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

October 6, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-06 (PDF)

L105 - Tue 6 Oct 2015 / Mar 6 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 6 October 2015 Mardi 6 octobre 2015

Orders of the Day

Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Health care

Privatization of public assets

International trade agreement

By-election in Sudbury

International trade agreement

Child care

Housing Services Corp.

International trade agreement

Social services professionals

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Privatization of public assets

Community policing

Road maintenance

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Oktoberfest

Bernie Campbell and Les Chaif

Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day

Pan Am and Parapan Am athletes

Climate change

Arthur McDonald

Hispanic Heritage Month

Adoption

TD Tree Days

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Child Abuse Prevention Month / Mois de la prévention du mauvais traitement des enfants

Petitions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mental health and addiction services

Lung health

Air quality

Diagnostic services

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Poet laureate

Municipal restructuring

Orders of the Day

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Adjournment Debate

Housing Services Corp.

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 24, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 106,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 1998, to enact the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015 and to amend other Acts with respect to condominiums / Projet de loi 106, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums, édictant la Loi de 2015 sur les services de gestion de condominiums et modifiant d’autres lois en ce qui concerne les condominiums.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise and add the voice of my constituents from Windsor West to the debate about Bill 106, Protecting Condominium Owners Act.

I’d like to start with a bit of a background on this bill. There are about 1.3 million Ontarians who live in condos and half of all new homes being built are condos. I can tell you, Speaker, that probably the majority of those condos are being built here in the greater Toronto area. In Windsor and, specifically, in my riding of Windsor West, we don’t see an awful lot of high-rise condo buildings going up.

Interjection.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: No, I suppose it wouldn’t be the same in yours either.

What we see in my riding, and all across Windsor and Essex county, are often these beautiful homes going up, or cottage-like homes going up because, as you know, Speaker, we have this beautiful waterfront that draws people from all over the province. A lot of people want to come and retire; a lot of people come and buy homes as their cottages. They’re not a traditional cottage, they’re actually what someone would live in year-round and they’re on the waterfront.

I’d like to boast about the fact that in Windsor and Essex county—I suspect it would be the same in your area, Speaker—housing prices are quite affordable. So when I’m speaking to this particular bill about protecting condominium owners, I will admit I’m a little bit out of my element because this is not something that we’re seeing. We’re not seeing condos popping up all over Windsor and Essex county; what we’re seeing are single-family homes, so I’m going to do my best to get through this in the 10 minutes.

Similar to a municipal government, condo residents pay taxes, or condo fees, and abide by bylaws. Condo governance is basically a fourth level of government for these people, and the Condominium Act is like the Constitution and the Charter of Rights for this level of quasi government.

The condo act is 16 years old and predates the recent condo boom. That’s something that I had touched on: There seems to be a condo boom in the greater Toronto area—not just here in Toronto, but you see it spread out into Mississauga, Oakville and probably up Oshawa way, where my colleague is from. In fact, last night, I was just walking down Yonge Street here, and it amazes me the number of condos they’re building along the Yonge Street corridor and how much that has changed. I used to come with my family when I was a little younger than I am now, and Yonge Street looked very different.

Interjection.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Yes, just a little younger, Speaker.

It’s amazing to see the difference in the area, specifically Yonge Street and the number of condos that are popping up. Even by the building that I stay in here—the condo that I stay in when I’m here in Toronto—there is a building going up behind me, and there’s another building that’s just in the works across the street from the building where I am.

We need to make sure that as people are buying these condominiums, they’re protected; that what they’ve agreed to, what they are investing their money in, is actually what they are going to receive. The issue is that, all too often, we see people spend—again, I’ll go back to the cost of living in the GTA. It’s very different than the cost of living in Windsor. It’s a very substantial amount of money that people are investing in condominiums in this area.

We need to make sure that when they are making that big investment, that when they’re promised they are going to have a gym in the building, that gym is actually there, and it’s there as promised; that it’s not just a couple of machines, that it’s actually the gym that’s promised. We need to make sure that when someone spends the money to upgrade the cabinets or the countertops in their condominium, those are actually the products that they receive.

Again, this is a big investment for people, many who are struggling to make ends meet but want to become homeowners, want to invest in a property that they know they are going to get a return on. We need to make sure that the money that they are spending is money well spent and that they’re getting everything that they were promised.

The NDP has been pushing hard for these much-needed reforms that are in this bill, ever since NDP MPP Rosario Marchese’s first condo bill in 2007. These efforts met inexplicable resistance from the government, which kept insisting that such reforms were unnecessary. But eight years, eight consumer ministers and two Premiers later, we finally have a bill that addresses some of the concerns that my former colleague had brought forward several times.

The bill includes important and much-needed reforms to condo board governance and finance. Condo owners will benefit from greater training and assistance for condo board directors; and the owners will have more power to see important corporation documents, to request meetings and to ensure that large expenditures do not occur without consultation or notification of the owners. The NDP has long supported such reforms, and it’s really good, Speaker, to see that the government has finally acknowledged the need for them.

We need to make sure that condo owners have a voice, that when something isn’t done as promised, they have a venue to go and express their concerns and have them dealt with in a timely manner. We don’t want to see people having to go back over and over again for years and say, “This wasn’t right when it was built; it needs to be fixed; it’s not what I paid for.” We don’t want them having to have that battle over and over again for years. When something is not done right, it needs to be fixed right away. There has to be some recourse for condo owners.

What’s in this bill is reasonably good, Speaker, but the NDP—my colleagues on this side of the room—are concerned about what’s not in the bill. The condominium authority, at this time, must actually make the dispute resolution process quicker and cheaper. So, as I had said, when somebody does have an issue when something is not built as promised, they need to have those concerns addressed in a timely manner. They shouldn’t have to wait for a really long time to have them—or sometimes not at all; sometimes they’re not addressed at all.

It must not become an ineffective bureaucracy that only adds to costs and delays for condo owners. The effectiveness of the condo authority will depend on regulations that still are not written in this bill.

The NDP also welcomes condo manager licensing. It’s too bad the government did not implement this reform two years ago when it announced plans to fast-track this universally supported reform. It looks like we’ll have to wait a little bit longer for further regulations, and these will determine how much recourse, how much teeth the condo manager licensing authority will actually have.

Many of the details of Bill 106 will depend on future regulations. We saw how the condo act review process was dominated by special interests from the condo industry and not owners. That’s really unfortunate, Speaker, because the developers, the condo industry, are doing a pretty good business, specifically in the GTA. We need to make sure that the people who are struggling to save money to purchase a condo, an investment, a lifetime investment—we have to make sure that we’re not catering to those who are building these condos and making the money that they’re making.

We need to make sure that the people who are investing in these condos are getting a good investment, getting a good return for their money. They should really be the ones who have the louder voice when it comes to their real estate, not the people who are building the condos.

So, as I said, the condo owners, not the industry, really should be playing the lead role in how the regulations are developed. I think you’ve heard, probably time and time again from this side of the room, that really the public, the people who are investing, should be the ones who should be spoken to and listened to at great length, to hear what it is they need and make sure they’re getting what it is they are asking for.

I know my time is almost up here. I thought I’d have difficulty speaking to this because, as I said, we don’t really have a lot of condos going up in Windsor, but I find that once you get into it, there is a lot to discuss.

I’d like to just touch on some of the stakeholder responses. They said that there needs to be more transparency for contract procurement, including knowing the names of bidders, in order to discourage bid rigging. Again that goes back to the fact that this is a really, really large investment for many, many people, and we need to make sure that the deck isn’t stacked against them.

We can’t have it where we have developers or someone from the outside who is purposely bidding just to raise the price when they really have no intention of ever wanting to own that condo; they’re doing it only to drive up the cost for the person who will actually end up with it and increase the profits for those who build the condos.

As I see about 30 seconds left on the clock, I know I have other colleagues who would like to speak to this, and I’m sure that they’ll build more on where I’m leaving off. Again, the main concern for me, on this side of the room, is making sure that those who are investing the money in these condominiums are being listened to, that they’re being given what they were promised when they invested in the condos and that it doesn’t take a long time for a resolution when they do have a concern.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments? The minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Good morning, Speaker. You look good in the chair.

I have listened very attentively to the comments from the member from Windsor West, and I have to say that she has advanced several issues related to condominiums and the difficulties that condominium owners experience with their units.

I have to compliment, as well, the minister for bringing this piece of legislation forward, as it is very timely and much needed. I hope that, through the consultation process, we can indeed hear more from the various stakeholders and bring back an even better bill than what is being presented.

I have my share of condominiums in my area, let alone the experience I’ve had over the years with respect to condominium management and owners and boards. I think that’s where most of the problems lie: with the internal management of the various buildings themselves. If there is frustration on the part of the owners of the various units in a building, it is with the management, it is with the board that manages the operation of the building, the difficulties in arranging meetings, the difficulties in getting hold of the board, not enough consultation within the building itself.

It is impossible, almost, to call a meeting of all of the owners because of the various ownerships probably left in the hands of the original builder. There is a lot of concern with it.

I hope we can get this bill through as soon as possible and make it, indeed, something that will help the condominium owners in the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario.

I think I have done my time just on time; look at this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from Leeds–Grenville, the deputy leader for the official opposition.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. That’s very kind of you to note.

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: Boy, I’m getting heckled from my introduction. I was going to say we should rename today “Together Tuesday” because we all seem to be together when it comes to Bill 106. That is the first time I’ve ever heard of getting heckled over an introduction, so I’ve learned something new.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s about your tie.

Mr. Steve Clark: This tie? You like my tie? The Minister of Community Safety has complimented—I call this tie a Fedeli, because of my seatmate, Vic Fedeli.

I want to thank the member for Windsor West. I thought her comments this morning were excellent and really representative, I think, of how the three parties feel about this bill. Normally a bill that, in this case, creates a couple of different authorities would get a comment from me against increasing red tape and bureaucracy. However, I think we all agree that there are a number of new consumer and financial protection measures that are included with this bill.

Obviously, a bill of this type needs extensive consultation, and I know that the government has done some. I’m glad that the member noted Mr. Marchese, as well, because it was something that he was exceptionally passionate about in the House. I think we all agree that we need to have a different system. Many ministers since 1998 have failed to bring in legislation that would improve condominiums and their structure and framework.

It’s interesting. I had a conversation this morning with our House leader, Mr. Wilson, where he noted that he is hearing more and more advertisements now for education programs for boards of directors for condos, for condo managers. I think the industry is getting ready for this piece of legislation to be passed. I would expect, knowing the government and their guillotine motions, we’ll have a closure motion on this, probably tomorrow, and move the bill forward.

I want to thank the member for Windsor West and look forward to the other debate this morning.

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

M me France Gélinas: It is always interesting to listen to my colleague from Windsor West and how she had this opportunity to bring her voice to this debate.

It is a debate that has been going on for a very long time, Speaker. I was here in 2007 when Rosario started to talk about it. Rosario Marchese was an NDP MPP from Trinity–Spadina. He had lots of condos in his riding, and he was bringing forward serious issues that were happening eight years ago, in 2007. Fast-forward to 2015 and I’m glad we’ve got Bill 106, the government’s bill, but even some of these issues that were identified by Rosario eight years ago are still not addressed in the bill. Why is it that we have to wait for such a long time to take just a half-step to solve the issues that we all know exist?

What is in the bill are steps in the right direction. That makes sense, to make sure that there is an inexpensive way for owners and boards to resolve their disputes. We’re all for this, Speaker. But the elephant in this bill, if you want, is that there is nothing about developers—when there are seven class action lawsuits in Toronto alone against developers. When we open up the part of the bill that has to do with the new homes act, why is it that we don’t take the time to solve the entire problem, not just part of it?

So I thank the member for Windsor West for bringing her concerns forward.

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

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’m very pleased to stand in support of Bill 106, our government’s Protecting Condominium Owners Act. I think, as I heard from the comments made by the parties opposites, that overall, everyone is very pleased to see this bill here. It clearly is extremely comprehensive, covering so many different aspects that, of course, it has taken a certain amount of time and consultation—which, in my view, has been incredibly wide-ranging—to get this bill to this particular place in the form that it is in.

It has so many protective aspects: increasing the protections for condo owners and Ontarians purchasing a condo, requiring condominium managers to be licensed, creating new governance requirements for condo boards, strengthening the financial sustainability of condo buildings, and establishing a modern, cost-effective dispute resolution system.

In my great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, I have over 250,000 people who live in my riding—a very, very large riding. Actually, it’s kind of a sprawling riding. In fact, there are very few condominium buildings as yet, but I know that they’re going to come because of our government’s legislation related to Places To Grow and to the protection of the greenbelt. Of course, we’re going to see some intensification in my riding. So I’m particularly pleased that these types of protections will be in place as these condominium buildings come into the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, and my constituents will have the type of protections that we see in this particular act.

Some 50% of all new construction of homes is through the condominium mechanism.

This is a good bill, I urge everyone to support it, and I look forward to hearing comments from the parties opposite.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to thank the minister responsible for seniors affairs, the member from Leeds–Grenville, my colleague from Nickel Belt and the Minister of Community and Social Services for adding their comments to what I had to say.

I find it interesting that the Minister of Community and Social Services had mentioned that it’s taken a certain amount of time to consult with people and to come up with the bill, but we’re talking eight years—eight years to make some reforms.

What’s sorely lacking in the bill—yes, we are generally supportive of the bill, but we see that there needs to be more. There definitely need to be more voices from this room added to it. There are things that are missing from the bill; for instance, there’s no Tarion reform. The act requires Tarion to maintain a builder registry, enforce builder warranties and make sure new homes are built to the building code, are habitable and are built to a decent standard of workmanship. If the builder doesn’t honour the warranty, then Tarion is required to pay for the repair.

The big “but” here is that under Tarion’s bylaw number one, which has the same status as a provincial regulation, half of the board for Tarion must be appointed by the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, which is a construction industry lobby group.

Basically, what we’re saying is we’re putting the fox in the henhouse. The government’s saying they want some oversight, but half of the board that provides that oversight is appointed by the very people that are building these condos. I’m not saying that all builders are not building to standards; that they are going to run around ripping people off—that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is there is the potential for someone who maybe does not have the best interest of the condo owner to take advantage of the process. So we would really like to see a review of Tarion put into this bill to make sure that those checks and balances are in place.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Good morning, Speaker. Thank you very much for recognizing me to speak on this very important issue, Bill 106, Protecting Condominium Owners Act.

A couple of points before I get into why this issue is important for me from my perspective as the member of provincial Parliament for the great riding of Ottawa Centre.

What I wanted to say, first of all, Speaker, is that this issue is a very good example of how this Legislature should work, and that is that all members come together with their ideas, bring them forward, followed by extensive consultation to listen to Ontarians, and then government takes action in bringing legislation forward that is comprehensive in nature.

I do want to recognize all members, especially the former member for Trinity–Spadina for the work he did when he was in this House, given that he had a lot of condominiums in his community, the same as my community. I had many conversations with him about some of the challenges that I was hearing. I think, again, it speaks to the collaborative nature of the work we do in this House, where we learn from each other, we bring unique perspectives from our respective communities, and then advocate on behalf of our constituents. That results in bills like Bill 106, which is a good thing.

I have the great honour of representing Ottawa Centre, which is a downtown community. I think all of you have had the chance to visit my community. If you look at my community of Ottawa Centre and if you look at the Attorney General’s community of Ottawa–Vanier, you will see this incredible growth that is taking place in terms of building new condominiums.

As we are going through the electoral boundaries change, my riding boundaries are not changing—if anything, it’s shrinking by two streets—but the population of my riding continues to grow, because what we are seeing in my riding is the building of vertical neighbourhoods: condo towers that are being built in various neighbourhoods that are 20, 25, 30, or up to 40 floors high. If you are in Ottawa Centre and you’re visiting Dow’s Lake, you will see those skyscrapers. You will see the cranes and the construction that is happening.

If you’re in Westboro, you will see construction taking place around the convent property. Most recently, in Old Ottawa East, we have this new development called Greystone Village, which is taking place on the Oblates land that was owned by the Oblates brothers for over 100 years and is now being sold by the brothers and is being developed in consultation with the community.

So it’s interesting, while you see the actual physical boundary of my riding remaining the same, we’re seeing incredible growth in the number of people who will be living in condominiums and are choosing that lifestyle of not owning a house and having obligations around shovelling snow and bringing garbage to the curbside, but choosing a different lifestyle. They are actually investing quite a bit of money in doing so.

We’re very proud of that development. We’re very proud of welcoming new members in our community through these condo developments, but with it also comes certain responsibilities and issues that are being dealt with through this particular bill, Bill 106.

Just to give you a sense of the condominium market in Ottawa, 2014 was a record year for condo completions in Ottawa, with about 2,412 units coming onto the market. I would argue that the bulk of those units were either in my riding of Ottawa Centre, or were in the riding of Ottawa–Vanier, which is represented by the Attorney General. So far, in 2015, there are 2,037 units under construction. The average sale price for a condominium-class property increased by 1.3% this past quarter in Ottawa to $257,303, making it an affordable option for young professionals and seniors.

Condo sales in Ottawa account for about 23% of housing sales in our city. It’s a lifestyle that is being availed of by both young professionals and seniors—a lot of what we call empty nesters.

I was very happy to see that the government took very extensive consultation on this process. In fact, I was pleased to host, in 2012, a consultation in my riding along with then-Minister of Government and Consumer Services Margarett Best. We held the consultation at the Taggart Family YMCA/YWCA. It was very well-attended; over 100 people were there raising different issues that they’ve had.

The issue that really stuck in my mind, one of the issues that came up, was education around condo living, what it entails in terms of rights and responsibilities of condominium owners who live in condos; and education for board members who take on that responsibility as volunteers to look after the affairs of that particular community of condominium owners; and then any disputes that arise as a result of it, because you’re making collective decisions. Those I would characterize as some of the key issues that came out in that consultation.

I’m really happy to see that Bill 106 actually tackles all those important issues. It has a huge emphasis on protecting the consumer, because it is a very large purchase that individuals are making, especially if you are first-time homebuyer, if you are a young professional in your late twenties or early thirties and you are buying a condominium.

We need to make sure that there are a certain elements of protection for you there: things like requiring developers to give condo buyers a copy of an easy-to-read guide on condominium living at the time of sale and providing clear, more comprehensive rules to prevent buyers from being surprised by unexpected costs after purchasing a newly built condo. These are the kinds of things, Speaker, that are very important because they will result in educated condo owners.

What I want to focus my time on is dispute resolution. One of the biggest challenges that I’ve heard in my riding of Ottawa Centre is the cost around dispute resolution. If there is a challenge between the condo board and some of the residents—and we’ve had some really high-profile cases in my riding. We’re talking about years of litigation in the courts and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that people have encountered. That is just money coming out of the condo fund, the reserve fund, the money that has been collected so that it could be invested back in that condo in terms of upgrades and repairs. That does not serve anything well.

One of the key features that I really support, and heard from my constituents that they are very happy to see, that came out of part of that consultation is having a separate dispute resolution mechanism, through the establishment of a condominium authority. That is a very positive move because what it does is it creates a specialized body which will be able to resolve disputes that may take place within a condominium.

It takes the pressure away from our court system; it helps resolve condo issues in a low-cost manner; and it really puts a focus on not having an adversarial, litigious process but a process that is more driven through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation. That is a very positive step which I think will save a lot of money and time and will ensure that condo disputes are being resolved in a timely manner.

The condo authority will provide affordable access to quicker, accessible and lower-cost dispute resolution of disputes primarily between corporations and owners. It will provide for self-help tools, case management and mediation to prevent easy-to-solve disputes from being tied up in costly and time-consuming legal proceedings. It will also ensure education and awareness, as I was mentioning earlier, for condo owners about their rights and responsibilities and the basics of condo living and how it differs from freehold ownership.

It will also provide education for condominium directors, which is very important; a registry of all condominium corporations in Ontario, including their boards of directors and contact information; and a guide for condominium buyers setting out unit owners’ rules and responsibilities.

I think all these steps are positive steps, they are steps in the right direction, because they really acknowledge a unique lifestyle around condominium living. It also acknowledges that this is in many ridings—like mine, Ottawa Centre—a very acceptable way of living as opposed to freehold living. We need to have special rules in place to accommodate for that.

I also want to quickly thank the Canadian Condominium Institute and the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario, ACMO, for their advocacy. They’ve been very helpful in educating me on a lot of these issues. I want to thank them because a lot of positive things are reflected that we learned from our stakeholders, from our condominium owners, our constituents and, of course, through the consultations.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure to engage in debate. I’ll have an opportunity a little later from now to add more points to this debate.

First, I’d like to thank the member from Ottawa Centre, who is the Minister of Community Safety and the government House leader, for his work on condo development and legislation. In addition, I think that no one should start their remarks on this piece of legislation without paying due homage to our friend from Trinity–Spadina, the former member Rosario Marchese, who almost became known as Condo Rosie around these parts for the time he spent here for his advocacy for those in Toronto who were living in condominiums.

I often would listen to him, as I have the member from Ottawa Centre, who is the government House leader, because I have one of the fastest-growing ridings in all of Ontario, if not Canada. As a result of that explosive growth, what we have seen is massive development for single-family-home dwellings but also, more recently, in terms of condominiums. Therefore, I think it’s imperative that we have a conversation and that we update the legislation, which hasn’t been updated since 1998.

So as we arrive near that 20-year mark—it’s about 17 years since the initial legislation was first put in place—it is actually time for us to have those conversations. I don’t need to reiterate the stats and the facts that the member opposite just raised with respect to our home region and our home city of Ottawa, where he does have, I would say, the predominant growth in terms of condo development, but I think it is fair to say that over the past 15 years, we have seen an emergence in this type of market. Therefore, I think it’s relevant for us in this assembly to talk about greater protection for those who live in condominiums and who are considering purchasing condominiums.

I guess I’m finished. Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Once again, it’s a privilege and a pleasure to join this debate. Being here as the MPP for London–Fanshawe is truly an honour, and being part of a democratic process. I know we have talked about this bill for some time, but I always enjoy listening to people’s different perspectives.

One of the things I wanted to point out in this bill is that the province did a condo review and they reached out. I don’t know how far and wide it was, but a lot of the people who were contacted or contributed to that review were people in the condo industry—special interests. It is a little disappointing that the majority of those people weren’t the condo owners, because, really, what this bill does is it affects people living in condos, their day-to-day life.

Your home is probably one of the more important investments that you will acquire in your life, and you want to make sure that when you’re there, you know your rights and you know your obligations to the condo board and to the other condo owners; that education is so key.

The part that I have questions about is that some of this bill, a lot of this bill, is left up to regulation. I know there is a condo authority, a new position that’s being implemented, so that’s a good thing. I just hope that there is going to be a lot of outreach to condo owners to be involved so that they know what’s going on in the board, and that way, it will help prevent these disputes, perhaps, because education is really the key to understanding your obligations and responsibilities where you live.

So I’m glad to see the bill has come to the House. We talked about it. It’s a long time coming. It is a step in the right direction. I hope that when it does go to committee, there will be a lot of condo owners coming forward and talking about their concerns so that we can hear their perspective.

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

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s a pleasure to be able to comment on my colleague’s debate on this bill, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, particularly because it’s such a well-reasoned discussion. As he goes through and talks about the very detailed development of new condos in his community, he gives me a shining example of what a good MPP can do. Despite his ministerial responsibility and his work as the government House leader, he also takes his responsibility as an MPP in Ottawa Centre very seriously, particularly the consultations you have been able to do in your own community.

As a new member, I look to that and know that’s the kind of work I have to continue to do in my community.

But I do have a bit of a bone to pick with the member, my colleague, in that my daughter Dara Potts is a constituent; she goes to Carleton University. She is enjoying the community that the member represents so much, the Glebe particularly. She is what he calls one of those in the vertical neighbourhood—the fourth floor of a multi-residential community. She won’t come home, she loves it so much there. She is working for the summer—

Interjection.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It could be the push, it could be the pull. You never really know.

She enjoys so much living in that community because of the great work that he has done to keep the Glebe—what a wonderful, wonderful area; I love to visit with her up there as much as I can.

I’m particularly interested, though, in a piece of this legislation that I haven’t heard talked about so far: this issue of licensing condo managers. It is so incredibly important that you recognize that as constituents who are living in condos—there is a whole new set of issues that come up. In rental buildings issues about maintenance and rent increases and such are one issue, but there is a whole new category of constituent complaints, and one of those is about the kind of management that is in the building which is looking after a significant amount of money in the accumulated fees of a condo.

To protect the consumer and make sure those monies are being spent efficiently and effectively, it’s a great idea that we should license condo managers.

I look forward to having further discussion about that as the debate continues.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s my pleasure to have an opportunity to add a couple of comments to the debate this morning on the condominium act.

One of the things I think that the architects of the legislation have to keep in mind is that this is covering all of Ontario. Condominium living is different in different parts of the province. When we, in our Toronto-centric way, look at the area and see 35-, 40-storey buildings, that is kind of the vision you have of a condo, but certainly there are condo options that have been created for people in small-town Ontario where there might be 12 units.

I simply want to emphasize that we don’t want those smaller units burdened unnecessarily with a lot of red tape where they feel intimidated by the amount of rules they’ve got to learn in order to be on the board. You don’t want to scare them off with that.

It is the old story: 90% of the people or more who live in a condo have no problems. It is a very small group that creates all the problems. So the legislation must temper itself to be available for people. Where it’s a seniors’ building, where it’s people who don’t move and want to have relatively—actually, they came because the snow gets picked up and the grass gets cut. The other condo is that in cottage country. That’s another specialized group of condo owners.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now return to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for final comment.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the members from Nepean–Carleton, London–Fanshawe, Beaches–East York and York–Simcoe for their very constructive comments on the remarks that I made earlier.

I want to let the member from Beaches–East York know that the member from Wellington–Halton Hills has the same fear. His son is attending Carleton University and may not come back. Both his son and the daughter of the member from Beaches–East York are most welcome to come and volunteer in my campaign or in my office. Let them all know this: Everybody is welcome.

I want to pick out the point that both the member from York–Simcoe and the member from London–Fanshawe raised, because I think that it’s an important point: That is that these are communities, and people who live in these communities need to be engaged in these communities. I think if anybody will know what community engagement means, it would be members in this House because that is what we do. We encourage other people to do so.

The member from York–Simcoe is absolutely right. A lot of the disputes could be avoided if people were engaged, involved and part of the community. In fact we know that in a majority of the cases people live peacefully; there are no disputes. But those very few, the minority of cases where there are disputes, are nasty in nature. They result in neighbours getting pitted against neighbours. That is the last thing any one of us wants to see within our communities.

That is why I think these rules, especially the establishment of a condominium authority—by having a specialized body that will foster those positive living conditions that will ensure that there is education for condominium owners, that there is education for directors, that there is a more effective, low-cost, mediation-based dispute resolution mechanism.

All these steps, hopefully, will result in better living for condominium owners who have invested, again, a lot of money to live in a safe, secure and peaceful community. I think, collaboratively, as we look toward improving this bill at committee and passing this bill, it will result in better communities across the province.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 106, the Protecting Condominium Owners Act. Now, I know that’s not a huge, huge issue in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, but, as the member from York–Simcoe has said, we are getting more condos that are built. They’re not the large storeys, but there are condos being built in so-called cottage country, or in Lindsay, for example, my largest town—in Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls. So they are out there.

As many of the members in the Legislature have noted today, 1.3 million Ontarians live in some 700,000 condo units. More than 50% of the new homes being built in Ontario are condominiums. That is just the sign of the times and the way the trend is going. I know that in the greater Toronto area, the population is expected to increase from the current approximate number of 6.4 million to 8.9 million by 2036. I know back in August 2014, Toronto city council approved 755 storeys of new development, which is just astounding. The Globe and Mail reported that in less than three days approximately $21 billion in new development was approved during those last few meetings.

I know that as many of us walk back to our places in Toronto when we’re here at the Legislature—our hotels—it seems every corner has a new building being erected for condominiums. All this vertical growth and densification has led scholars and planning experts to coin this urban growth as the “Manhattanization” of Toronto, especially in the south core. It is interesting how these sayings come up as things occur.

Early last year, Emporis, a construction data firm, found that Toronto had more high-rise buildings under construction than any other city in North America. It’s quite incredible when you see that statement, but for us, who are down here a little more often, we see it first-hand. Since I was first elected in 2003, the number of condos that I’ve seen rising out of the ground is, as I’ve said, breathtaking, but it’s not just the corners; it is every parking lot niche that is being snapped up in building these large, glass towers.

I know that it’s been mentioned by Rosario Marchese, the king of the condos—this topic has been brought up for years, since I’ve been in this Legislature—that the legislation is outdated, going back to 1998 when it was last updated.

As Progressive Conservatives, we certainly believe that home ownership is one of the best investments that a family can make. All residents, ranging from students—I was listening to the debate from the Ottawa university site, the Carleton University site. The kids are down in these urban cities, so some of the mums and dads want to make an investment, if their children are going to be there for several years taking university; it’s certainly an investment to be made by them. We need, as government, to ensure that there’s some protection for them in making that substantial financial commitment.

After going through a three-stage public engagement process that started three years ago—the most recent one, I’ll just add to that—I’m glad the government has provided a bill that is providing some consumer and financial protection measures better than what was there before. But there are always some legitimate concerns. I know it’s going to committee and there will be certainly amendments made, hopefully to strengthen this as we see fit. I know that there is a

part in the first part that designates “a not-for-profit corporation without share capital incorporated under the laws of Ontario as the condominium authority for the purposes of this act....”

After having read the proposed functions of a condominium authority, its mandate is quite broad, ranging from administering dispute resolution, condo owner education and a condo corporation registry. There are two sticking points with that which I’d like to speak about in regard to the condominium authority.

First, this proposed licensing and adjudicative body seems awfully weak in accountability and transparency. As some of my colleagues on this side have brought up, this delegated administrative authority has little reporting mechanisms back to the House, to us.

It states:

“

(1) The Auditor General appointed under the Auditor General Act may conduct an audit of the condominium authority, other than an audit required under the Corporations Act.

“

(2) If the Auditor General conducts an audit under subsection (1), the condominium authority shall give the Auditor General and employees of the Auditor General access to all records and other information required to conduct the audit.”

I’m concerned that although the Auditor General has oversight, there’s no other independent officer. I think that was brought up in something like an over-a-million-dollar situation, where there may need to be more oversight of one’s financial accounts. It has been brought up, and it may be brought up, hopefully, in committee again when deputations come before it, that there may have to be some other accountability measures put in place.

The other issue is how the condominium authority intends to be financed:

“The condominium authority may,

“(

a) establish forms related to the administration of the delegated provisions;

“(

b) in accordance with processes and criteria established by the condominium authority and approved by the minister, set and collect,

“(

i) fees, costs or other charges related to the administration of the delegated provisions, and

“(ii) the fees that a party to a proceeding that is the subject of an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal under

part I.2 is required to pay”—a very detailed

interpretation here—“if the tribunal has been established under that part; and

“(

c) make directives governing the payment of the fees, costs and charges described in clause (b).”

It’s worrying that the condo authority, financed by fees charged to condo corporations—the fees will always be passed down to individual owners. It begs the question as to why condo owners are expected to pay for this authority and for property managers’ licensing when they are employees of property management firms. We heard today that they’re already advertising for these courses to be taken by condo managers and board directors.

Notwithstanding those concerns, the bill is going to strengthen the owners’ financial management. I don’t believe that it is incumbent upon the residents to foot the bill for this new administration.

The ambiguity in just how much the condo authority will require in financing is also worrisome, and we see that in today’s existing condo act.

In Toronto, where the average price per square foot for a condo is approximately $600, a 500-square-foot condo would go for $300,000. For newer condos, the average maintenance fees are 50 cents per square foot, totalling $3,000 per year. For the average new homebuyer, the exorbitant increases in fees can be unsustainable.

When you take into account the development charges, the municipal

section 37 payments and

section 42 park levy, not to mention the soaring price of property, it’s incredibly important that we, as legislators, ensure there is a stable framework that protects homeowners. That’s what our whole goal here is in this legislation: more protection for the homeowners, the condo owners. As owners, they’re going to have to absorb a lot of costs with this newly delegated authority, so we have to be sure we get it right.

I know the member from Sarnia–Lambton has said in the House that these administrative authorities will require substantial capital to start up, and if disputes are resolved which require a condo corporation to undergo extensive investments, these monthly fees will only increase, adding to the hefty financial obligations for average Ontarians. I certainly respect his advice in the Legislature. He’s had a lot of experience in business, so I appreciate the member from Sarnia–Lambton’s comments.

I do support the fact that this bill aims to strengthen the financial management of condos, as owners do deserve to know about their property.

With regard to the financial implications of maintaining or renovating the building, it’s important for homeowners to have more transparency and predictability on how maintenance funds are spent on the common areas and for upkeep.

As more and more residents choose to live in these vertical neighbourhoods, it is important to ensure that the building managers are held accountable through the creation of a licensing authority. This compulsory licensing system for managers and management firms will solidify a universal set of standards in terms of qualifications to be a licensed manager.

I’m optimistic that the government will diligently review each clause, particularly in committee. Overall, we welcome the new consumer and financial protection measures.

Mr. Speaker, as I’m running out of time, I will end my comments there. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to stand and put in my two minutes’ worth of comments on Bill 106.

I listened intently to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and her comments. As she said, there are some financial and consumer protections in this bill, but as she put forward many questions, we also have some questions and concerns. Many of these issues can come up in committee when we’re looking at amendments and involving more people in the consultation process through that. That’s a good thing we’ll look forward to.

As we’ve heard today, it’s been about an eight-year journey to get to this point and there have been so many steps along this path and so much hard work from this side and my—actually, he was not my colleague. I unfortunately wasn’t here in the Legislature when the esteemed former member from Trinity–Spadina was here, but I’m pleased to still appreciate his wisdom from my colleagues here in the Legislature. I’m sorry that I missed out on that.

A lot of work has been done on this and we see some of it reflected in this bill, but there is still a ways to go. The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock spoke in depth about financing, fees and the various pieces that can make it unsustainable for condo owners and that we must ensure a stable framework to protect those condo owners. As she said, we need to get it right.

As I mentioned earlier, having the opportunity in committee to hear more from those condo owners should really be the priority. Their protection needs to be the priority.

As we’ve heard today, we see no meaningful Tarion reform, and that’s a missed opportunity. I’m sure that my colleague from Bramalea–Gore–Malton is ready to make comments on this, and I know that he has worked extensively on Tarion reform.

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It’s great to have an opportunity as a northern member, the MPP for Thunder Bay–Superior North, to comment on this legislation as well, which I think is very much needed and, I think, generally speaking, being positively received. Obviously, it’s a very good debate in the Legislature today, as it has been in the past.

I can tell you that in Thunder Bay we do not have the concentration of condominiums, perhaps, that there obviously are in other parts of province, but it is indeed a number that is increasing—buildings that are going up that are being welcomed by a number of people. I think that’s why this legislation is actually so needed.

May I say that I’ve had condominium owners and managers of buildings contact me over the years to try and make sure that they have a role to play in this as well.

I think the key aspects of this legislation are really, really important: certainly increasing protection for condo owners purchasing a condo; and requiring condo managers to be licensed, I think, we agree is a good idea. I think the establishment of the cost-effective dispute resolution system—again, people agree upon how important that is. Instead of spending thousands of dollars and many months in a legal battle, I think all condo owners would welcome having access to a dispute resolution process that can solve those issues, hopefully in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the price.

I know that there are, over the course of a year, more than a thousand complaints and inquiries related to condo issues. We are dealing with that. This is good legislation.

As the members have referenced, there will be an opportunity in committee to have further discussions about it. But certainly I’m very pleased that this legislation has been brought forward and I strongly support it.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure to rise today and reply to the member from Kawartha-Haliburton-Brock—anyway, more or less like that. It’s down in eastern Ontario.

I would like to make a few comments on that. Some of the research I was able to do shows that over 1.3 million Ontarians actually live in condos. I think a lot of them are on the streets we walk back and forth on to work here every day.

It was funny about the debate today because last night, when I was going home, I was walking up Wellesley Street and I stopped to take a look for a couple of minutes at a couple of condominiums that are just rising. It’s amazing how they go up every day. When you’re here, you don’t really realize it because every day, they go up a little higher and they pour some more cement and somebody has got a flag up on one.

My understanding is that there are over 700,000 condos in Ontario—that’s up from 270,000 in the early 2000s—and there are over 50-some thousand under construction at this moment. It is not just Toronto; obviously, a number of us live in those here. But back in my own riding—I did some research on that—we have over 3,000 condos in Sarnia–Lambton. Most of those in the city are in Point Edward or along the river in Corunna. People can take advantage of the beautiful St. Clair River at Bluewater Country, or Lake Huron, beautiful Lake Huron.

A number of people in my riding have the opportunity to take advantage of that. A lot of people have moved there, relocated from the GTA and sold homes here for substantially increased prices from what they probably purchased them for a number of years ago; they’ve chosen to relocate to southwest Ontario. We continue to encourage that, for people to come to southwestern Ontario, especially the Sarnia–Lambton area.

I’ll look forward to the rest of the debate.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This bill is about protecting condominium owners, and it’s very important. We’ve heard from the member that there are 1.3 million people who are living in condos. That equals the population of the entire province of Saskatchewan. That many people are living in condos. The fact that many of them have received little to no protection over these years is simply unacceptable.

What this bill purports to do is something important. It’s going to provide some serious protection, some improvement in the existing laws. But there is a certain gap that’s left by this bill. While we’re seeing an improvement in terms of having a dispute resolution mechanism—that’s good, but it doesn’t provide for a mechanism to address other disputes beyond just the condominium board, for example with the developer, with the builder, which is probably one of the biggest and the most disputed areas: disputes between the actual builder or the owner of the condominium and the resident. So that area has been left unaddressed by this bill.

In addition, one of the biggest areas of concern for condominium owners—we have to keep in mind that purchasing a home is probably the biggest investment of your life, and that investment is supposed to be protected. There is a home warranty system that protects that investment. But in this province, there have been countless examples of this home warranty system, Tarion, not working for the people. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Tarion is actually working against the people, the residents, whom it is supposed to protect.

This bill simply does not address this issue whatsoever, whether it’s the fact that Tarion is comprised almost entirely of people who are working for the industry that is supposed to be regulated—they are people who are part of the building associations. How can they provide oversight and protection for the consumer when they are working with the industry that is supposed to be regulated?

There are a lot of problems with Tarion and this bill does not address that. Beyond that, I agree that this bill does move us forward and provides more protection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for final comments.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making sure Haliburton got in there, too.

Thank you for the comments made by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines; the members from Oshawa, Sarnia–Lambton—that fine gentleman—and Bramalea–Gore–Malton, the deputy leader of the NDP.

We’ve all had quite a good discussion this morning. Sometimes that doesn’t happen in the Legislature, but I’m pleased that has happened and I’m pleased that the rural members have certainly said their piece also about the condos that are coming to our areas. I will do an advertisement of course, that there are lovely condos as well as waterfront properties and towns to live in in our areas.

We brought up the statistics several times. Certainly the urbanization, the vertical increase, the intensification is occurring mainly in our cities. The numbers of people who are buying—that is going to be their home, condos. That’s certainly a shift from other years.

It is said that for many years an update to the Condominium Act needed to occur. We do believe that this certainly gives some greater protection to the condo owners and to the consumers with new ways for dispute resolutions. I know that the NDP has certainly brought up Tarion a lot this morning. I appreciate the fact that maybe we should be looking on the bigger scale with some changes that may need to occur with Tarion, for better consumer protection. But for right now this condo act, Bill 106, is certainly a step in the right direction. We will be looking forward to committee and to making any amendments that we can to strengthen that bill.

I thank you for that opportunity this morning to have time to speak to this.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a privilege and honour to stand here in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

This morning, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, and a little bit of leniency from you, I want to bring the passion and the fire of one individual who was here at one time and who is very responsible for why we’re having this discussion here today, one member, Rosario Marchese:

“We’re having this discussion today. Through you, Mr. Speaker, through your eyes, we are doing this today. I say to you all, God bless. God bless. It is wonderful to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are having this discussion this morning, but I ask the government, in their wise eyes, the content of this bill—why are we having this discussion? Why are we missing so many things that could help so many people? Why is this government so unwilling to help those who need help”—

Interjection: The most.

Mr. Michael Mantha: —“those who need it the most?

“I say, of course, through you, Mr. Speaker: I challenge this government so that when we get to committee, you listen, you open your eyes, and you bring the changes that are needed to help those that need help most.”

I did that with all due respect and all kindness to my friend Rosie. He was a man that was very passionate about this cause.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Was that an Italian accent?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Well, to answer the question, no, that was a Frenchman trying to be Rosie, and it’s impossible. You know, I’m a big-statured man and Rosie was, let’s say, not as voluptuous as I am, but he carried his passion and the views and the opinions of so many in his riding. He fought for this issue for eight years. I think actually it was longer than eight years that he was fighting for this issue on behalf of his constituents, and it’s here. We’re talking about it today.

To my friend Rosie: I miss you. But we’re finally having this debate and these discussions. It is not what you have been looking for for a very long time, but it’s a step forward. To you, my friend, I take off my hat because you’re to be truly credited for this.

As many of our colleagues, we’ve been flagging this issue for a very long time. These are several important aspects of the bill, some of them that are long overdue.

The bill will license condo managers, improve governance and oversight of condo boards, and provide an inexpensive way for owners and boards to resolve some disputes without going to court. For many, going to court is not an opportunity or a factual way of resolving the issues. The battles that you go through, which have been highlighted for a very long time, prove to be very difficult for many when they go to the courts.

While my caucus and I support this bill, I would like to see it go to committee and ensure the appropriate amendments are made. I’ve got to say, it’s worrisome that it took so long for this bill to get to this point, but it finally is here, and on behalf of my friend Rosario, I do say God bless. Finally, some legislation that will help to protect condo buyers rather than just the wealthy developers has been long overdue.

Myself being from the North, I drive to Toronto and I see growth, vertical growth,

whereas in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, we see some growth in certain communities, but it’s nowhere near what is happening down in this area. The skyline has changed just around my condo on St. Joseph Street, just between Yonge and Bloor. Just in the six years that I’ve been coming here, I’ve seen eight condos pop up like a shrub from northern Ontario. It’s just unbelievable the amount of growth that has been there.

It begs to ask the question—myself, I just purchased a home last year with my wife up in Elliot Lake, and I know what I bought. I bought a home that was warm. I bought a home that I knew I had to go in and do some renovations into it. But some of these individuals that are going into these condos don’t have that same luxury of knowing.

They are presented with a plan, they are presented with photos, they are presented with ideas and they’re presented with a dream, the dream being their dream home where they’re going to raise their family, where they’re going to raise their kids and where they’re going to make a living. Once they get to their home, their dreams are shattered, and those individuals struggle to fight the process and fight the developers in order to get what was rightfully promised to them, what they were rightfully told they paid for. Their dream was taken away from them.

It’s taken a long time to get to this process. It took many things to get to this. Again, I’ll keep mentioning his name: Rosie Marchese worked extremely hard on this. As he would say, “Is it going to take pieces of building, glass falling off of buildings to get something done?” Wait a second; that happened. Is that why we’re finally having this discussion here today? Is that why we’re starting to challenge ourselves and see and listen and heed the warning signs that are there, that people need a process in order to have their issues heard? I say yes, and I say thank you, Rosie.

In my area of Elliot Lake, there are retirement homes; there are condos that are there. Seniors are getting to their golden years and they just want to be able to move into a location and be taken care of. They want to make sure that the grass is going to be cut, their halls are going to be clean, their security is going to be there, the building is going to be well ventilated and heated, and the snow is going to be removed. Those are the things that they’re looking for in their golden years. They want to make sure that their needs are being cared for. When those aren’t being done, there needs to be a proper process for them to fight it.

On a fixed income, it’s not always that luxurious, that you can actually go through the process of fighting this. It’s very costly for them on a fixed pension. Someone on CPP, old age security or guaranteed income supplement: They have a fixed income. They know exactly how much they’re going to spend on their bread, on heat and on hydro, how much they’re going to pay for their medication, their transit—if they’re lucky enough to have transit service in their community.

If they need to get to their doctor’s, if they need to get to either Sudbury or to the Soo to visit that specialist, they don’t have time to waste money on fights with the developers. They don’t have that luxury. We really need to look at, through the discussions we’re going to have at committee, how we are going to help them make that process that much easier, so that they can have that opportunity to have their issues heard.

Unfortunately, my time is already up. There are a few other things that we’d like to make sure are within the contents of this bill. We need to make sure that when we do get to the committee stages, those issues are addressed in here for the consumers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the member for Algoma–Manitoulin and for his respectful impersonation of the former MPP from Trinity–Spadina, Rosario Marchese. Molto bene.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is now 10:15, and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1016 until 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome a few visitors this morning. My friend Terry Yaldo, from Midway Convenience in my riding, is here in the members’ gallery. He’s joined by Jeff Poulin, the senior manager of affiliates for Mac’s Milk.

This is the Ontario Convenience Store Day at Queen’s Park, and we are all invited to a reception this evening in the dining lounge.

My friend the mayor of Leamington is here as well. John Paterson is in the House today. Speaker, you may remember that his father, Don, was a Liberal MPP from 1963 to 1975.

Welcome to Queen’s Park and good luck with your meetings today.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day for Ontario. I’m proud to stand in the House to announce that Arthur B. McDonald, professor emeritus at Queen’s University, has won the Nobel Prize in physics for his discovery that neutrinos change identities. I am so pleased that the Ministry of Research and Innovation was able to provide funding to support Mr. McDonald’s research at SNOLAB, an underground science laboratory near Sudbury. I’ve also had the privilege of visiting the SNOLAB to see first-hand the great work happening there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introductions only, please.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased, on behalf of the PC caucus, to welcome to the chamber members of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, in particular chair Mitch Twolan.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I had a meeting this morning, with members of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, many of whom are here today in the gallery. I’d like to introduce executive director David Ullrich from the cities initiative; Mayor Keith Hobbs, city of Thunder Bay; Mayor Sandra Cooper from Collingwood; Mayor Scott Warnock from Tay township; Mayor Mitch Twolan from Huron-Kinloss; Mayor Ziggy Polkowski from Neebing in my community of Thunder Bay–Atikokan; Mayor George Cornell from Tiny; and Mayor Nelson Santos from Kingsville, representing Essex county.

As well, I’d like to introduce Peggy Brekveld from Thunder Bay, the vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

I also welcome, from my ministry, many MNR regional staff who are here today for training in Toronto.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to welcome the board of directors of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture here today. They’re having lots of meetings. I’d like to welcome my regional director, Mark Kunkel, and the vice-president, Peggy Brekveld. Please join them at their reception this evening.

Hon. Michael Chan: Today, I would like to welcome a friend from out of province, Ross Risvold. He’s the former mayor of Hinton, Alberta. Welcome, Ross, over there.

Also, I have a long-time friend, for over 40 years, from British Columbia. His name is Rick Hui; he’s also in the members’ gallery.

Speaker, today, I have to exercise special attention in the House because my wife, Elaine Chan, is also in the members’ gallery. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Clark: I see her hiding in the gallery there. I would just like to welcome my OFA director, Eleanor Renaud, to Queen’s Park. Welcome, Ellie; glad to have you here.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome some friends from my riding of Essex: Mayor Nelson Santos and Deputy Mayor Gord Queen of the beautiful, wonderful community of Kingsville. They’re here as a part of the Great Lakes mayors’ initiative, and I wish them well on their meetings today and look forward to meeting with them later on this afternoon.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We’re going to be joined very shortly by the grade 10 civics class from St. Augustine Catholic High School in the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to introduce the mayor of Leamington, from the great riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex: Mayor John Paterson, whose father was a former MPP in this Legislature back during the Bill Davis era.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Some other mayors are with us today: Randy Hope, the mayor of Chatham-Kent, and Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia. We also have Regional Chair Roger Anderson from Durham region and Councillor Mike Layton from the city of Toronto.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Mr. Speaker, join me in congratulating page Gabriel LiVolsi, who is page captain today and from my riding of Davenport. I would also like to welcome his parents, Lee and Roberto, who are joining us here today in the members’ gallery. Welcome.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d also like to welcome today the warden of Huron county and mayor of Morris-Turnberry, Paul Gowing, as well as the mayor from Saugeen Shores, Mike Smith.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am also pleased to welcome from Durham region our regional chair, Roger Anderson, and the mayor of Oshawa, John Henry, to the Legislature today.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Please join me in welcoming Dave Bryans, CEO of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, and Noah Aychental, vice-president of Gateway Newstands and chair of the board of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association.

OCSA is meeting with many MPPs today as part of their Queen’s Park day. I would also like to invite all MPPs and staff to the OCSA Queen’s Park day reception in the legislative dining room tonight from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. I hear the snacks are excellent.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome Debra Pretty-Straathof, who is here today with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I invite everyone to their reception as well this evening.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to welcome some visitors from Scarborough–Agincourt, from Agincourt community social services. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome Don McCabe, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and also a resident of Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome the mayor from St Catharines, Mr. Walter Sendzik. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome the parents of page captain Nuh Ali—mother, Saba Syed, and father, Fahim Ali—to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to welcome Brent Royce, who is here with the OFA today, and he’s from my riding of Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s my pleasure to introduce Don McCabe as well, president of the OFA, on behalf of the government of Ontario, and members and directors Mark Kunkel, Mark Reusser and Eleanor Renaud.

Of course, we’ve heard about the reception. It’s also co-sponsored by Spirits Canada, so I’m guessing we’ll probably meet up with our friend Jan Westcott tonight.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I do my introduction, I just wanted to offer a reminder. This time has been set aside for introductions, but we get more introductions in and we don’t go beyond the time that’s been allotted if we just don’t give speeches at all. There’s room for those kinds of comments at a later date. If you’re going to introduce somebody to come to a lobby day or whatever, do that quickly, please. Don’t talk about how good the treats are. Just simply do the introductions, and all of us would benefit from it.

With us in the gallery is a former member from Chatham–Kent in the 35th Parliament, Mr. Randy Hope, presently mayor.

Wearing of pins

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

Mr. Granville Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that our members be permitted to wear commemorative pins in recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham is seeking unanimous consent to wear the pins to acknowledge Child Abuse Prevention Month. Do we agree? Agreed.

One last comment. I suspect, when we do these unanimous consents, that all sides are provided with the pins to be made available through the House leaders, just as a reminder to everybody.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Or the whip.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Or the whips. The agreement comes from the House leaders on the unanimous consent. The whips—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just—please.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Newfoundland and Labrador pay their hydro CEO just over $500,000 a year. In New Brunswick, the head of the power corporation is paid just shy of $425,000 a year. In Nova Scotia, Emera and Nova Scotia Power, which both happen to be publicly traded companies, pay their CEOs a combined total compensation of $1.8 million. That’s four more provincial energy CEOs making less combined than the Hydro One CEO in Ontario. Once again, Mr. Speaker, it’s no surprise that these provinces pay lower industrial hydro rates than Ontario.

Businesses across Ontario are leaving. They’re turning their lights off. They’re shutting their doors because of Ontario’s soaring hydro rates. How does the Premier justify these gold-plated paycheques for Hydro One executives?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let’s just do a reality check on some of the things that the Leader of the Opposition said.

In terms of the jobs that we have created, that have been created in Ontario since the recession, over 500,000. So the notion that somehow Ontario is not growing, that our economy is not on track just is not accurate. We’re the number one jurisdiction for foreign direct investment two years in a row.

The fact is that, of course, as other jurisdictions in North America and around the world are in a fragile economic state—we understand that. But in Ontario, with the investments that we have made, the investments in infrastructure, in people’s talent and skills, the fact that foreign direct investment is coming to Ontario, we are on track.

The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t support those investments, doesn’t support investments in infrastructure and in transit and transportation. We know that they’re critical for our prosperity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Premier misheard my question. My question is about generous executive compensation.

I’ll be very specific: Hydro-Québec is twice as large as Hydro One in terms of revenue. Hydro-Québec does twice as much as Hydro One since it’s responsible for generation, transmission and distribution. Hydro-Québec has four times more employees than Hydro One. Yet the head of Hydro-Québec is paid one eighth of the $4 million the Premier is handing out to the new Hydro One CEO. He is responsible for half the size of the organization that Quebec operates, but in Ontario, energy bills are higher than our neighbour to the east.

How can the Premier justify paying her new Hydro One CEO eight times more than what they’re paying in Quebec? It doesn’t make sense.

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: There’s your reality check, Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to give the member a reality check. Come to order, member from Renfrew.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is asking a very specific question about the executives at Hydro One. The Leader of the Opposition knows that Hydro One, in its new incarnation, will be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act and the Ontario Energy Board, and that they will have to file information with the Ontario Securities Commission and disclose the compensation of their top executives. That is the reality. It will be a different company than the company it is now. It will be a better company than the company it is now.

But underlying the question is the reality that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t support, for some reason, given that he in the past has supported a move like this, the broadening of ownership of Hydro One in order to invest in transportation infrastructure. That is the reality. We do believe that those investments are critical, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to make those investments.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again for the Premier: It’s clear the Premier doesn’t seem to mind these ridiculous executive compensation paycheques that she’s cutting, how they’re going to hurt Ontario families and how hydro rates are going up because of her decisions.

There are six other provinces in Canada where the primary electrical company is a crown corporation. Those six provinces are able to pay their CEOs—combined—less than what you’re paying here in Ontario. There is no reason for the Premier to be paying this much money for her CEO when every other province in Canada can rein in their executive compensation.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is, why does she think these salaries are acceptable?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, there are mayors sitting in the gallery today and many of those mayors have had meetings with me and with my colleagues. The number one issue they raise with us is investment in infrastructure. There are roads and bridges and transit projects around this province—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that the opposition doesn’t want to hear this, Mr. Speaker. I understand they want to shout down anything that would indicate that they don’t understand that the investments that we need to make right now are for the future productivity and competitiveness of this province. We’re going to make those investments.

Yes, Hydro One is going to be a different company, but the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the way rates are set now by the Ontario Energy Board is the way rates will be set going forward. That will not change, Mr. Speaker.

Health care

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Since I can’t get an answer on the issue of executive compensation, I’m going to try health care.

The government’s cuts to health care are hurting patient care in Ontario. I’m going to give an example to the House today. We know of a doctor who is on call for the Telephone Health Advisory Service. He took a call from an ill patient. It was a Sunday afternoon and the doctor interrupted his family time to take this telephone health advisory call. This particular call, like so many others, prevented a patient from having to go to the emergency room.

Mr. Speaker, is the Premier prepared to tell the people of Ontario that these cuts to health care, like the one we’re talking about here today, are going to cause people to wait longer and longer in an emergency room when it could have been dealt with otherwise?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, Mr. Speaker, health care costs are increasing and our investments in health care are increasing, so we’re not cutting health care. The fact is that since 2003, funding for hospitals alone has risen from $11.3 billion—

Interjections.

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

It’s very difficult when somebody from the government side is pointing and talking and eliciting a response. Just relax.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You obviously haven’t heard me.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Hospital funding alone, Mr. Speaker, has risen from $11.3 billion to $17.3 billion. That’s a 53% increase since 2003. Funding for community support services increased to almost $514 million this year. That’s an increase of $41.9 million over last year, Mr. Speaker.

There were 135,280 nurses employed in nursing in 2014, up 2.7% from 2013 and up 21.6%. from 2002. So the fact is, Mr. Speaker, health care investments are going up.

The Leader of the Opposition stood with Stephen Harper when he unilaterally slashed the Canada Health Transfer, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again for the Premier: No one believes for a second that this government isn’t cutting health care. We all know you’ve cut it by $54 million.

The government is trying to portray—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Now the government is trying to portray Ontario doctors as villains, and that’s simply not the case.

A doctor in Thunder Bay shared a story with me about the latest round of Liberal cuts and how it’s affecting his health clinics. He’s going to have to let two staff members go and close his two clinics. That’s because he’s no longer able to afford the costs associated with running those clinics. When he closes those clinics in Thunder Bay, 4,000 more people in Thunder Bay will be without a family doctor.

There are 800,000 people in Ontario without a family doctor. How can this Premier justify diminishing health care in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the Leader of the Opposition is standing up to stand in opposition to the changes that we are making in terms of doctors’ pay because we couldn’t come to an agreement with the OMA, if that’s what he’s saying, then I would say to him that we value our doctors. The doctors in Ontario are paid, on average, more than any other doctors in the country, so they are very well paid, as they should be. That is a very good thing.

If the Leader of the Opposition is saying we shouldn’t transform the health care system—because we are making changes. We are moving services from hospitals into the community because that is what our aging demographic actually requires. People want to be at home. We’re not there yet; it’s not done. There is more that has to be done, but we are in the process of transforming the system. If he’s standing up and saying we shouldn’t do that, then he’s out of touch with the needs of the people in our communities.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again for the Premier: If transforming the health care system is code for this government ripping $800 million away from doctors for patient care, then I don’t support this transformation.

Let me give you an example of what their transformation means: In 2005, an ophthalmologist from Cornwall was able to reduce cataract surgery wait time to just one month. In the past year, under the Liberal government cuts, she has seen her wait time increase to four months—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Where were you when the feds cut transfer payments?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr. Patrick Brown: —and another six months for surgery. Now the Liberal government has put a cap on the number of surgeries she can perform. She is only able to operate twice a month. These cataract surgeries mean all the difference in the world to those who need it.

How much more evidence does the Premier need until she can appreciate she’s cutting health care in Ontario and it’s hurting patients?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I’m a little confused, because I’m absolutely certain that the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, is talking about the federal government and not the provincial government, because it’s estimated—when he talks about health care cuts, in the next 10 years we’re going to be receiving, as a province, $8 billion less as a result of the changes that that member opposite supported.

When he talks about cuts to health care, he’s talking about changes in the federal transfer that are resulting in a $335-million cut to health care in this province because of a decision of the government that he was part of. When he talks about cuts—he has a lot of experience with health care cuts.

Our budget is increasing. Our budget for doctors is increasing by 1.25% this year. Next year, it continues to go up, as does our health care budget. It goes up year after year after year as we make important investments.

Our doctors are the best paid in this country. I’m proud of that. I’m a member of that profession. But we need to pay attention to other health care workers, our PSWs, our nurses and nurse practitioners, as we build the best health care system in the world—

Interjections.

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

This is my opportunity to remind people that you speak to the Chair and in the third person.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is selling off Hydro One for a one-time cash grab of $4 billion she says will go into her 10-year infrastructure fund. That works out to $400 million per year over 10 years. But what she won’t tell us is that by restoring the corporate tax rate by just 1%, we would earn more than $4 billion over the next 10 years, and we would retain public ownership of Hydro One, which would continue to provide us significant revenues in each one of those years.

So why is this Premier plowing ahead with the short-sighted privatization of Hydro One when she could have chosen a reliable, long-term plan for the future of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Whenever there is an issue about investment, the leader of the third party turns to a corporate tax increase. She has spent that $4 billion 50 times.

The fact is that we have made a prudent—

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have increased taxes. The leader of the third party knows we have increased taxes. In our budget we have increased taxes on the highest income earners in this province. She knows that full well. What she also knows is that we need to make investments in infrastructure.

We were clear with the people of Ontario that we were going to leverage the assets that were built many years ago in order to be able to build the new assets that are needed in this province. That’s what we’re doing, and we’re making those investments across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Independent experts, from KPMG to the Premier’s own transit adviser, Anne Golden, calculate that restoring 1% of the corporate tax rate would raise between $420 million and $700 million per year. Other economists put the figure even higher. By dedicating $400 million to infrastructure, we could make the investments that we need and keep Hydro One in public hands. It’s exactly the kind of smart, progressive solution that this Premier rejects.

Why is this Premier selling off Hydro One when she should be asking the biggest corporations to pay just a little bit more for the infrastructure that they need and the infrastructure that we need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We brought in a budget in 2014 that was a progressive budget, that actually did increase taxes. It reinvested in people like personal support workers. It brought in a plan to index the minimum wage and increase the minimum wage. We got no support from the NDP on that budget, Mr. Speaker. So in terms of making investments and building this province, I do not take any lessons from the leader of the third party.

The fact is that we have made a decision that we’ve talked to the people of Ontario about. We’ve made a decision that investing in the roads and the bridges and the transit and the hospitals and the schools around this province is what is needed at this point. Communities have said that to us. They need that infrastructure investment, and we are going to work with them to make it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the bottom line is that this Premier had better choices, but she’s choosing a short-term scheme, and it is the wrong decision for the people of Ontario.

The Premier’s sell-off of Hydro One protects her small group of powerful friends from paying their fair share, but it leaves families and businesses paying the price, not just now but for decades to come. This Premier could be asking the biggest corporations to help tackle congestion and build the infrastructure that we need. Instead, she is giving Ontarians a completely false choice.

Why is this Premier selling off Ontario’s most important public asset when she could simply raise corporate taxes by a mere 1% to get all of the money she needs and more?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As we might expect, the leader of the third party is not looking at the whole picture. Part of the plan that we put forward to the people of Ontario was to make sure that we had a competitive business environment, that we worked with business to make sure that we drew investment to the province and that businesses could expand. It’s not perfect, but the fact is, we have been the number one jurisdiction for foreign direct investment for two years in a row. That indicates that people and businesses see that Ontario is somewhere they want to invest. They want their businesses to be here.

The fact is that that competitiveness is critical to our well-being, and the jobs that we have been able to foster and that businesses have been able to create are because of that competitive business environment. But the leader of the third party never takes that into account.

International trade agreement

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier.

Yesterday, Stephen Harper concluded the negotiations on the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership. Details of the deal are just emerging, but we know that it will be good for Big Pharma and it will be bad for health care in Ontario. The Council of Canadians warns that the TPP threatens the possibility of creating a national pharmacare program in Canada, and the CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario said that the TPP will kill pharmacare. Yet, sight unseen, the Premier and her federal leader have endorsed Harper’s secret deal. Why is this Premier choosing big American pharmaceutical companies over the health care needs of Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Once again, the leader of the third party oversimplifies a very complex situation. We haven’t endorsed anything. What we said was that we must compete globally. To take the position that she and Tom Mulcair have taken, which is, “We wipe our hands of it. We’re not going to compete in the global economy. We’re just going to say forget it; we’re not going to sign on,” is ridiculous in 2015. You absolutely have to work in the global economy.

What we’ve said is, on the face of it there are opportunities, but we’re very concerned about some of the issues that we believe should have been more transparent. I’m not happy with the way Stephen Harper has negotiated this. He hasn’t talked with the Premiers—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Hey, that’s my Prime Minister.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, member from Nepean–Carleton.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —he hasn’t talked with any of the local communities.

We’re concerned about supply management, we’re concerned about the auto parts sector, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to put our heads in the sand and pretend we don’t live in the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Doctors Without Borders issued a statement about the TPP, saying that it “will raise the price of medicines for millions by unnecessarily extending monopolies and further delaying price-lowering generic competition. The big losers in the TPP are patients and treatment providers in developing countries.”

We know that this deal sells out the public, consumers and patients not just in Ontario but in countries around the world, and yet this Premier is “excited about the ... TPP” and has endorsed Harper’s secret trade deal so that she can remain in step with her federal leader.

Why won’t this Premier listen to the people on the front lines and do the right thing for Ontario patients and demand changes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership before Canada signs on?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party just said this is a secret trade deal. I kind of agree with her that it was not transparent. We were not able, as the Premiers of the provinces and the territories, to be able to see the negotiations as they went along. That’s why we asked the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to go to Atlanta to make the case for supply management.

We’ve been concerned about this deal, but the leader of the third party can’t say it’s a secret deal and then say she knows exactly what’s in it and we shouldn’t sign on to it.

We have to know what’s there. There is a ratification period. We need to know what the details are. We need to consider those details. To, sight unseen, say we’re just not going to take part, we’re not going to sign on, is a ridiculous position to take in 2015.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Harper government negotiated a secret deal that will make it harder—harder—for Ontario’s future health care challenges to be met, and the federal leader that the Premier has been campaigning for is signing on to that deal.

According to the Ontario Health Coalition, the TPP will limit the government’s ability to control drug prices, which could put a national pharmacare plan out of reach for the province of Ontario and the rest of the country.

Again, I’ll quote from Doctors Without Borders: “The negative impact of the TPP on public health will be enormous, be felt for years to come....”

Why is this Premier endorsing Stephen Harper’s secret plan instead of standing up for pharmacare in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We need to see the agreement, and we need to be able to analyze it, because it has been quite secretive, as the leader of the third party says, which means we don’t know all of the details that are in it. We need some time to analyze it.

But here’s the thing: I have a huge amount of confidence in businesses in this province and in this country. I believe we can compete globally. As the Premier of the province of Ontario, it is absolutely my responsibility to make sure we can compete globally. That is the future. That’s why it’s so important that we have foreign direct investment coming to this province. That’s why we invest in our people’s talent and skills. We’re going to compete globally. We’re going to look for the opportunities and seize those opportunities. But we need to analyze this deal, which was not transparent enough. We don’t know those details and we need to find those out.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. In late February, the Premier held a press conference and said, “On our review of the matter, we don’t expect” charges to be laid against Pat Sorbara. Oddly enough, the Premier never came to the defence of one of the Liberals’ biggest fundraisers, Gerry Lougheed Jr.

After 10 months of what the OPP called a complex and very uncommon investigation, charges were laid against Mr. Lougheed Jr., but not against the Premier’s deputy chief of staff.

What did the Premier know 10 months ago? Did she know that Gerry Lougheed agreed to take the fall for Pat Sorbara?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m really puzzled by the nature of the question and the way it’s so convoluted, because in it I almost read that the member opposite is doubting the good work of the Ontario Provincial Police in this matter.

As the member opposite cited himself, there has been a 10-month-long investigation in the matter done by one of the most professional police services in this country, the Ontario Provincial Police, and they have made a determination. They have made a determination as to who to charge and who not to charge in this matter.

I don’t think we are in any position whatsoever to doubt or question that judgment of the Ontario Provincial Police. I ask the member opposite to respect the process, to respect the investigative work that is being done and to let the courts decide this matter further.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Again to the Premier: The Premier reiterated the fact that she didn’t expect charges were going to be laid on Pat Sorbara in this chamber. She never defended Gerry Lougheed that same way. She never said that she didn’t expect charges to take place in the Ornge air ambulance scandal. The Premier never said that she didn’t expect charges in the gas plant scandal. The only thing she said was that she didn’t expect charges were going to be laid against Pat Sorbara.

The Premier has over and over again said that she wouldn’t comment on the corruption investigation throughout the last 10 months except to say that Pat Sorbara would not be charged. Despite what everyone, and I mean everyone, heard on those tapes, the Premier must have known something.

Why was the Premier able to claim 10 months ago that there weren’t going to be charges laid against Pat Sorbara?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Clearly the member opposite is doing what we call fishing. He is out there trying to find something that he can talk about, because clearly the opposite side has not—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order—on both sides.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I would say to the members opposite, stop fishing and start focusing on real and substantive matters before us in this province, and that is to build the infrastructure, that is to invest in our economy so that we can continue to grow this province, so that we continue to create good-paying jobs, as this government is focused on. Their fishing expedition is not going to go anywhere. What we need to focus on is to let the police do their work, let the court proceedings take their course, while we, as legislators, focus on building Ontario up.

International trade agreement

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. In September, Stephen Harper admitted that the auto sector wasn’t going to like what was in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. But then yesterday, Justin Trudeau said that he would “wait and see” what was in the TPP before weighing in.

Also yesterday—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sure the member will tie this into a government question.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you, Speaker.

Also yesterday, the Premier herself, referring to the TPP trade pact, said, “It’s important that we need to be able to seize this opportunity.”

Now that the Premier of Ontario is spending so much of her time as Premier on the campaign trail, talking up the leader of the federal Liberal Party, will she too wait and see what devastating effects this trade deal will have on the province’s automotive and manufacturing sectors before she acts?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yesterday, I delivered a speech to the Empire Club. I had the opportunity to talk about how important it is for provinces and territories to have a working relationship with the federal government. I did make that speech, Mr. Speaker, and I was asked questions about the TPP in the aftermath of the speech.

What I said was that it is very important that we are competitive on the global scale, that we understand—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Nepean–Carleton, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that in order for our economy to thrive here in Ontario, and for the national economy to thrive, we look for those markets and we seize those opportunities. I did say that, and I believe that because I have faith in Ontario, I have faith in Canada and I have faith in our ability to seize those opportunities.

But does that mean that everything about the TPP is as it should be? I don’t think so, but we don’t have those details and neither does the NDP.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: This morning we learned that Stephen Harper made an election promise of money for the auto industry, anticipating the damage done by this trade agreement. The Auto Workers estimate that the job losses will be roughly around 20,000.

The truth is that the TPP is only the latest in a long list of wrecking balls to hit this province’s manufacturing sector. Once a driver of our economy, the people who filled these jobs in communities like London, Essex, Windsor and other locations are now, frankly, struggling to hold on. Speaker, this is all under the Liberal government’s watch.

Will the Premier speak out in favour of Ontario jobs, or will she just say whatever is needed to elect her Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we live in a global economy. What the NDP would like to do is just build walls on our borders and keep out everyone else, but the problem with that is that we’re—

Mr. Paul Miller: Everything is owned by international companies. We don’t own anything.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are 13.5 million people. We need to be a centre of innovation in order to be able to compete. We need those markets to sell into and we need connections with markets around the world.

I am very, very concerned about some of the clauses in the TPP. We need to analyze those. There’s a ratification period, and we need a sensible conversation with the federal government, whoever is there, about what’s good for the people of Ontario.

But I do not believe that we can wash our hands of global participation. I think that would be irresponsible. It would not be in the best interests of industry in this province or in this country, so we are going to look to seize opportunities.

Child care

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Education. As we all know, child care provides a strong foundation for our youngest learners, and our government is committed to strengthening child care in Ontario.

I know how important it is for my constituents to have access to safe and modern child care. When families in my riding meet me in my office, at community events or at their doorstep, they always talk about the safety of their children, especially when they leave them in the care of others.

Mr. Speaker, my question through you to the minister is, can she please tell my constituents how we are ensuring that we are giving their children the best possible start in life?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member for Mississauga–Brampton South, who is a great advocate for schools and child care in her riding.

Since 2003, child care funding in Ontario has increased from $530 million to over $1 billion—almost double. The number of licensed child care spaces has also grown over the same time, to nearly 351,000, which is an increase of 87%. In the past year alone, we’ve seen more than a 10% increase in the number of licensed child care spaces. And last year, our government provided an additional $269 million over three years to support a wage increase of $1 per hour for eligible child care program staff working in the licensed child care centres and home child—

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you, Minister. I know that child care is a priority for my constituents in my riding, and I also know that our government recognizes the importance of investing in our children’s future.

I was so pleased to hear, this past Friday, that our government is investing almost $795,000 in my riding to build 49 new child care spaces. Minister, can you please explain more about this announcement and how it will help our children to transition from child care to full-day kindergarten?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Last spring, I was pleased to announce that our government is investing $120 million over the next three years to create approximately 4,000 new child care spaces in schools across Ontario.

Last week, I was pleased to announce the first tranche of that funding, which is 13 schools that will be getting a total of 42 new child care rooms, housing almost 800 new spaces. So adding that space in local schools is an important step obviously to getting high-quality child care into more neighbourhoods.

Over the next 10 years, the province actually plans to provide school boards with more than $11 billion to help build new schools in areas of high growth. But what’s interesting about this particular program that the member talked about is new child care—

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

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday, I asked the minister about the fact that social housing dollars had been used to pay for a luxury, eight-day South African vacation, and the minister just laughed it off. This was a luxury vacation with a private driver, an apartment on an estate, winery tours, whale-watching, a visit to a nature preserve, a cable car up Table Mountain and more, paid for by using taxpayers’ dollars.

Mr. Speaker, we have the expense form right here from the individual who billed it. Now that the minister has had time to look into it, can he tell us if he has asked for the cost of that South African vacation back?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The 2012 trip was before we enhanced the accountability measures which, when you were in government, you weren’t prepared to do.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes think the honourable member opposite must be misquoting. He is aware that my government took steps to increase the accountability of HSC, steps his government would not take, and yet he says no one has done anything. The member knows that I wrote to the chair of HSC more than a year ago, expressing concerns about some expense policies, yet he says no one has done anything. The member also knows that the board of HSC reviewed its expense policies and brought them into compliance with management board guidelines, and yet he says no one has done anything.

He also knows that HSC participated in a third-party review of its management and policies to ensure effective governance, a review which found the organization today to be well managed—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, the minister has forgotten what year this party became government. This was in 2012.

Most taxpayers in Ontario can’t afford luxury trips to South Africa, and certainly the 168,000 families waiting for affordable housing can’t. We’re talking about thousands of dollars that went to a personal vacation instead of affordable housing; taxpayers’ dollars that paid for wine tasting and meals at award-winning restaurants while families on the wait-list struggle to put food on their table. It’s a clear misuse of taxpayers’ money, and the people waiting for affordable housing want to know what the government is doing about it.

Again, I ask, what steps has the minister taken to investigate and get that money back? Or does he think that it’s acceptable to use affordable housing dollars for South Africa luxury trips?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The member knows—just going on with the thrust of my arguments—that HSC has committed to an action plan to address improvements recommended by the third-party review, improvements which will make the governance—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford, come to order. You asked the question; I’m trying to listen to it.

Mrs. Gila Martow: He’s not answering.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Thornhill is not helping. You are also to come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: He says no one has done anything about it. Can the member explain to this House why he has said that no one has done anything about it, when the facts so clearly point out otherwise? Speaker, I leave that question with the honourable member. What was, was. You didn’t put accountability measures in place; we did.

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The best political advice I ever got was from the late, great Sterling Hunt—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. First of all, your time is up. Second of all, third person and to the Chair.

New question.

International trade agreement

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, after word of the finalized deal emerged, our Minister of Agriculture was very clear about concerns for the TPP’s negative implications for Ontario supply-managed farms. In his statement on the government of Ontario website, he was very clear that the TPP could undermine “consumers’ desire to buy local, jeopardizes Canada’s supply management system, and does not provide Canadian producers reciprocal benefits to export.” That’s a quote.

But in a speech to the Empire Club, the Premier, while discussing the same TPP, stated, “It is important that we take hold of this as an opportunity” She went as far as to criticize the leader of the federal NDP for not supporting the deal sight unseen. So, through you to the Premier, does the Premier agree with the Minister of Agriculture that this opportunity could jeopardize Ontario’s supply-managed farms?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, here’s the thing: It is a complex deal. The fact is that there are many parts to it. There’s the part where we will have opened markets, where we will actually see opportunities, where businesses in this province and in this country will have more opportunity. That’s one part of this situation.

The other

part is that we have concerns. We do have concerns. Those things are not mutually exclusive. The fact is that we have concerns about the supply-managed sector. We have concerns about auto parts. We have been clear about that. But that does not mean that we wash our hands of an opportunity to expand markets. The fact is that we live in a global economy, and to oversimplify our position in the world would be irresponsible. We’re not going to do that, even if that’s the NDP’s choice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Premier: The market access granted to non-Canadian, non-local food would be lost to Ontario farmers forever—farmers that operate at no cost to the taxpayer, until this trade deal was announced. On October 1, the Minister of Agriculture stated, “When you have a really good trade deal in place you really don’t need to discuss compensation.” Yet we’re moving from a system where farmers earned enough from their products to a system where the government will have to cover the shortfall.

Is the Premier willing to risk Ontario’s supply-managed farms on a deal whose details no one has really seen, or is she too invested in campaigning for her federal counterpart?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There’s an expression about the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, the fact is that this is a deal that will have an influence on every province and territory in the country. There hasn’t been enough information about it. Stephen Harper has not included Premiers of the provinces and the territories in those discussions. I’ve called for that. Premiers have called for that at the Council of the Federation. He didn’t do that, so we don’t have all the information.

I have concerns. I have concerns about the supply-managed sector. I’ve been a huge supporter of supply management, along with the Premier of Quebec. I’ve been very, very clear about that.

I have concerns about the auto sector, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is, we don’t have all the information. We have to analyze it and we have to recognize that we are part of a global economy. We need those relationships; we need those markets. We need to seize the opportunities, and at the same time make sure that the conditions are ripe for our industry here in Ontario.

Social services professionals

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour la ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires.

Minister, social workers and social service workers perform a vital role serving some of the most vulnerable individuals living in Ontario. Through the work of your ministry, they help serve individuals through the social assistance system, support individuals with developmental disabilities, help women and their children escape violence, and support First Nations and aboriginal communities towards healing and wellness. Through the work of other ministries, the province’s social workers and social service workers help protect children and support families.

Beyond these government programs, there is a larger social support network that serves these individuals in need. Frequently, the people behind these efforts are social workers or social service workers.

Minister, you have made it a priority to support social workers and social service workers. Can you please share with this House the details of the professional development fund?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member for Ottawa–Orléans for the question.

Our government recognizes and values the important contributions made by all our front-line workers, including those who are social workers and social service workers, who deliver the supports and services to Ontarians every day.

We are committed to ensuring that they have the support they need to perform their jobs to the highest standard. That is why earlier this year, at the Ontario Association of Social Workers annual general meeting, I announced the launch of a two-year $1-million professional development fund to help with the costs of professional development activities, completed by members of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. By providing financial assistance for professional development opportunities, we are supporting social workers’ and social service workers’ access to advance their skills, knowledge, practice and service delivery.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Merci, madame la Ministre.

Certainly, from a very personal standpoint, as a former social worker, this news is very exciting. As a professional development fund, it is the first-ever opportunity like this in Ontario’s history. It is long overdue and much appreciated, and certainly an opportunity that I wish existed at the time when I was working in this field.

As of this September, social workers and social service workers can access professional development dollars that will pay for approved professional development activities. This investment is going to the professionals who help turn this government’s policies and programs into action at the community level, and their work makes a real difference in the lives of thousands of Ontarians every day.

Minister, I understand that individuals can now apply for the fund. Can you share the opportunities that this will provide to interested professionals?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As the member from Ottawa–Orléans has expressed, we rely on highly trained social workers and social service workers at the front line to strengthen our communities. The professional development fund will help to ensure the college members can access professional development tools that will enhance service delivery to these vulnerable populations. The fund will provide financial assistance to successful applicants of up to $300 over the next two years, helping them to participate in workshops, courses and conferences that will advance their knowledge and skills, integrate their learning, and help them gain experience working with vulnerable groups.

Our government truly values the extensive knowledge, the professionalism and the personal attention social work professionals bring to helping families and individuals navigate their way through difficult times. I want to thank social workers and social service workers for their service, and encourage them to access the benefits of further professional development.

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

The tragic crash that claimed the lives of three children and their grandfather in Vaughan is having a deep impact on the brave men and women who answered the call. Iain Park, deputy chief for York region EMS, said that eight of the 15 paramedics who attended the scene took time off to seek help for post-traumatic stress disorder. In his 25-year career, he has never seen a single incident affect so many staff members. He said, “When we have an incident like this when we have so many ... that are affected, it gives us the opportunity to start talking about it.” The opposition wants to talk about extending PTSD coverage for first responders. We must fast-track Bill 2.

The minister is also the House leader and it’s his file. Will the minister join the opposition and fast-track the bill and help our heroes with PTSD?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the honourable member for what is a very, very important question that we take very, very seriously in this House. To summarize my response to you, I think we can do better than Bill 2. I think the member has brought forward Bill 2 and has started the conversation going.

As I uncover more and more about this issue in consultation with our front-line workers, paramedics, firefighters, police officers and those who respond to the front lines, I’m convinced that we must do a combination of what’s envisioned in Bill 2, with some improvements to it. I’m also convinced that what we need is a very comprehensive prevention p