent speech from the throne, our government continued to call on the federal government to work with First Nations, other aboriginal partners and the province to improve education outcomes for aboriginal students. I just want to reinforce that we need that partnership. We’re calling on the federal government to partner with us and First Nations people. Since 2009 and to this day, the working group has repeatedly called upon the Prime Minister to convene a First Ministers’ meeting on aboriginal education with national aboriginal leaders.

Le gouvernement fédéral doit devenir un partenaire plus engagé avec les communautés autochtones en ce qui concerne l’éducation sur les réserves.

Without that federal partnership, it’s very difficult for the country to move forward on this issue of education for aboriginal students. This includes providing adequate funding.

Although—and everyone in this House, I think, will know—the federal government did provide additional funds for First Nation education in their budget last week, this is merely a small first step in improving on-reserve education for aboriginal children across Ontario and Canada.

Let me just put it in context. The need for operating and capital dollars that was announced in their budget—by our estimates, in Ontario alone the need is in the order of $200 million per year to close the on-reserve/off-reserve gap in funding. The federal budget announced only $275 million over three years for the entire country. So the disparity there demonstrates that the funding gap still exists between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students. First Nation children will still receive thousands of dollars less per student each year from the federal government than the provinces provide to non-aboriginal students.

The cuts to the overall budget of the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada make it a bit hard to believe that the federal government is serious about improving the quality of life for aboriginal communities across the country.

To my mind, getting the funding for aboriginal students right, getting education right, will allow everything else to fall into place. It is a critical cornerstone. Ottawa must correct the funding imbalances so First Nations students receive the same funding as other children

Ottawa doit corriger les déséquilibres en matière de financement pour permettre aux élèves et étudiants des Premières Nations de recevoir le même financement.

It must also address the state of on-reserve school infrastructure in a systematic way. Next week, when working group members arrive in Toronto, it will be exactly five years to the day since the federal government promised the community of Pikangikum a permanent school. I’m going to use this community as an example because it’s one that has been fairly high-profile.

I recently visited Pikangikum, Mr. Speaker, and I asked to visit their school. There is no permanent school. In fact, there’s no school in sight. The community’s small cluster of portables showcases the urgent need for Canada to take its on-reserve responsibilities more seriously.

Now we’ve learned that even with this makeshift school, which is more like a cluster of portables, the year for elementary students is in jeopardy. The state of the mould in the teacherages, which are the buildings that the teachers live in, has made it unsafe for many of the teachers to remain in the community. The federal government must take action to ensure that no First Nation children in Canada have to experience losing a school year as the children in Pikangikum may have to.

At the time when I was in Pikangikum, I spoke with the principal of the school. She noted that next year, even with the facility that they have, there’s a whole class of junior kindergarten students that would not have a place in the school, that would not have an opportunity to come to the school just because of the physical inadequacy.

Mr. Speaker, like the students in Pikangikum First Nation, the aboriginal affairs working group is tired of waiting. It’s time the federal government stepped up and eliminated the funding gap. Half-hearted attempts at addressing the education outcomes on First Nation reserves are not enough. We know the answer, and that answer is to address the disparity in funding for First Nation education.

L’Ontario et le groupe de travail sont prêts, disponibles et capables de travailler avec eux.

We are willing, we are waiting, we are there to be partners in working on this incredibly important issue. We know what needs to be done to improve education for First Nation students, and we need everyone at the table to make it happen.

I’ve been very clear that I understand full well that the provincial government, First Nations and the federal government all need to be at the table in order to bring the resources, the knowledge and the capacity that are necessary to resolve this issue.

1330

Again, I look forward to welcoming my counterparts from the provinces and territories and the leaders of the five national aboriginal organizations. I look forward to a productive meeting next week, and I look forward to progress for a better future for aboriginal people and, therefore, for all Canadians.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Merci. Meegwetch.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Responses?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to begin with a quote from Chief Dean Sayers: “Ontario continues to shoulder the responsibility to the federal government and this is simply unacceptable.”

The aboriginal affairs working group is focused on delivering results in key areas, including education, economic development, and violence against aboriginal women and girls. The aboriginal affairs working group has adopted a collaborative approach to setting targets in (1) graduation rates for education; (2) closing the income gap between natives and non-natives in regard to economic development; and (3) ending violence against women and children.

The objective of the aboriginal affairs working group is to work effectively with the federal government to improve outcomes for aboriginal peoples.

Today’s statement by the minister gives a warm and fuzzy feeling but fails to document measurable targets or benchmarks in any of the key areas. Where is the increase in graduation rates? How much has the income gap closed between natives and non-natives? Where are the statistics to show that violence against women and children is decreasing? Where is the provincial commitment to play its part in training and retraining teachers?

The federal government has the ability to move forward with the announcement regarding education buildings, but one of the commitments in the past was to have teachers, and retain teachers, from the aboriginal communities.

Why does the government continue to be reactive instead of proactive when it comes to economic development and social programs for First Nations? Why do they not work more closely and take into effect existing priorities or assets?

Where is the plan to combat drug abuse? In November 2009, Nishnawbe Aski Nation declared a prescription drug abuse state of emergency as a result of the epidemic in their communities. With the recent removal of OxyContin from the drug supply, this issue is set to escalate.

Mr. Speaker, I must go on about that. I’ll explain this to the individuals here. OxyContin is a time-release pill. What takes place is, these individuals are looking for this high, so they crush the pill and consume it all at once, getting that rush all at once. Here’s something, Minister, you’re probably not aware of: The new replacement drug has now been broken down and can be used in the same fashion. Where is the plan for the government to combat prescription drug abuse?

The government claims to be taking a collaborative approach to dealing with First Nations. Here’s a quote from Nishnawbe Aski Nation’s website with respect to Bill 191, the Far North Act: “The Far North Act is viewed by First Nations in NAN as an invalid law and a new form of colonialism.”

Here’s a quote from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation website with respect to the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act: “NAN has taken the opportunity to measure the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act against international human rights instruments and has found many human rights violations. The act was an opportunity for the province of Ontario to recognize First Nation forestry development rights and guarantee equitable sharing of the economic benefits. Instead, First Nations continue to be marginalized in the forestry sector, not only by private companies, but now also by” local forest management corporations “which will be controlled by the province of Ontario.”

Does this sound like a collaborative approach to working with First Nations?

Are First Nations communities better off now than they were eight years ago? Indian and Northern Affairs Canada have developed a community well-being index to measure the quality of life in First Nation communities based on four indicators, including education, labour force, income and housing. The CWB scores and trends show, not surprisingly, that the quality of life in First Nation communities is not keeping pace and that there has been little or no progress.

Are First Nation housing conditions any better? I think not. Do First Nation communities have better drinking water infrastructure? Do First Nations communities have access to better education or health care? Most importantly, do First Nations kids have hope and opportunities for the future?

It’s great to hear notions about collaboration and relationships, but let’s see some results. The federal government promised new investments of $100 million over three years to pay for literacy programs as well as other supports and services for aboriginal schools and students. In addition, Ottawa has promised $175 million over three years to help build and renovate schools and reserves, as well as a federal government commitment for $330.8 million for replacing and fixing water infrastructure on reserves.

I’ll close as I started. Chief Dean Sayers commented: “Ontario continues to shoulder the responsibility to the federal government and this is simply unacceptable.”

Never mind waiting, just do what’s right. Meegwetch.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Kenora–Rainy River.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I would like to thank the minister for taking the time to keep this House up to date on the work being done by the aboriginal affairs working group.

Next week, as the minister pointed out, the group is meeting in Toronto, but I respectfully suggest that the minister talk to the committee and ask them—encourage them—to go up to Pikangikum, to meet there, because I truly believe that seeing is part of understanding. I know that the minister is very passionate about what’s happening in Pikangikum.

The group has a mandate to help increase graduation rates among First Nations youth, supporting economic development in First Nations communities and ending the violence against aboriginal women and girls, as the minister pointed out.

Since being elected, I’ve had a number of opportunities to work with the minister and her staff and, again, I firmly believe that the minister is sincere in her desire to work with First Nations to improve their quality of life.

The minister spoke of the conditions in Pikangikum, but I wanted to point out that the conditions of the school there are not unique to Pikangikum. I’d like to take a moment, if I could, to read a letter from Mr. Ryan Boggs, who is a teacher from Fort Severn First Nation. Mr. Boggs writes, “The students in my current class have been going to school in portables for as long as they can remember. Their ‘school’ consists of cold buildings (it has gotten as low as minus 50), constant plumbing problems, no gym and few, if any, resources for their instruction.”

He continues: “I do not find it surprising that many students barely complete grade school: hopelessness pervades. Hopelessness in a child is disastrous. These children deserve a new school, one that will encourage them to be excited about their education and their future. If they don’t, I fear another generation will be lost to gangs and abuse.”

I’d like to take this opportunity to give voice to that generation and share some of the comments from the students at that school in Fort Severn—the elementary school at Wasaho.

Tyler writes, “The kids sit around and eat junk food and watch TV or sit on the computer instead of exercising. This makes me alone and depressed.”

Andrea writes, “We have no proper school and no gym. Our first school got shut down due to mould. I was only in grade 1 at the time.” She’s now in grade 8. She writes, “The students of Wasaho First Nation School had to get their education all over the town, such as at the youth centre, Niska Café and the E-Centre. Other families went out of the reserve to give their child a proper education.”

Savannah writes, “In Fort Severn the kids here are almost always bored. We go to school in portables and we have no gym. Kids here sniff gas, glue, nail polish and hair spray instead of exercising. This makes me feel dead and alone.”

Interjection: Terrible.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Sorry, I’m getting emotional. It’s terrible.

These are some of the voices of the students at Wasaho school. I would ask a page to deliver these. It’s really unfortunate that we have this in Ontario.

These students cannot wait for First Nations education to be funded equally. Even Don Drummond, the consultant charged with cutting the province’s spending, stated very bluntly that the province needs to step up and provide funding for First Nations students if the federal government won’t.

A few months ago, the national media was abuzz with talk of Attawapiskat’s housing crisis. There are dozens of Attawapiskats across my riding and across Ontario. These communities are desperate, where the communities’ infrastructure has been underfunded and left to rot by a federal government unwilling to step up and fulfil its duties and a provincial government that keeps telling us that this is a federal issue.

Minister, children are in desperation, and they don’t care about federal or provincial jurisdictions. We have an obligation, not as politicians but as human beings, to step up and work together, to bring hope back to Fort Severn and communities all over Ontario.

1340

We have to step up and we have to do the right thing. We can’t fight about who ends up footing the bill. We can fight about that later. We have an obligation to Andrea, Tyler, Morley, Rachel, Jade, Rebecca, Savannah, Matilda, Jay, River, Laurinda, Samantha and the countless thousands of students across this province.

We have an obligation to put partisanship and jurisdictional boundaries aside and provide them with a reason to get up in the morning and with a future. We have an obligation to Samuel, who puts it very simply and very eloquently: “We need your help to make a better life.”

PETITIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. John O’Toole: I was listening to the speech from the member from the NDP—very good.

My petition is from the riding of Durham, and it reads as follows:

“Whereas citizens are concerned that contaminants in materials used as fill for pits and quarries may endanger water quality and the natural environment of the greenbelt; and

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment has a responsibility and a duty to protect the sensitive areas of the greenbelt and provincially sensitive wetlands; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario has the lead responsibility to provide the tools to lower-tier governments to plan, protect and enforce clear, effective policies governing the application and permitting process for the placement of fill in abandoned pits and quarries; and

“Whereas this process requires clarification regarding rules respecting what materials may be used to rehabilitate or fill abandoned pits and quarries;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Minister of the Environment”––who’s here today—“to initiate a moratorium on the clean fill application and permit process on the greenbelt until there are clear rules; and we further ask that the provincial government take all necessary actions to protect our water and prevent contamination of the greenbelt” and other sensitive areas in the province of Ontario; more importantly, in my riding of Durham.

I’m pleased to sign and support it and present it to Nicholas on his last day here at Queen’s Park—a sad day.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M^me France Gélinas: J’ai une pétition qui nous parvient d’un peu partout à travers l’Ontario :

« Attendu que la mission du commissaire aux services en français est de veiller à ce que la population reçoive en français des services de qualité du gouvernement de l’Ontario et de surveiller l’application de la Loi sur les services en français;

« Attendu que le commissaire a le mandat de mener des enquêtes indépendantes selon la Loi sur les services en français;

« Attendu que contrairement au vérificateur général, à l’ombudsman, au commissaire à l’environnement et au commissaire à l’intégrité qui, eux, relèvent de l’Assemblée législative, le commissaire aux services en français relève de la ministre déléguée aux services en français; »

Ils demandent « à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario de changer les pouvoirs du commissaire aux services en français afin qu’il relève directement de l’Assemblée législative. »

J’appuie cette pétition, monsieur le Président. Je vais la signer et demander au page Ammaar de l’amener au greffier.

IMMIGRATION POLICY /
POLITIQUES D’IMMIGRATION

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario entitled “Respect for Diverse Communities.”

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the settlement of new Canadians to the province of Ontario remains a joint responsibility of the federal and provincial governments;

“Whereas the settlement of new Canadians to the province of Ontario remains a function of the departments of citizenship and immigration at both the federal and provincial levels;

“Whereas Ontario still remains the destination of choice for new Canadians in our federation;

“We, the undersigned, ask that the province contact its federal counterpart, including but not limited to the Honourable Jason Kenney and his department, and notify them:

“That the proposed reduction in the number of centres in the GTA authorized to perform immigration medical exams, the IMM 1017, is ill-advised;

“That the reduction in number of centres in the GTA where services are offered in French is ill-advised;

“Que la réduction du nombre de centres dans la région du grand Toronto où les services sont offerts en français est mal avisée;

“That the virtual elimination of centres where services are offered in the GTA in the languages of Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Farsi, Tamil and Arabic is ill-advised, and that it not only will inflict undue hardship on those cultural communities but is generally discordant with the Canadian values of openness, pluralism and diversity.”

I certainly support this petition, will sign it and send it to you via page Julia.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by a great many people, not only from my riding but from across the province of Ontario.

“Whereas the Ontario Ombudsman, who is an officer of the Legislature, is not allowed to provide trusted, independent investigations of complaints in the areas of hospitals, long-term-care homes, school boards, children’s aid societies, police, retirement homes and universities; and

“Whereas Ontario is the only province in Canada not allowing their Ombudsman to investigate any of these areas; and

“Whereas people wronged by these institutions are left feeling helpless and most have nowhere else to turn for help to correct systemic issues;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Grant the Ombudsman the power to investigate hospitals, long-term-care homes, school boards, children’s aid societies, police, retirement homes and universities.”

I thank you very much for the opportunity to present this petition on their behalf.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: Sorry, Paul. I stood up once before, before you got here.

Mr. Paul Miller: I was up first, thank you, Mr. Qaadri.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: This is on behalf of residents in northeastern Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission provides services which are vital to the north’s economy; and

“Whereas it is a lifeline for the residents of northern communities who have no other source of public transportation; and

“Whereas the ONTC could be a vital link to the Ring of Fire;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the planned cancellation of the Northlander and the sale of the rest of the assets at Ontario Northland Transportation Commission be halted immediately.”

I wholeheartedly agree, affix my signature and give to it page Preston.

IMMIGRATION POLICY /
POLITIQUES D’IMMIGRATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Etobicoke–North.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Speaker. I am willing to yield my spot to the member of Hamilton East–Stoney Creek. He does seem quite anxious. Am I able to do that, sir?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’ve already recognized you. Proceed.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, sir. I will follow that.

Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which is entitled “Respect for Diverse Communities.”

“Whereas the settlement of new Canadians to the province of Ontario remains a joint responsibility of the federal and provincial governments;

“Whereas the settlement of new Canadians to the province of Ontario remains a function of the departments of citizenship and immigration at both the federal and provincial levels;

“Whereas Ontario still remains the destination of choice for new Canadians in our federation;

“We, the undersigned, ask that the province contact its federal counterpart, including but not limited to the Honourable Jason Kenney and his department, and notify them:

“That the proposed reduction in the number of centres in the GTA authorized to perform immigration medical exams, the IMM 1017, is ill-advised;

“That the reduction in number of centres in the GTA where services are offered in French is ill-advised;

“Que la réduction du nombre de centres dans la région du grand Toronto où les services sont offerts en français est mal avisée;

I certainly support this petition, Speaker, and send it to you via page Hassan.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs. Julia Munro: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas citizens are concerned that contaminants in materials used as fill for pits and quarries may endanger water quality and the natural environment of the greenbelt; and

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment has a responsibility and a duty to protect the sensitive areas of the greenbelt and provincially sensitive wetlands; and

“Whereas this process requires clarification regarding rules respecting what materials may be used to rehabilitate or fill abandoned pits and quarries;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Minister of the Environment to initiate a moratorium on the clean fill application and permit process on the greenbelt until there are clear rules; and we further ask that the provincial government take all necessary actions to protect our water and prevent contamination of the greenbelt.”

I’ve affixed my signature and give this to page Liam.

1350

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to comment on the generosity of the member from Etobicoke North; I’m sure he had my well-being in his heart.

Speaker, this is day four in a row—I’m now having thousands a day—this is 3,776 more petitions signed.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario horse racing and breeding industry generates $2 billion of economic activity, mostly in rural Ontario;

“Whereas more than 60,000 Ontarians are employed by Ontario’s horse racing and breeding industry;

“Whereas 20% of the funds generated by the OLG slots-at-racetracks program is reinvested in racetracks and the horse racing and breeding industry, while 75% is returned to the government of Ontario;

“Whereas the OLG slots-at-racetracks program generates $1.1 billion a year for health care and other spending, making it the most profitable form of gaming in the province for OLG;

“Whereas the government has announced plans to cancel the slots-at-racetracks program, a decision that will cost the government $1.1 billion per year and threatens more than 60,000 jobs;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Call on the government of Ontario to protect the $1.1 billion of revenue the government received annually because of the OLG slots-at-racetracks program; direct OLG to honour the contracts with racetracks and protect the horse racing and breeding industry by continuing the OLG slots-at-racetracks revenue-sharing program.”

I agree with this, Speaker, and will gladly sign my name to it.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Phil McNeely: “To the Legislature of Ontario:

“Whereas the current enrolment of Avalon Public School is 687 students;

“Whereas the student capacity of the school is 495 students, as determined by the Ministry of Education’s own occupancy formula;

“Whereas the issue of overcrowding and lack of space makes it impossible for Avalon Public School to offer full-day kindergarten until the overcrowding issue is addressed;

“Whereas Avalon Public School is located in a high-growth community;

“Whereas the enrolment at Avalon Public School is expected to continue rising at a rate of 10% to 15% a year for the foreseeable future;

“Whereas the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board has made building a new school in Avalon a top capital priority;

“We, the undersigned, call on the province of Ontario and Ministry of Education to provide the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board with the necessary funding to build an additional school in Avalon, to open no later than September 2014.”

I agree with this petition, and I send it forward with Abbigail. Thank you.

GREENBELT

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present another petition from my riding of Durham, which reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Greenbelt Act was passed by the Ontario Legislature in 2005, affecting property rights in Ontario; and

“Whereas the right to own, use, enjoy and the opportunity to earn a living from private property is the basis of freedom and democracy; and

“Whereas the greenbelt restricts property owners in the use, enjoyment and ability to earn a living from their private property; and

“Whereas property owners are not being compensated for any loss of these rights;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the greenbelt plan area”—and the Oak Ridges moraine act—“at the 10-year re-evaluation in 2015 to allow additional development when requested by the community and supported by the local municipality.”

I’m pleased to sign and support this and present it to Preston, one of the pages who is working his last afternoon here at Queen’s Park. Thank you, Preston.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You will have heard this before; thousands and thousands have signed it.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario horse racing and breeding industry generates $2 billion of economic activity, mostly in rural Ontario;

“Whereas more than 60,000 Ontarians are employed by Ontario’s horse racing and breeding industry;

“Whereas the OLG slots-at-racetracks program generates $1.1 billion a year for health care and other spending, making it the most profitable form of gaming in the province for OLG;

“Whereas the government has announced plans to cancel the slots-at-racetracks program, a decision that will cost the government $1.1 billion per year and threatens more than 60,000 jobs;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

I couldn’t agree more with this, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to sign it, and I’m going to give it to Hassan on his last day to be delivered.

IMMIGRATION POLICY /
POLITIQUES D’IMMIGRATION

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, entitled “Respect for Diverse Communities.”