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

May 2, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-May-02 (PDF)

L075 - Tue 2 May 2017 / Mar 2 mai 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 May 2017 Mardi 2 mai 2017

Time allocation

Notice of reasoned amendment

Introduction of Visitors

Gerry Martiniuk

Visitors

Stephen Owens

Oral Questions

Minister’s conduct

Provincial debt

Pharmacare

Hospital funding

Consumer protection

Public libraries

Public transit

Sexual violence and harassment

Mercury poisoning

Northern Ontario

Pharmacare

Ring of Fire

Child protection

Wind turbines

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Wightman Telecom

Lions and Lioness Clubs

Asian Heritage Month

Children’s Mental Health Week

Painted Land: In Search of the Group of Seven

Somali Hope Academy

Anniversary of Polish Constitution

Anniversary of Polish Constitution

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Lawren Harris Day Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Jour de Lawren Harris

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week / Semaine de la reconnaissance du personnel des services correctionnels

Education Week

Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week

Education Week

Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week

Education Week

Petitions

Health care funding

Employment standards

Water fluoridation

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Government services

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Lyme disease

Hydro rates

Apraxia

Long-term care

Opposition Day

Pharmacare

Painted Land: In Search of the Group of Seven

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I move that pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 9, 2017, from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and on Wednesday, May 10, 2017, from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 124:

—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 3 p.m. on Friday, May 5, 2017; and

—That should the hearings be oversubscribed, the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to the subcommittee by 4 p.m. on Friday, May 5, 2017; and

—That each subcommittee member, or their delegate, provide a prioritized list of witness selections based on the list of interested presenters received from the Clerk of the Committee by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 5, 2017; and

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

—That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 10, 2017; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 11, 2017; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, from 3:30 p.m. to midnight for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That, on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, at 5 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto, one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(

a) being permitted; and

That, the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, May 17, 2017; and

That, in the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. With all due respect, I need to inform you that unfortunately this, what you are moving right now, can only be moved by a minister and not by the parliamentary assistant. I apologize that we allowed you to continue as long as we did.

Mr. John Yakabuski: But you did a great job, Nathalie.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Yes, good job. However, I will look to the President of the Treasury Board to bring this forward. So over to you, President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I will try and read quickly, okay?

I move that pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 9, 2017, from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and on Wednesday, May 10, 2017, from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 124:

—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 3 p.m. on Friday, May 5, 2017; and

—That should the hearings be oversubscribed, the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to the subcommittee by 4 p.m. on Friday, May 5, 2017; and

—That each subcommittee member, or their delegate, provide a prioritized list of witness selections based on the list of interested presenters received from the Clerk of the Committee by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 5, 2017; and;

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

—That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 10, 2017; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 11, 2017; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, from 3:30 p.m. to midnight for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, at 5 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto, one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(

a) being permitted; and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, May 17, 2017; and

That in the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties; and

That at the end of this time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Ms. Sandals has moved government notice of motion number 9. I turn it back to the minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: And I am now going to turn it over to the PA, the member for Ottawa–Vanier, for her remarks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Before we start, I turned it back to you. However, we have to now go in order. Thank you for volunteering, but it has to go over to the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): We have to, yes. That’s all right. I’ll turn it over to the official opposition and recognize the member from Oxford for further debate.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’m disappointed that the government is once again choosing politics over policy. They spent years ignoring the housing problem in Ontario, until it grew into a crisis. They ignored warnings from experts and from the opposition. They ignored the fact that every year the waiting list for affordable housing would hit a new record high. Even now, they aren’t willing to spend a little more time to make sure that we get this legislation right. This is a government and a Premier that used to believe in conversations. Now they just believe in pushing their legislation through as quickly as possible.

Over the last two months, we have heard some stories of huge rent increases. We understand the hardships that created for those tenants. But if you want to avoid hardships for tenants in the future, it’s important not just to take action, but to take the right action. If the government gets this legislation wrong, it will lead to an even greater shortage of supply. That means more lineups at open houses for apartments, more bidding wars and, ultimately, higher rents. If there’s no money left for apartment maintenance, that impacts tenants too.

This bill is retroactive to April 20, which means that whether it passes one day earlier or two days later doesn’t actually matter. It will still protect the exact same people. The government keeps saying they want to avoid unintended consequences. The way to do that is to listen to the MPPs from different regions, listen to the experts, and get this legislation right. We’ve heard from expert after expert that in order to solve the housing crisis, we need to address red tape and supply, but this bill does nothing to solve that problem. In fact, many of the measures will discourage people from becoming landlords, making our supply problem even worse.

Housing is an issue that impacts every riding in Ontario. And yet, only eight MPPs have actually had the opportunity to speak to this bill—less than 10%. This problem may be focused in the GTA and southern Ontario, but this legislation will impact the whole province, and we need to hear what that impact will be.

Rentals in northern Ontario are different than those in downtown Toronto. Shouldn’t those people expect that their MPP will have the opportunity to point that out? The MPP from Simcoe–Grey has land-lease communities in his riding that will be impacted by the legislation. He hasn’t had the opportunity to speak to this bill. The member from Guelph, where housing prices went up 36.1% last year, hasn’t had the opportunity to speak to this bill. Neither has the member from Barrie, where housing prices increased by 32.9%.

The member from Peterborough, whose local paper this weekend declared, “Peterborough Has a Rental Crisis, Not a Housing Crisis,” hasn’t had an opportunity to speak to this bill. Mr. Speaker, how do they go home to their constituents and say they’re doing their job if the government cuts off debate before they even have a chance to speak on this important issue?

Since many Liberal members haven’t had the chance to speak, I want to share a few of their comments on the issue. In October, just six months ago, the member from Beaches–East York said, “She also talked about rent control being a gaping hole in this legislation. Let’s not kid ourselves. The rent controls that were brought in by the previous NDP government under Bob Rae decimated the affordable housing market in Toronto and other communities in Ontario because it didn’t allow the private sector to continue to build. They wouldn’t; the returns weren’t there. And they weren’t able to keep upkeep.

So the housing stock went into a dismal state of repair, which is why it had to be reversed, as it was. Rent controls continue on the previous suites and don’t exist now. I would resist, tremendously”—and I think this is the one that’s important—“I would resist, tremendously, any amendment to this legislation which would bring back rent control.”

Now, this is not the only member of their caucus who has made statements against rent control. Linda Jeffrey, who was Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing under this Premier, said, “The post-1991 rent exemption was originally introduced—and has been maintained over time—as an incentive for private landlords to build new rental accommodation. This incentive not only helps to renew the rental housing stock but also creates jobs in the construction sector. As such, any changes to this incentive could have an adverse effect on the rental housing sector, the economy and job creation.”

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

Mr. Speaker, when that many people from their own caucus express concern about this, this isn’t a bill that the government should rush through without proper debate.

Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that the government is limiting the committee to five hours. People have just five minutes for presentations and nine minutes for questions, which means we will hear from a total of just 20 people—20 people for legislation that impacts hundreds of thousands of people.

The government keeps saying that they want to avoid unintended consequences. The way to do that is to listen to the experts and get the legislation right.

The Premier said that if she had had a crystal ball last fall, she might have taken different action on the housing crisis. Again, if she had taken the time to listen to the experts, they might have gotten it right at that point, before we reached this crisis level. They have waited years to deal with this problem and now they aren’t willing to take a few more hours to hear from more of the people who work in the industry and who are impacted by it; time that would let us hear from more tenant groups, professional planners, land economists, municipal representatives, landlords and tenants.

This government spent weeks musing about changing rent controls. During that time, every time they talked about it, landlords would raise the rents in case this was their last opportunity. This bill is only retroactive to April 20, meaning that all those tenants who had rent increases in the weeks that the government was musing about the changes aren’t covered. Shouldn’t we give those tenants time to come and talk about their concerns? I can tell you that I am willing to start committee earlier, sit later, meet on extra days and do what it takes to hear from the experts.

Since we’re going to have limited time to hear from them in committee, I want to share some of the comments I have received from small landlords this week. One email said, “This proposed legislation will discourage developers and, more importantly, small landlords from considering renting out apartments given the onerous restrictions in giving notice to a tenant. This is crass political maneuvering.”

I received an email from a small landlord last week that said, “I have had enough of the Liberal overregulation and demonizing of landlords both large and small and am selling my rental property.”

Another quote: “I feel like right now the government doesn’t care about the suffering that is caused by these acts. As landlords, we feel immense emotion when we’re being robbed by tenants or having our investments literally trashed but unable, in a timely manner and with a high likelihood of failure at the” Landlord and Tenant Board, “to do anything. I think this

part is overlooked. Yes, landlords may be privileged in having these investments but doesn’t mean we should be unprotected.”

Mr. Speaker, it isn’t just landlords. We need time to hear from people like Geordie Dent, the executive director of the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations, who said, “Young and single tenants face a terrible situation in the city right now. A low vacancy rate means that people are struggling to find any place to rent, much less an affordable one. It puts them into debt or unsustainable living situations.”

Expert after expert talks about the importance of supply, and yet this bill seems to discourage it. It does nothing to address the red tape that is causing challenges for the building industry and discourages small landlords.

Under this bill, landlords who have a second unit in their home and need that space for their own use will be required to pay a penalty to the tenant in addition to giving them proper notice. That means if the senior, who had been renting an apartment in her house, falls ill and needs the space for a caregiver, she will have to pay the tenant the equivalent of one month’s rent just to be able to get the care in her home that she needs. What about the young couple who rented out a part of their house so they could afford their first home? Now they are expecting their first child, and the government is going to make them pay a penalty because they need the space in their own home.

We need to hear from the people who would be impacted by this bill, and make changes to get it right. We need some of those conversations that the Premier used to be fond of.

One of the other challenges this time allocation creates is that members can no longer work together on amendments at committee. I remember one amendment we put forward on a time-allocated bill. After the government members voted it down, staff explained that it was because they didn’t like that one of the words was in the plural, so they voted it down because of an S. If a bill isn’t time-allocated, members can point that out in committee and we can agree to make changes so that we don’t lose important changes to legislation because of a disagreement over a single letter.

We’re currently doing clause-by-clause on Bill 68, and because of the short timelines, every single party has submitted amendments after the deadline. In fact, the majority of the government and NDP amendments actually came in after the deadline. Even more concerning is that amendments are due less than 24 hours later. That means most of the amendments will have to be drafted before the hearings are actually completed. It raises real questions about whether the government is even listening to the people who are taking the time to come and speak to committee.

It also means amendments are rushed, leading to mistakes. We saw that in the last bill, where some parties submitted two or three versions of the same amendment because mistakes were discovered after the amendments had been submitted. We are lucky to have incredible professional legislative counsel staff, but asking them to produce amendments that quickly doesn’t give them as much time as they really need to research, draft and proofread the amendments. These changes have major impacts on people’s lives. We should take the time to get them right.

The government could have made the deadline end of day Friday instead of end of day Thursday. That would have given everyone time to actually draft amendments based on the presentations. We still would have had four days to review the amendments. Again, I want to point out that this bill is retroactive to April 20, so whenever it passes, it will protect the same number of people.

The government promised multiple steps to address housing affordability. It is a little hypocritical for the government to claim that it is so crucial to limit debate on this bill when they haven’t even introduced the bill on the foreign homebuyers’ tax. In fact, their budget bill gives them until the end of 2017 to introduce that legislation. It makes it more clear that for them this is about politics, not about solving the housing crisis.

We only have 14 sessional days left before summer break. That means that even if they introduced the bill tomorrow, it likely wouldn’t pass before the summer. It makes it clear that their housing announcement was written on the back of a napkin. It makes it clear that for them this is about politics, not policy, to address the housing crisis.

The truth is that this is not a problem that developed in the last few weeks. This is a problem that has been growing for years and the government ignored it until we had bidding wars for apartments, people camping out for a week to buy a new home and generations of young people who are questioning whether they will be able to buy a home. They waited until we have multiple cities with a vacancy rate around 1%. The government claims they can’t afford to wait for data, but if they had started gathering that information when the housing crisis was first starting, we would have had the evidence by now.

In fact, as I pointed out multiple times in this House, the government is not leading by example. We still don’t have the latest annual report with statistics from the Landlord and Tenant Board, even though it is a legislative requirement to have tabled it nine months ago.

I am asking the government to change the deadline for the amendments—that way, we all have the opportunity to draft them after we hear from the presenters—and increase the time for presentations so we have time to hear from more people who are impacted by this bill. We believe that decisions should be made with evidence and after listening to the experts. We want good, affordable apartments for tenants, and we believe that, in order to achieve that, we need more supply, not less.

Mr. Speaker, instead of worrying about politics, I ask the government to worry about getting this legislation right.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s always a privilege to rise in this House, and it’s particularly a privilege when it comes to speaking about housing and to speak about the rights of tenants, because quite frankly, they don’t have many.

I was listening intently to the member from Oxford, and he made some excellent points about the time allocation motion. Absolutely, we should be hearing from tenants’ organizations more.

But let me say, we only agree on that. We pretty much disagree on everything else. Right now, in my riding, in Parkdale–High Park, we have a rent strike that started May 1. On my radio show yesterday, I had one of the incredible young lights, one of the young leaders of that rent strike, a wonderful young woman named Aliza Kassam. Aliza talked about the impact that rental increases—and, by the way, this is on a building that was built pre-1991, but their landlord, their property management firm, has applied for above-rental-guideline increases.

These are an incredible burden on people who are on fixed incomes. If you are a senior and you are on a fixed income, if you are on ODSP or OW and on a fixed income, or if you’re a minimum-wage earner, which many of the tenants in south Parkdale are, 3% rather than 2%, and 3% over consecutive years, makes a substantial difference. It makes a difference between whether you can stay in your apartment or whether you have to find other lodging. Let me tell you: There is no other lodging in the city of Toronto. So when people are forced out of their apartments in south Parkdale, they’re going to end up outside the city, even if they have to work in the city.

This is an unconscionable move on the part of property managers, and this is happening under the old legislation, under the old regulations. Now, we see this output of condo rentals and other rentals where there are no protections at all, where after a lease is up—and we had, again, just on the outskirts of my riding, an instance of someone getting an increase of double their rent after their lease was up—double their rent.

What is that message saying? I’ll tell you what it’s saying, and I’ll tell you what—in this case, MetCap is the property manager that’s inspired the rent strike in their properties in Parkdale. They’re saying to their tenants: “Get out.” That’s what it’s saying. Why are they saying, “Get out”? Because we don’t have real rent control in the province of Ontario, because property managers can say “get out” and double the rent.

What we have is called vacancy decontrol. So if they can muscle the tenants out of those units by hook or by crook, guess what? They can charge anything they like for that unit. Above-rental-guideline increases can be asked for tidying up a foyer or making balconies look prettier. These are not serious maintenance issues, necessarily. Even if they were serious maintenance issues, don’t tell me that property managers who own buildings in downtown Toronto haven’t made considerable profits over the time they own their buildings.

I know—I listened to the member from Oxford. Yes, I too have been lobbied by landlords, landlords who will come to me and say, “I can’t keep going. I can’t make repairs. I can’t fix up my units with the current rental guidelines and the proposed ones,” which, by the way, of course, was the member from Toronto–Danforth’s bill just put into reality by the government to extend that 1991 deadline which makes no sense.

When these landlords came to see me, I said what I would say to any small business person or large business person: “If your business is not profitable, why are you staying in it? Why don’t you sell your property and move into another line of business? If you sell your property in downtown Toronto, you’ll see phenomenal increases over what you paid to purchase that property.

Why don’t you sell it?” The room went quiet, except for one landlord who said to me, “Then I’d have to pay capital gains.” Capital gains is about 30% at worst, so you’ll only make $1 million or $2 million instead of $3 million on your property. Give me a break. Really? I don’t know of any other small business that has seen the kind of capital gains—which, let’s face it, are real gains—on their investment than property managers and property owners have in the city of Toronto who rent out to tenants. So forgive me; my sympathy does not lie with them. My sympathy lies with the tenants who have no place to go.

Let us remind ourselves that we are living in a country and in a province that signed on to the UN declaration that said that everyone deserves housing; that you cannot move forward in your life without stable housing. We’re not living that out in Ontario. We’re not living it out anywhere.

What does it mean if you don’t have stable housing? Well, it means we have 180,000 people waiting for affordable housing, with wait-lists in Toronto and the GTA and across Ontario that last 10 to 12 years.

And guess what? TCHC affordable housing units are being allowed to fall into disrepair because nothing in the government’s budget was allocated to do those necessary repairs—repairs that are worth about $2.5 billion. And $2.5 billion is way too much to be shouldered by any municipality. Toronto needs, and Mayor John Tory has said they need, this government, the provincial government, to step up and help pay for the repair of those units. Up to a third of Toronto Community Housing units are going to fall into disrepair when we need housing most.

Governments, provincial and federal, have just got out of the housing business. One of our proposals over the years was to build 10,000 new units of affordable housing. When was it last heard in these halls that a government committed to new builds of affordable housing? I haven’t heard it since I’ve been here. I haven’t seen it federally or provincially. We have not stepped up to address the crisis by repairing housing units we already own, by new builds. It took almost nine years to get this government to move on inclusionary zoning, something that governments across North America and around the world have used, when tax dollars aren’t in plentiful supply, to provide affordable housing.

In the wake of not doing much about providing affordable housing, we finally have them—because they’ve been pushed by the craziness of the market out there, where, as I said, a landlord can double the rent after the lease is up, and has. Finally, they brought in some modest reforms. But are they enough? I can tell you, they’re not enough.

A couple of weeks back we passed, as a House, my motion to add a gender lens to the budget, to look at how the budget affects women, and an intersectional gender lens—so, women and also women of colour and trans women. I can tell you, they voted for it, but they didn’t do it, and a key example of that is housing.

It’s rare that a person in the NDP can agree with a person in the Progressive Conservatives, but Mayor Tory and I and all of us are on the same page on this one—when he said what he got from the government on affordable housing in this budget was a big goose egg. That’s what we got.

The member from Oxford mentioned the “retroactive to April 20” issue. Not only am I hearing from landlords, but I am hearing from tenants, tenants whose landlords saw the moves coming and jacked up their rent in anticipation of those moves coming. Of course they would and of course they have. So I’m also hearing from them saying, “In what world is that fair?” This is advance knowledge. Basically, it’s giving the landlords advance knowledge so they can jack up the rents before the legislation is enacted. That’s a real, real problem.

Ages ago, we asked and housing activists in Toronto asked that 1% of every budget, both federal and provincial, be set aside for affordable housing. This government has never done that, never come close. The federal government hasn’t done that, hasn’t come close. That’s what brings us to this crisis.

I have to say that the last time we really saw governments of all stripes and all levels involved in housing was in the 1970s—in the 1970s. I’ll give you an example of that—and this is being very non-partisan of me because it was a Conservative government federally, it was a Conservative government provincially and it was David Crombie as mayor, a Conservative in the mayoral seat in Toronto, that did it in the 1970s. So there’s no reason any political party can’t get behind this. That was St. Lawrence Market, still the gold standard for affordable housing.

How did they start? We had Mr. Crombie come into Parkdale–High Park and tell us. “How did you get it done?” He said, “We started with co-op housing.” Again, we have to make it easier for co-op developments to get off the ground. He said they did it with affordable, government-built housing and also market housing all mixed together into what is, you have to admit, a wonderful place to live around St. Lawrence Market. You can’t tell which is which: which is co-op, which is market-priced housing and which is government housing there. It’s a neighbourhood. It’s a community.

That’s what communities should look like right across the GTA; a GTA, Mr. Speaker, to which we’re adding about 70,000 people a year—70,000 people a year. A city the size of Kingston is being built in downtown Toronto year after year after year.

We have to confront that as well, because I can tell you that issues with the OMB and issues with people who live around the new developments that are going up are not being dealt with either. That’s a whole other problem in a whole other sector.

But to get back to tenants and to finish maybe where I started is to talk about the beleaguered tenants across our city and the fact that there are not very many options open to them. We live in one of the most expensive jurisdictions, if not the most expensive, in Canada. We have rents now that are soaring and completely out of line with incomes—completely out of line with incomes. Incomes have been stagnant. Jobs are precarious. Work is precarious. Again, we hoped to see a $15 minimum wage in the budget; we didn’t see that. Jobs are precarious. Income is precarious. Wages are stagnant. Yet the cost of housing has gone through the roof.

How to respond? Government has taken very small steps. We in the New Democratic Party would like to see some braver, more courageous steps. Because the situation is going to get worse; it’s not going to get better.

I can tell you that home ownership for the next generation in the city of Toronto is like winning the lottery. It’s completely outside their imagination to be able to afford to buy a house for the vast majority of young people. You can’t build a city on that. The only way, for example, my children will be able to afford to buy a house in Toronto—and this is a pretty common baby boomer story—is to inherit ours. That’s the only way. That is the only way. Again, this country and this province and this city have been built on our children doing better than we do; not worse, better. That’s clearly not going to happen.

Again, listening to the Conservative comments from the member from Oxford, should we have more input to this bill? Absolutely. That’s called democracy. We should hear from more tenant groups. But I can tell you what we will hear if we hear from more tenant groups: We will hear a long list of complaints which this Liberal legislation does very little to address.

With that, I’m going to take my seat and leave room for others in our caucus to weigh in. But suffice it to say that as we sit and deliberate here, the rent strike continues: 250 tenants against MetCap—which, by the way, won the Golden Cockroach award about 10 years ago—and amounting to about $250,000 worth of rent. That kind of initiative, that kind of breaking of the law because their backs are to the wall and they have no other alternative, is going to spread across our city and across our province if we do not respond and if we do not respond with some backbone.

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

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Monsieur le Président, ça me fait plaisir de me joindre au débat ce matin et d’expliquer brièvement pourquoi il est important qu’on contribue rapidement à passer la

loi sur l’équité en location immobilière.

I will divide my speech a little bit in three areas. Number one, I think the importance of acting quickly in this debate—I want to thank both the member from Oxford and the member from Parkdale–High Park and illustrate how important it is that we respond quickly to the crisis in the rental market in Ontario.

Secondly, I will talk a little bit about what the good things in this bill are that I think warrant our quick action, and finally, the rest of the things that we need to do and therefore should do quickly and have the time to do it by proceeding swiftly on this bill.

First of all, why is it so important to act quickly and to proceed to have the bill go through committee so that it can be evaluated and amendments, if necessary, be brought? It’s because, if we don’t act, we create more uncertainty in the rental market and indeed are perpetuating the ability for landlords to increase their rents in an unreasonable manner.

All of us have heard about the way in which landlords are taking advantage of the uncertainty to push the tenants and to push their rents upward. They need to have certainty. They need to know what is appropriate and what the rules of the game are. That’s the responsible thing for all of us to work on as of today.

This responsibility that we all share, to ensure that the rules of the game are well-known by both landlords and tenants, has imposed on us a duty to act relatively quickly on this file.

I also want to talk a little bit about the importance of this bill, to respond not only to the rent increases but to the range of issues that have been raised, among others, by the member for Parkdale–High Park, who raised the issue about some of the areas in which landlords have abused some of the dispositions of the Residential Tenancies Act; and also, some of the aspects of the bill that seek to alleviate some irritants in the Residential Tenancies Act that have come from both the landlord and the tenant side.

The bill is quite balanced in that it does provide for clearing out of some areas where there were some disputes that were affecting, day in and day out, the lives of tenants and landlords. So it does provide first for an expansion of rent control to the buildings built after 1991. This has been a long-standing area of debate. In this day and age, in 2017, we need to react quickly on this issue. Otherwise, we are putting tenants at risk of being forced to see rent increases that they cannot afford, and that has significant impact on their lives.

The reason why it’s important to do it before the summer is because that’s the time when people move. If you are going to decide where your kids are going to go to school next time, you need to know where you’re going to live in September. That’s important for the stability of families.

So the reason why it’s important to move now and not in the next session is because we need to provide the certainty to tenants and landlords before the summer so that we can avoid the vulnerability that it creates for families that don’t know what’s going to happen, and don’t know how they’re going to manage the summer and the upcoming school year. So I urge the members to recognize the urgency for us to move all together quickly on this and proceed.

What are the good things in this bill that I think warrant our attention? It’s certainly the rent control aspect and the clarity that we provide for the use by landlords of their ability to evict for their own use. These provisions, we know, have been used, not by all landlords, but at times in an abusive manner. The bill simply provides clarity to ensure that, indeed, the intent of the bill, which is, certainly, if a landlord needs it for his or her family, it’s appropriate to evict tenants for that purpose. But you should not do it simply to evict a tenant and put the apartment back on the market to increase the rent and make more profit.

There is something that we all recognize in the Residential Tenancies Act. It was always based on trying to ensure that there is a minimum of security of tenure for tenants. That’s a principle that exists not only in the Residential Tenancies Act in Ontario, but pretty much all across the world. Indeed, when we look at international instruments, when they define what housing means, it means affordable, reliable, suitable, and security of tenure.

The reason why security of tenure is important is because it allows people to establish themselves, grow roots, keep their kids in the same school if possible and establish their membership in the community. Security of tenure is an important principle for all of us to observe. That’s the reason why we need to respond adequately to a little bit of a loophole and the uncertainty that exists in the Residential Tenancies Act at this time.

The other aspect of the bill, which I think is a good thing for Ontario, is in response to some of the demands from small landlords: the standard lease. A standard lease exists in many other provinces. The reason why you want a standard lease is because you need to ensure that, indeed, people know the rules and they can abide by them. It avoids uncertainty and it creates a level playing field. If, indeed, a landlord wanted to change some aspects—they wanted to specify some additional conditions in the lease—that may be possible, provided that it does not violate the Residential Tenancies Act.

Part of what’s happening, particularly in the context where it’s a hot market, is the tenant is in a vulnerable position when he or she comes to negotiate with the landlord. A standard lease helps alleviate that power imbalance and makes sure that people don’t agree to clauses that are against the law. It does provide some clarity, some transparency, and that’s a good thing. That’s a good thing for all Ontarians, both on the tenant and on the landlord side.

Finally, another aspect that’s important in this bill that I think we should want to provide quickly to all Ontarians is the ability and the protection for transitional housing. This bill does provide for an exemption for transitional housing for up to four years. This is important because we know that many of the programs that are put forward in transitional housing do last longer than one year, which is the current regulation. It’s important to provide that because that’s the only way that we can support people who need it badly, who need to be helped in accessing good housing, and need the programs that are offered in transitional housing.

There’s a certain urgency to this because we cannot afford to have this program lapse, to have people go back to homelessness. The longer people are in a homeless status, the longer they are on the streets, the more complicated, the more difficult it is to provide good housing that will put them where they ought to be. We know that. We know that the longer that people stay out of shelter, the more difficult it is for them to stay in stable housing. Too many issues arise on the streets that create some difficulties for them to recuperate and achieve some stability in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, my point is simply this: There is an urgency for all of us to step up, to respond to the way in which rent increases are preventing people from making choices this summer at this time. It’s important that we take our responsibility as legislators to actually ensure that indeed we are there for the people who are suffering now and have difficulty deciding what to do with their tenancy.

I urge members to recognize that we should go to committee. Certainly we should hear from the people. There are written submissions that are going to be allowed, so if people can’t speak, they can certainly write to the committee. We should work together to ensure that we have the proper amendments that are necessary for people to bring, if they so wish, and have the time to debate. It’s important that we put ourselves in a position where we can respond to the current crisis in tenancy in Ontario and respond adequately in a timely fashion. That’s what I urge all members to do.

I want just briefly before I sit to speak a little bit about the other things that we should be doing to support housing—fair housing, affordable housing—in Ontario. We need to look at the range of measures that were announced in the plan and were also announced in the budget:

—the 15% non-resident speculation tax in the greater Golden Horseshoe: that’s important to stabilize the market;

—empowering cities to introduce a vacant homes property tax: that’s important because that can help increase supply, and it will enable municipalities to take ownership of what’s going on in the rental market and act in an appropriate fashion;

—looking into and trying to curtail a little bit the speculation and paper-flipping, dealing with the paper-flipping and quick speculation on real estate transactions; and

—giving municipalities the flexibility to use other property tax tools to unlock development options.

It’s not as though we don’t look at the supply tools that we need to make. We are, but in the meantime, it’s irresponsible not to protect tenants. This is my key message. We need to protect tenants now, not in the next year. It’s quite important to resolve the uncertainty.

I also want to mention that there are some provisions in the budget to increase and continue to support investment in housing, and I think that’s an important part as well. As you know, a $125-million program over five years to build purpose-built new rental apartment buildings is part of the plan. That’s another aspect that needs to be put on the table and recognized as being a commitment to ensuring good housing for all Ontarians.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I wish we weren’t speaking to another time allocation motion in this House, but that seems to be—maybe not the orders of the day all the time, but certainly the order of the day when it comes to this government. They are the government of the guillotine when it comes to debate in this chamber. If they don’t want to talk about something because they don’t want to hear all of the facts and all of the opinions and all of the experts that are out there, they simply stifle debate, shutting out the public, but also shutting out the members of this House.

As my colleague from Oxford so eloquently pointed out earlier in his submission speaking today, members on all sides of the House live in communities—he spoke of the President of the Treasury Board, the member from Guelph—where there have been significant increases in housing costs in the last year. She’s not having the opportunity to speak to this bill. I haven’t had the opportunity to speak to this bill. My colleagues on this side of the House—I don’t believe my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has had the opportunity to speak to this bill.

It’s almost like, “We don’t want to hear any more about this. We just want to move ahead because it’s part of our political agenda. It’s not about Ontario. It’s not even about tenants. It’s part of our political agenda,” because they want everybody who either rents accommodations, primarily in the city of Toronto, or could be in the market to rent accommodations, a future tenant or one who could be moving or whatever, to believe that this government has their back, that this government has their best interests at heart. The reality is that this government has their own best interests at heart.

You see, Speaker, we’re not talking about the tenants and their best interests; we’re talking about the Liberal Party and the members of the Liberal caucus—their best interests, because they see this as playing positively politically, particularly in the city of Toronto. Yet the legislation itself has been panned by an awful lot of experts who feel that it is not going to solve the problem, it is only about messaging.

When you take a bill and you try to accomplish many things—I think it’s 16. Is it a 16-point plan?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Sixteen points.

Mr. John Yakabuski: My colleague from Oxford, who has studied this bill inside out, upside down and sideways, I know, says it’s a 16-point plan.

When you have a 16-point plan, the reality is that it’s very seldom that you are very good at being successful on any of the 16 points. A plan for change and a plan for improvement and a plan to make things better usually has a couple of, or maybe three, points that they emphasize very strongly and say, “This is what we want to accomplish, this is what we’re setting out to do and this is how we’re going to get there.” But this is a 16-point plan because it’s trying to have a little bit in there for everybody.

As I say, this is not about tenants or anyone else; it’s about the Liberal Party and June 2018. Because the reality is they want to move quickly to pass this bill. Some of the negative fallout from this bill will hardly have worked its way through the system by the time we go to the polls in 2018.

But there has always been a difficult balance, and I recognize that. I understand how difficult it is to govern. I have never been on that side; I’m looking forward to it someday.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Come on over.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, no. I don’t mean on that side now. I mean on that side once the people of Ontario make the decision that I’m hoping they make in 2018.

I recognize that it’s not easy to govern and it’s never easy to balance the interests of opposing forces, but the job of the government is to do exactly that. You can’t just say, “We’re going to do something for this group,” without that having a consequence on the other group.

So when it comes to accommodations and the housing crisis—and the one that gets all of the ink in the news is, of course, the situation in Toronto—but when it comes to trying to solve that, their shotgun approach, if you will, is not going to work. That’s why it has been panned by so many experts out there. The balancing act, I know, is difficult. But here you have it: They want to send a message to tenants that, “We care about you and we’re going to try to help you.”

But here’s one of the potential consequences that experts are saying: If you put caps on the rent—and we’re already in a situation where we are short of available housing units for tenants. We’re already short. The stock is already low. They’re not building them now, what is the likelihood that they’re going to build more?

It costs a lot of money to build housing, and unless the government’s going to put up the cash, the likelihood that a developer would say, “Look, I’m not going to spend tens or twenties or hundreds of millions of dollars or whatever building up a large apartment complex if it’s going to be unlikely that I can meet my mortgage and my costs and my bills and my taxes and everything else that I’m going to be expected to pay once I build that.” Development costs: It is hugely expensive to do anything in the city of Toronto.

So what will be the consequence, or the purported consequence, is that the availability of rental housing is going to get even tighter than it is today. There’s going to be less available after than there is today. So why wouldn’t the government, as my colleague from Oxford pointed out so clearly, want to take advantage of the experts who are willing to come forward and help them on this bill? As he also pointed out, this crisis didn’t happen yesterday; it’s been coming. You could see it as clear as day for the last two or three years.

It’s only because the NDP brought out a private member’s bill to deal with rent control that the government hastily put something on the table, trying to please everybody. But the reality is, they haven’t thought it out and now they don’t want anybody to do anything to change it, hoping that maybe after 2018 and they get re-elected because they fooled everybody once again, “Well, we’ll have to fix all the inadequacies or the deficiencies in the legislation.” But right now, it’s about 2018.

They’re not very good at drafting legislation. Speaker, they’re not very good at drafting a time allocation motion, which is what we’re actually debating today, the time allocation motion. I look at this time allocation motion. Allow me to give my eyes a little assistance here. I’ll read this now: “That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 11, 2017; and

“That the committee be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, from 3:30 p.m. to midnight for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

“That on Tuesday, May 16, 2017”—remember, same day—“at 5 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto....”

So, Speaker, they’ve set a time frame for the hearings from 3:30 p.m. to midnight, but if they haven’t finished it by 5 o’clock, they’re going to shut it off at 5 o’clock, basically. So why would you

schedule till midnight? Do you know what that’s like, Speaker? That’s like if you’re the inmate on death row and the warden of the prison comes to see you and says, “You know what? Tomorrow, we’re planning a big steak dinner for you. Unfortunately, your execution is at 5 o’clock today.” What was the point of scheduling it to midnight if you’re shutting it off at 5 o’clock? That’s how well they thought out this time allocation motion, which is about the same as they thought out this bill.

I have been consistent on this point since I got here in this House. It is a misuse of this chamber, it is an abuse of the members, when you continuously bring forth time allocation motions, particularly on a bill of this nature that needs reasoned debate, that needs the opportunity for deputants to come forward with ways that can improve upon the legislation. It is wrong for this government to continue to use time allocation to get their way and not make sure that we get it right for the people of Ontario.

I will be voting against this motion. It is, again, the guillotine coming down on this Parliament again, and I am totally against it.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning. It’s an important debate. It’s a timely debate. It’s actually on the minds of a lot of people across this province, which is surprising, because the motion is around time allocation, so it really is a motion to limit the debate on rental fairness in the province of Ontario.

I can’t help but think about the parallels that are actually happening with our federal Parliament right now.

The House leader for the federal Liberal Party recently said just yesterday that they will be actively and aggressively using time allocation because their plan to modernize the House of Commons, our federal Parliament, was filibustered by the other parties, because part of that modernization—which is a word that I think most of us have come to fear in this place because it usually means that something is going to go wrong on health care, energy, infrastructure—of the federal Parliament meant that the Prime Minister of this country need not attend every question period.

That’s an important parliamentary tradition. Some of us actually care about this, that the Prime Minister, or the Premier in this instance, show up and be held accountable in a public, transparent way and show the integrity for that office by answering the questions of the opposition members.

Now, the Prime Minister really didn’t feel like he needed to participate in this process. They went through this modernization process and the opposition parties decided to filibuster it, as is their right to do so.

The time allocation piece is actually connected to the bill because, as a response, the federal Liberal Party will now be aggressively using time allocation to limit debate. Where we stand on this issue is that limiting and restricting the democratic voices, the elected representatives, to any piece of legislation in such a strict manner—the member from Oxford has clearly pointed out that only eight members have had an opportunity to debate this legislation in its entirety, in its fullness. There are many gaps in this piece of legislation. It is an imperfect, flawed piece of legislation.

To hear the opposite party say, “We must get this done right now”—they waited 14 years, 14 years to hurry up and wait and do nothing, and then rush to do something in an imperfect way, leaving renters in the province of Ontario, particularly in this city, the city of Toronto, in a desperate state.

For 14 years, they were content to leave the status quo in place, which means that renters had no rights, that they had no voice, that there was no legislation they could rely on. The argument from the Liberal Party, from the Liberal government that we must do something right now, even though it’s not going to solve the problem, is a flawed rationale which we will continue to challenge for as long as we have, which for the NDP will mean 22 minutes of debate—22 minutes. This is a disgusting state of affairs, I think.

It’s timely, though, that this debate was actually happening yesterday. Transparency and accountability still matter in this House. Procedurally, it’s really the only thing that we have left to stand on, on the principles of ensuring that the voices of the constituents, the ones I represent in Kitchener–Waterloo—those voices have not been reflected in the debate on rental fairness.

Just today, there was an

article in the Waterloo Region Record indicating that with the housing crisis—which is what it is, a housing crisis; there is a supply crisis of affordable housing in Ontario. For 14 years, this government has neglected their responsibility to truly invest in housing.

It’s really interesting because the budget came down last Thursday in Nova Scotia. Out of a $10-billion budget in Nova Scotia just last week, $38 million of it was dedicated to housing, to affordable housing. That’s a huge percentage of a $10-billion budget. Also of interest is that, in that budget, it was dedicated specifically to affordability. What the rental fairness piece of legislation is not able to accomplish is that it does not address the supply issue.

In Kitchener–Waterloo, as was indicated in today’s piece of legislation, the realtors say very clearly that what is happening in Toronto is trickling out to Waterloo region. It is driving up the prices to $100,000 over asking in this year.

First-time homebuyers have an impossible market to try to break into. The competition and the cutthroat practices, really, have transferred from Toronto out into the region. It’s a huge issue, but this piece of legislation doesn’t solve it as it is crafted right now, Mr. Speaker.

We are, of course, obviously disappointed that the government side of the House has decided to fast-track this piece of legislation, with all of its flaws, after 14 years of almost no action.

And now we have a very interesting political quandary, if you will, for the Liberal government, in that yesterday the Premier drew a line in the sand with the mayor, and the Minister of Transportation went down to an announcement and crashed—which was very unprecedented. But we are in unprecedented times, after 14 years. The Minister of Transportation was asked, “Don’t you think it’s the mayor of Toronto’s job to advocate for affordable housing and to ask, in a true, open and transparent and very public way, the GTA MPPs what they have done to ensure that affordable housing has been part of this Liberal government’s agenda?” For 14 years, it’s almost been non-existent.

What was so surprising is that in the 2017 Ontario budget, there was almost nothing for affordable housing. All that he is asking, the mayor—which is a commitment that we have also made—is that this is a shared responsibility to strengthen the economy, to secure health resources, to ensure that educational opportunities can be met. Housing underpins all of that, but it wasn’t in the budget. The Minister of Transportation is shocked at this, and he says, “There’s a fine line between passionate advocacy for your community and moving in a different direction altogether.” He says that the mayor has gone “over the line.”

So now you have this very tense political relationship establishing, when what is required in this province is for municipal, provincial and federal parties to come to the table with a shared funding model, with year-over-year sustainable funding, to ensure that affordable housing gets built.

Yesterday, we met with the Canadian co-op federation. They have a very clear plan as to how that would happen. BC, which is in a provincial election right now—the BC New Democrats have put in their platform year-over-year sustainable funding in the not-for-profit sector. These projects are ready to go.

We can build affordable housing in this province very quickly by working in close partnerships with municipalities, the not-for-profit sector and the co-op housing movement, which is long, long overdue in the province of Ontario.

What I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, is that the renters in this province—the member from Parkdale–High Park accurately pointed this out, that you have Toronto tenants going on strike. In the Globe and Mail today, an

article by Luke Carroll and Scott Wheeler indicates, “Toronto Tenants Threatened with Eviction amid Rent Strike.” The reason that they’re striking is because their rents have gone up exorbitantly. These are many people who are on fixed incomes.

One of the people interviewed is on disability—ODSP. If anybody understands the state of being a disabled person in the province of Ontario—an individual who is limited to those funds—you know that there is no room in that monthly budget for a rent increase. Nor are there true AODA standards in many of these units.

“Ms. Livesay says she believes she and Ms. Vasquez were particularly targeted for being vocal members of the rent strike”: The reason that they’re being targeted, why these women on limited incomes who are renters in the province of Ontario, who live with a pest and cockroach issue in their homes—these are their homes, but they have no rights, Mr. Speaker. For 14 years, they have had no rights in this province.

This piece of legislation does not fix that. Time allocation will not help us strengthen this piece of legislation. This is a long-standing pattern of undermining democracy in the province of Ontario. New Democrats will not be supporting this time allocation motion. Thank you very much.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): First of all, I’d like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate this morning. It is now 10:15, and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that today, pursuant to standing order 71(c), the member from Nipissing has filed with the Clerk a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 127,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes.

The order for second reading of Bill 127 may therefore not be called today.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce guests of page captain John-Stanley Black: his mother, Jennifer Black; his sisters Amiera and Sadie Black; his grandmother Joan Black; his aunt Jennifer E. Black; and his cousins Cassandra and Caleigh Clark.

M me France Gélinas: On a de la grande visite à Queen’s Park aujourd’hui. J’aimerais ça vous présenter Alain Dupuis, Steven Ogden, Josée Joliat, Kelia Wane, Koubra Haggar, Camille Sigouin, Ali Boussi, Pablo Mhanna-Sandoval, Carol Jolin, Peter Hominuk, Yacouba Condé et Bryan Michaud, qui sont tous avec le RÉFO. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of my seatmate, the member for Brampton West, I’m pleased to introduce a very special guest of page captain Noah Hatton. His mother, Janice Hatton, is in the public gallery this morning. Please welcome her to the Legislature.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Robin Martin, a good friend of mine, is here from Eglinton–Lawrence, as well as Shoshana Pasternak from York Centre. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I want to welcome the mother of page Gurjaap Brar. She is in the gallery. Her name is Ninder Thind. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Gila Martow: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, je viens juste de remarquer que Peter Hominuk de « mon assemblée » est ici aussi. Merci beaucoup, et bienvenue.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d just like to welcome the family of Matt Samulewski, a close friend and a colleague at LCSB. They’re here with us for the Queen’s Park reception commemorating the 226th anniversary of the Polish constitution: Mary Samulewski, Leo Samulewski, Daniella Samulewski and Siena Deluca. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I wish to introduce George Anger from my riding. He’s the proud grandfather of page captain Gracin Black.

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Écoutez, je sais qu’ils ont été mentionnés, mais un en particulier dont j’aimerais soulever la présence au nom du caucus d’Ottawa et d’Ottawa–Orléans, M. Carol Jolin, est ici, le président de l’association de la francophonie ontarienne. À toute son équipe : merci beaucoup d’être ici.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m very happy to welcome 25 Progressive Conservative caucus interns. They’re with us in the members’ gallery today. I’d just say, condolences for having to work with all of us.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I’d invite all colleagues to please recognize a large delegation of individuals we have visiting from Pakistan: Commodore Rao, Dr. Shahid, Mrs. Shahzad, Mr. Jaral, Lieutenant Colonel Baierschmidi, Lieutenant Colonel Bhatty, Lieutenant Colonel Hafiez, Lieutenant Colonel Sartaj, Lieutenant Colonel Ayaz, Lieutenant Colonel Naeem, Commodore Ali, Mr. Amin, Mr. Joya, Air Commodore Bashir, Mr. Alam and, from the Consulate General of Pakistan, Ms. Khadija Hayat and Mr. Bhatti. Welcome to you all.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I have two guests to introduce today. First, a guest of page Kenna Smallegange: Her father, Gerry Smallegange, is here in the public gallery this morning. He is from Halton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I would also like to introduce my intern Gazal Amin, who joins us also here in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d just like to say welcome to the other Liberal interns who are here with us today in the member’s gallery: Charlotte Zronik and Fatimah Nadhum. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: Je voudrais corriger. J’ai dit que tout le monde était avec le RÉFO; bien sûr, il y a des gens de « mon assemblée » qui étaient là également.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Principal Daniel Woolf of Queen’s University, Vice-Principal Michael Fraser of Queen’s University and Dr. Michael Green, the co-chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Task Force.

Gerry Martiniuk

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton on a point of order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: When I first arrived here I sat with a man named Gerry Martiniuk, who represented Cambridge from 1995 to 2011. Earlier today we learned that Gerry has passed on. On behalf of all members of this assembly, I want to wish his family deep condolences.

I would also request unanimous consent for a moment of silence on behalf of our caucus.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence on the death of Gerry Martiniuk. Do we agree? Agreed.

Could I ask all members to please stand for a moment of silence in respect of Gerry Martiniuk.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation of the department heads for the Nairobi City County Assembly of the Republic of Kenya. I would like to welcome our guests from Kenya.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery: Would members please join me in welcoming the family and friends of the late Stephen David Owens, MPP for Scarborough Centre during the 35th Parliament, who are seated in my gallery. We welcome them. Thank you to the family for being here for this tribute.

I’m also told that in the gallery is Mr. David Warner, the Speaker during the 35th Parliament, and Mr. Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments and chair of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians. Welcome to both of you. Thank you for being here.

Applause.

Stephen Owens

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would now turn to the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize the former member of provincial Parliament from Scarborough Centre, Mr. Stephen Owens, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent. Do we agree? Agreed. I will turn to the Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I am very proud to be the member from Scarborough–Guildwood representing the Liberal caucus in this tribute to Stephen David Owens. He was a good man, and an exemplary human being who made an enormous impact in the Scarborough area and beyond my hometown.

Steve, as he was known, was a man dedicated to public service and volunteerism. He represented the interests of the worker, as his experience as a union official can attest. He showed incredible dedication to the values in life he held dear. Even after his life in politics, he worked to help new Canadians find meaningful work in Ontario.

In 1990, Steve Owens won his seat in the election as the NDP representative when the NDP won a majority government. He proudly served from 1990 to 1995. Steve was elected to the riding of Scarborough Centre and was appointed as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Correctional Services under the government of Bob Rae.

In his role as parliamentary assistant, he presented a race relations and policing grant to the Scarborough community and race relations committee in 1994. Imagine, at a time when race was a very big issue in our world. Nelson Mandela had just been freed from Robben Island, having been in prison for 27 years. I know that in Scarborough this was a topic we all cared about. I was in university at the time.

According to an article, the grant awarded then was used to finance a public education program designed to fight hate crimes and improve relations between the police and diverse communities. Imagine that 23 years later, our government created the Anti-Racism Directorate earlier this year that will work to address and prevent systemic racism in government policy, legislation, programs and services.

Later, Owens served as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. In 1994, Owens was appointed Minister Without Portfolio, responsible for education and training, and 23 years later, that is now the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

During his tenure as MPP, he also served as party whip and caucus chair. Owens had the arduous task of guiding his fellow MPPs through some very sensitive and challenging debates. Owens offered a unique perspective in his role as caucus chair when the government engaged in union negotiations, as he was a former union chief. I’m sure the irony was not lost on him and others at the time. Newspaper articles reported that Owens was a tireless representative, willing to see both sides, ever hopeful and encouraging during intense negotiations.

After his career in politics, Steve later worked at ACCES Employment services, where he worked to ensure that professionals new to Ontario were able to find employment.

Steve’s volunteer career included service as a board member of Windmill Line Co-operative Homes, as well as being a member. Steve upheld the values of co-operative living throughout his life. He also served as a volunteer to the Toronto International Film Festival, for which he won an Ontario Volunteer Service Award in May 2016, a couple of months before he passed away.

Steve Owens worked hard and represented his constituents well. He was a passionate man and a believer in justice and co-operative values. In 1993, then-Minister of Finance, the Honourable Floyd Laughren, said this of Steve Owens, “The co-operative movement has no better friend in this province than Steve Owens.” At the time, he supported the review of co-operative housing in Ontario and made recommendations to government to improve co-operative living for Ontarians.

Though Steve Owens passed away in July 2016, he is remembered as being an outspoken advocate, a concerned citizen and a stalwart representative for the people of Scarborough. Even though he was near retirement, Steve continued his passion for public service, continuing his education at Ryerson University in public administration.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the many members of the family and friends of Stephen Owens for being here with us today. Although he is gone, he is never forgotten, and his work endures. Thank you so much.

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

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I rise this morning on behalf of the PC caucus to pay tribute to Stephen David Owens. Steve, as he was known, served as a member of this Legislature from September 1990 until June 1995, as a member of the NDP government of former Premier Bob Rae.

Elected as the “union man,” he rode the NDP wave in the 1990 election under then-Premier Bob Rae. He held his victory party at the Auto Workers union hall—a very appropriate venue for a former union executive.

He served his constituents of Scarborough Centre with grace and purpose. Stephen Owens had many jobs during his time here at the Legislature. Before he made it to cabinet himself, Steve served as a parliamentary assistant both to the Minister of Correctional Services and to the Minister of Finance. Prior to being in cabinet, he served as party whip and caucus chair. Both positions required vigour and immense responsibility, for which he was well prepared by his experience as a hospital worker and as a union executive.

During his time as parliamentary assistant to the finance minister, Steve made it his focus to provide necessary services and to eliminate barriers to co-ops. Steve’s friends knew that his motivation in life was to make sure that children and those with disabilities who have it harder in life were well looked after and given opportunities to reach their potential. Steve wanted to tackle these challenges through the sort of education that would lead to good jobs and opportunities to contribute to society.

With time, Steve was appointed minister responsible for education and training. Steve believed that education was a right, not a privilege, and that it was essential that people have the tools for “improved economic and social self-sufficiency.” Steve made it his mandate to remove the barriers that hindered the secondary to post-secondary route. It didn’t matter what your postal code was; Steve thought that good-quality education was an essential government service.

One of Steve’s many achievements outside politics was his work with the Toronto International Film Festival. For his work there, Steve was awarded an Ontario Volunteer Service Award in May 2016.

Steve was also a member of the Jewish faith. He contributed much to his synagogue, which he joined in the latter part of his life. As the members for Thornhill and York Centre may know, the Jewish community offers many opportunities for volunteerism, activism and outreach projects, and Steve was a vigorous participant.

Sadly, we lost Steve last July, after a long illness, at the young age of 59. Steve was dedicated to helping the people of Ontario. He should be remembered for the efforts he put in to improve the world around us, be it as a part of the provincial Parliament or helping newcomers to Canada to settle into life here, or even as a volunteer in the many organizations that he assisted.

On behalf of the PC caucus and the constituents of Scarborough–Rouge River, I send my condolences to the Owens family. Thank you, Steve, for your knowledge, passion and commitment to education, and for your service to Scarborough and Ontario.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I had the great pleasure of serving in this House, along with a few others of us who were here, in 1990—I see both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Arnott, who were elected in the same class of 1990, along with a whole bunch of New Democrats at the time—and I had the great pleasure of serving with Steve.

I first met Steve, actually, at candidate school. As most parties do prior to an election, you have a gathering of candidates in order to prep them for the election. I remember meeting him then and being quite impressed, because you have to say about Steve that he was pretty passionate about everything he did. At the time, he was the president of a CUPE local for one of the local hospitals and had an agenda that he wanted to bring to opposition, because the Liberals were running at about 50% with Mr. Peterson at that particular time.

Like him, I was running in order to be an effective voice for the ridings that we wanted to represent. Lo and behold, elections happened, and we won a majority government. It was great. New Democrats were in control. We got to do some really good, positive stuff that I’m very proud of, as a New Democrat and as an Ontarian, and Steve was part of that.

What was really unique through that entire process was that a lot of us who came to government, as happened with the Liberals in the last election and as happened with the Tories in 1999—there are a lot of new members who come in when the government comes in on a bit of a sweep like that. Steve and myself were some of those members who came in who had not been elected before. I, like him, had not served in municipal politics prior, so this was a bit of a new thing for a number of us.

We relied on each other, and Steve was one of those people we relied on in order to sort of bolster each other up and to talk about what it is that we have to do as members, how we approach issues in the Legislature and how we approach issues for our constituents. Steve was part of the group that I hung around with that very much allowed me to survive.

Now, Steve and I were both lucky. We were able to come here in a sweep. Unfortunately, when the sweep goes the other way, sometimes we’re not as fortunate. That’s what happened to Steve, certainly not because of anything he didn’t do, because Steve was one of the better constituency MPPs I knew. He understood at the very beginning of this that it’s really all about the constituent. Yes, you’re there to represent your riding in the Legislature, and you’re there to speak on behalf of your party on issues, but he understood that it was about politics back home.

Everything is local, what happens back there, and Steve was one of those guys who paid special attention to making sure that he returned all his phone calls and he canvassed between elections to do the things that have to be done.

I have a lot of memories of Steve, and there are a few that I think have to go down, because he’s a little bit of an unsung hero when it comes to a number of issues that we had to grapple with. We took office at a time when we were told it was a balanced budget; in fact, it was an $8.5-billion deficit. We ended up in the situation of having to wear that for a period of four or five years.

As you know, Steve ended up in finance at one point as Floyd’s parliamentary assistant, and it was rather difficult for us, because it was frustrating. We were pounded every day coming into the Legislature by the opposition—the Liberals particularly, and Mr. Harris as well—and we were in a situation of having to live with a deficit that we never created; it was there when we got there. Steve was one of the guys in caucus who got caucus members to understand that sometimes, as much as you try to explain the message, you’ve just got to put your best foot forward and always remember why you’re there: You’re there to serve your constituents.

So as we were going through a lot of difficult decisions that we had to make as a government at the time, Steve was always one of those voices at caucus that was reasoned, that wasn’t hyperbolic, that brought good advice. Eventually that led to his election as caucus chair, because as in most caucuses, you elect that position. He was elected because the caucus members primarily had confidence in Steve, because they knew that he was all about the constituent, and that’s what we were all there to do.

It was quickly noticed by Bob Rae at cabinet after that that he was a pretty effective caucus chair, and he was so effective that maybe we should do something else with him. So Steve got the opportunity to serve as our whip—and I have whip stories that I will not share with our whips about my time as the whip for the NDP during government; I wouldn’t want you to know what I wasn’t doing at the time.

But Steve, again, had a really nice touch to being able to bring people in. He was not the type of guy who came in and yelled and screamed and did dramatics. If we were having difficulty with members, and I was that member from time to time, he had a way of being able to come to you and make you step up for what you were there for, and that is to serve your constituency and take your responsibility. He had a very calming effect in making that happen, so as a whip he was very effective.

He also got to serve as a Minister Without Portfolio, or as he used to call it, a minister without a briefcase. That’s how he liked to call it. He did that with great pleasure.

One last one, if you’ll just allow me, Speaker: He also served on something that a number of us have served on, which is the Board of Internal Economy. Except Steve had a special name for it. It was called the “board of infernal economy”—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Exactly. He is known to have gone to those meetings, and I served with him on the board at the time, and having to deal with some pretty interesting situations. At one point the Clerk of the Assembly—I’m not sure; I guess Deb was the deputy at the time—Mr. DesRosiers had raised a particular issue and Steve’s response to him was “Wrong-o, bucko.” Only Steve could have done that with a straight face in a very tense meeting. Everybody laughed, because he had a way of being able to disarm people so that we could get to the task at hand and do what had to be done.

So on behalf of Andrea Horwath, our leader, on behalf of our caucus and on behalf of all of those who we served with back in that glorious time of government from 1990 to 1995, we say thank you. Thank you very much for your contributions. Thank you very much for your friendship. For the friends and family who are here today, we know it’s a great loss, but we really appreciate your lending us Steve for those five years, because he made a huge difference to our team. Thank you very much.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to thank all of the members for their thoughtful and heartfelt comments and tributes to Steve. To the family, on behalf of the Legislature, to let you know: We will provide you with a DVD and a Hansard copy of the tributes, so that your family can have that. Finally, on behalf of all of us, thank you for the gift of Steve Owens. We appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Therefore, it is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Minister’s conduct

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday’s botched attempt by this minister to crash a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and His Worship the mayor of Toronto, is the sort of thing one might expect from a campus radical, not from a sitting cabinet minister.

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Was the—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. Steve Clark: Mr. Speaker, was the idea to protest outside—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If we’re going to start, I’m going to start too. The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation will come to order, and the Minister of Children and Youth Services will come to order.

If it’s going to continue this way, we’ll ramp it up to warnings right away.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you for that, Speaker. This is no laughing matter.

My question is simple: Was the idea to protest outside really this minister’s idea, or did the Premier put him up to it to humiliate him?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It’s always an auspicious beginning to question period when the colleagues from that member’s side of the House can’t keep a straight face when he’s asking the lead question, Speaker.

I also have to say, with a nine-year-old and a six-year-old at home, I thought that my post-secondary records were permanently sealed. It’s unfortunate the members decided to go in that direction.

I will say, Speaker, I had the opportunity—the privilege, in fact—to stand alongside my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore at Toronto city hall yesterday just to make sure that the people of this city remember exactly how disastrous the Conservative track record on transportation was for the GTHA. Whether we’re talking about killing and filling the Eglinton subway or then tolling and selling Highway 407, we know that both of those decisions alone set this region back an entire generation. We’re rectifying that, and we’re building—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, back to the minister. Here is what this minister said yesterday: “There’s a fine line between passionate advocacy for your community and moving in a different direction altogether.” The mayor is “over the line.” I think it was the minister who crossed this line.

Speaker, clearly he is threatening His Worship, the mayor, and hinting that he should sit down, be quiet and stop fighting for Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple: Will this minister apologize to His Worship, the mayor? It’s your comments, sir, that were out of line.

Interjections.

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

To the Chair, please.

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I said in my initial answer, we know, on this side of the House, that with respect to all of the transit expansion projects that are either under way right now, ones that have been recently completed or ones that will start construction soon, the province of Ontario is providing more than 70% of the funds needed to deliver on those projects.

Frankly, Speaker, in my time in this Legislature, nearly five years as an MPP, I have seen literally year after year, that member—the member asking the question, from Leeds–Grenville—and all of his colleagues repeatedly vote against budgets that would have provided the funds, and have provided the funds, to the city of Toronto and to 443 other municipalities across the province of Ontario. It takes a certain degree of audacity for that member and for that caucus to ask this kind of question in this chamber.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Again, back to the minister: I’m shocked that he won’t apologize. I’m shocked that the Premier hasn’t made him apologize. She might as well have said the words herself.

Mayor Tory is simply standing up for the people of Toronto. Mr. Speaker, should Mayor Tory be worried that the Liberals will retaliate against him if he continues to advocate for his city?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Look, Speaker, nobody in this building, nobody across this province, would ever understand how it’s possible for that member and this caucus to pretend to stand up and defend the city of Toronto. When they had their chance, particularly in the area of transportation—I said this in my first answer; it bears repeating—they killed and filled the Eglinton subway. They then sold the 407, after putting tolls on it. We know at the end of the day, and the people of this region understand very clearly, that that party took this region and this city back more than a generation when they last had the opportunity.

More than that, as I said a second ago, they have repeatedly voted against the budgets that would help the city of Toronto, and have helped the city of Toronto, and will continue to for years to come, Speaker.

At the end of the day, our Premier and our government will continue to work with every one of our municipal partners to make sure that we continue to build the province up. Building the province up also includes, of course, helping to support the city of Toronto in every way imaginable. I would call on the members of that caucus to support this year’s budget to help Toronto and to help all of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Provincial debt

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, Harold Brief from Toronto wrote a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail. He wrote: “As a trustee in bankruptcy ... I often had individuals say to me that they could not sleep at night because of the debt they were carrying. So I wonder how Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Finance Minister Charles Sousa can sleep at night when they look at the province’s debt load?”

My question to the Treasury Board president: How do you Liberals sleep at night knowing that the debt that you are leaving behind for our children and grandchildren is growing each and every year you’re in office?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I need to tell you, Speaker, that I’m very proud of this year’s budget. Because of our careful investments in the province over the last year, at the same time that we were reducing the deficit, we have a budget that’s balanced. As part of that budget that is balanced, we’ve been able to demonstrate more growth than any other jurisdiction in the G7. Our growth outstrips that. That’s why I am confident, now that we have turned the corner on the debt-to-GDP ratio, that over the years we will, in fact, be paying down the debt, because any debt that we incur in the future with our balanced—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I am very proud of the fact that future borrowing is devoted to investing in our province and building Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Proud? Proud? She should be shocked, absolutely shocked, when she hears the Minister of Finance argue that debt is improving in this province: $10 billion worth of debt is not an improvement; $10 billion worth of debt is not an achievement; and $10 billion of debt is not an accomplishment. But these Liberals seem to think so.

So I ask them: Where do the Liberals rank adding $10 billion of debt this year onto their list of accomplishments? Is $10 billion worth of debt for our province’s grandchildren and children high on your list of achievements?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite is asking a question about debt. Somehow, they think that they are good stewards of managing debt. But let me give you a lesson, Mr. Speaker. During their time in office, during the good times of economic prosperity, they increased debt by 53%; they didn’t reduce debt. The member’s leader, when he was in power, during a Conservative federal government, had the highest deficit in Canada’s history: $55 billion in one year. They doubled that when they were in office federally.

So we’re not going to take any lessons from this member, or anybody on that side of the House, who is not managing fiscally responsibly the issue of investing in our economy, investing in schools, providing free medicare for our children, and providing all-day kindergarten and free tuition. What would you cut?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. We’re now going to warnings.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s laughable that this government thinks they are good stewards of the economy, after 10 years of deficits and 10 years of waste, mismanagement and scandal. This minister himself is sitting in his place because of a $1.2-billion gas plant scandal. That’s what I remember.

I also want to defend Mike Harris: One million jobs were created under his administration, not like the 300,000 that were lost under this government.

That $12 billion a year in interest payments is $1 billion a month. But instead, they are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Economic Development and Growth is warned.

Please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Simply put, we’re paying for their cancelled gas plants, we’re crowding out front-line services, we’re paying for upside-down bridges and we’re still paying for those scandals that happened at eHealth and OHIP.

Why do the Liberals refuse to introduce a credible plan to pay down the debt and ensure that we don’t have a rolling deficit like they’re hiding right now?

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: We have 700,000 net new jobs since the depths of the recession, recovering all those that were lost. We are outpacing Canada, the G7 and the United States in economic growth. It’s well regarded around the world in terms of what Ontario is offering.

We are sought after by investors, topping the foreign direct investment of any other nation in and around the world, especially in North America. We are the leading government, for that matter, in lower costs than any government in Canada and federally. We have the lowest interest on debt compared to any other time in the history of this province; certainly lower than the 15% or 16% when the Conservatives were in power and lower than when the NDP was in power at 12%. We’re locking in those rates over the long term.

But the first way to address debt is to balance the books. We’re balancing this year, next year and the year after that and we’re lowering debt to GDP over the long term.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Pharmacare

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. I think every Ontarian should be able to get the medication that they need. That’s what universal pharmacare means. Instead, the Premier of this province chose to add yet another drug plan to the six that Ontario already has rather than implementing universal pharmacare.

Why is the Liberal government still not committing to a universal pharmacare plan that would cover all 14 million Ontarians?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are enormously proud of OHIP+. OHIP+ will cover all people under age 25. Everyone in this province will have access to the same range of drugs as anyone else—

Mr. Paul Miller: How about 25 and over?

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

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: More than 4,400 drugs listed on the formulary—young people will have access to all of those drugs. Our plan includes medications that treat conditions like diabetes, asthma, epilepsy, ADHD, ear infections, HIV, depression—a range of indications. Every young person in this province will have full access to that medication. They need their OHIP card and the prescription, and we’ll look after the rest. This is a huge enhancement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Universal pharmacare can save lives. For a dad over 24 living with HIV, for a worker over 24 who has lost their drug coverage or a mom over 24 who is skipping her heart medication because she can’t afford it, universal coverage is a must.

We have universal medicare already—

Hon. Charles Sousa: We agree.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Finance is warned.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Why won’t the Liberal government bring in universal pharmacare?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased, as we’ve said many times in this House, that both the NDP and the Liberal Party agree that drug coverage should be part of medicare. OHIP should include drugs. We’re taking an enormous step in that direction—an historic investment in that direction.

I do believe that provinces and territories across this country will be looking at what Ontario is doing. They will see the benefits of having full drug coverage for young people in their provinces. We are hoping that the federal government is paying attention as well.

Do we dream of universal pharmacare where every citizen, every resident is covered for all drugs at all ages? Of course we do. That’s why our Minister of Health and our Premier have been making this argument for many years.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Dreams and arguments and discussions don’t get us a universal pharmacare system that the people of this province need.

Our health care system is based on universal access. Our health care system was built on the principle that nobody should be turned away. I believe we should be building a pharmacare system based on that very same principle, that everybody is covered. All 14 million Ontarians should be able to get the medications that they need. That’s the bottom line. It shouldn’t be a dream. They’re the government. They should make it a reality.

Why is this government not bringing in universal pharmacare and instead deciding to exclude literally millions and millions of Ontarians in their plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As we have said on this side, we support the notion that drugs, that medicines, should be covered under OHIP. That’s why we are making the changes that we are doing.

There are some important differences between their approach and our approach. Ours is limited by age. Theirs is limited by condition; they cover only 125 drugs compared to 4,400 drugs. That means whether you get coverage or not will depend on the drug that you need. We don’t think that’s okay. We want to cover everyone. We are covering everyone under age 25.

Our plan kicks in January 2018. We’re going to be two years ahead of you. That’s two years of drug coverage. We’re proud of our plan. I really do think the NDP should support us enthusiastically.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Look, the Liberals have starved our hospitals for nine years, four of those years with frozen budgets. As a result, people are being treated in what the government calls “unconventional spaces.” To patients, that means hallways and utility closets. The Premier is making decisions like she’s never been in an overcrowded ER before and never suffered the indignity of watching a loved one being treated in a hallway.

Instead of fixing the problem, the Premier’s budget falls $300 million short of what’s needed as a basic. Why is the Liberal government making hallway medicine even worse here in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This budget is all about improving health care. It is true that we have had to work hard to come to balance. We are now in balance. That means we have the opportunity to invest in those things that we know the people of this province want to invest in, and that absolutely includes health care. Patients should always come first. That’s why every decision we make is centred on providing families with high-quality care, and care that they can access.

Since 2003, we’ve increased our investments every single year in health care. We’re treating more patients, we’re providing better care and we’re reducing wait times. This year’s balanced budget builds on these investments by providing a much-needed booster shot to health care: an additional $7 billion in health care over the next three years. Let me repeat that: an additional $7 billion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: But the bottom line is that it will not undo the damage that this Liberal government has done to our hospitals and our health care system, damage that people have suffered through over the last nine years at least.

Hamilton Health Sciences in my home city has been operating at over 100% capacity for months. Rob MacIsaac, the CEO of Hamilton Health Sciences, has said, if they care to listen, “We appreciate the additional funding we’re receiving this year but it will take a number of years to really overcome the problems we’re experiencing. In the interim, we’ll have to continue to utilize unconventional spaces to house the patients we can’t squeeze in regular rooms.”

That means more Hamiltonians being treated in hospital hallways. Why is the Liberal government okay with the hallway medicine that they have forced our patients in this province to experience for far too long?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, the leader of the third party is arguing for us to do something that we are doing: an additional $7 billion over three years in our health care sector. That’s an extraordinary investment. I would think that the third party would actually support it.

Let’s see what that investment will mean. It means free drug coverage for people 25 and under through OHIP+, 4,400 medications covered. It will mean reduced wait times. It will mean increased access to more procedures like hip and knee replacements, MRIs and optometry services, more funding for mental health and addictions, enhanced primary care, more home care, more community care, and an improved experience for Ontarians at their local hospital.

We are making the investments that will make a difference in the health care of the people of this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Liberal government broke our hospital system. They have broken our health care system. People are being treated in hospital hallways and in broom closets. According to the president of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, “Our hospitals have been starved of funding for years”—

Interjection.

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

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —“and our patients have paid the price as hospitals slashed more than 1,600 RN positions—to dangerously low levels.” The budget won’t fix that, Speaker.

Can the Liberal government tell Ontarians whether they think it’s okay that people will have dangerously low levels of nursing care in their hospitals? Do they think that’s okay?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I don’t know quite what to make of that question. I sometimes think that the third party actually wants people to think the health care system—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The first part of fixing a problem is admitting you have one.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am proud of our health care system. I am proud of the—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You ruined it. Ask any patient.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party is warned.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Yay, finally.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport is warned. If you think this is a game, I’m going to win.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Ask anyone from outside of Ontario and they will tell you that we should be proud of our health care system. International experts look at the system and they say we have a very good system with very good outcomes.

We are making investments. We’ve added 24,000 nurses to our health care system—

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

Consumer protection

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the finance minister.

Yesterday, we spoke about the troubled mortgage lender Home Capital receiving a bailout from the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, or HOOPP. HOOPP’s CEO served on the board of Home Capital, and Home Capital’s chairman served on the board of HOOPP. To many people, this $2-billion bailout sounds a lot like, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.” One guy owns $1.5 million in stock, and one company was used to shore up the other person’s stock.

York University associate professor of law, governance and ethics Richard Leblanc says that being on both of these boards is “a clear conflict.”

Does anyone think this passes the smell test, even for this government that’s under five OPP investigations? I ask the minister: Where was the government in preventing this and who was asleep at the switch?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Our number one goal is to ensure that consumers get trustworthy financial planning and advisory services that are in the best interests to meet today’s complex financial decisions with confidence. We have advanced forward—

Mr. Steve Clark: It doesn’t pass the smell test.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned. After warnings comes naming.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The province, through our regulatory systems, has advanced forward with modernizations to ensure that protection, and more consumer supports, more transparency.

FSCO, as you can appreciate, is now working closely with OSFI, which is the superintendent of financial institutions federally, in reviewing and monitoring this situation. To date, FSCO has taken enforcement action on two agents, but as we move forward, the federal government has taken measures to ensure proper activity. We are monitoring it very closely.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the finance minister: The chair of Home Capital is Kevin Smith, who earns $357,000 in that role and was given $1.5 million in shares. Last year he attended 31 board meetings. He was also on the board of HOOPP and attended their meetings. But this same Kevin Smith is the $720,000-a-year CEO of St. Joseph’s health centre. When could he possibly squeeze in time to run St. Joseph’s when he’s heading up a multi-billion dollar, troubled mortgage firm? The hospital is paying $720,000 a year for his part-time work. How is having a part-time CEO affecting the lives of countless health care patients?

I ask the minister: Is it right that a hospital CEO, who should be focused on health care, be embroiled in a conflict for nothing other than personal gain?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we have a strong regulatory framework in place for oversight, both federally and provincially, of regulated financial institutions, which protects the insured depositors and provides for financial stability. The member opposite makes reference to independent organizations that are not agents of the government.

Furthermore, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan president and CEO has recused himself. He stepped away from the board, as the member opposite has already made reference to, just last Thursday. We understand that Kevin Smith, also the chairman of Home Capital, has stepped down from HOOPP’s board.

Regardless, Mr. Speaker, our priority is ensuring the protection and safety of consumers and investors. We’re working closely with the federal government and the regulators to ensure just that, and that’s why the Ontario Securities Commission has been involved.

Public libraries

The Toronto Public Library has been told that their provincial funding will be cut by 20%.

Why is the Liberal government cutting libraries?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the member opposite for her question.

It’s always a pleasure for me to stand in this House and talk about the robust support that our government has been providing to libraries since 2003—over $3.5 billion for our public and First Nations libraries in 2015-16 alone.

I’m happy to announce that our budget—which I hope the member opposite will support, but I suppose she won’t—contains supports for libraries: over $1 million in funding. Why is that, Speaker? Because the people of Ontario join with this government and the members on this side of the House in supporting libraries, because they’re fundamental to Ontarians and to our future. And that support will continue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, that seems like quite a curious response from the minister when the government is cutting funding to the Toronto Public Library—funding that is being used to provide Internet hot spots for low-income people, funding that gives kids access to books, funding that allows new Canadians to take language classes.

Libraries are one of the great equalizers. They are key to poverty reduction strategies, and they make our communities great places to live.

I’ll ask the minister again, or the government: If they are so proud of their support of libraries, why are they, on the other hand, cutting funding to the Toronto Public Library?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Speaker, I’ll say again what I said in my first response: that our support for libraries remains robust and is continuing. In fact, last year we released a culture strategy in our government that is looking at our relationship with libraries. In this particular area, we reviewed this cost and the ongoing program and it was found to be not necessarily as effective. In fact, some of the monies remain unspent. So to provide support to all the libraries in Ontario—which I know the member opposite supports—we are continuing to look constantly at our relationships with libraries. That support will continue. We’re proud of it.

On this side of the House, as I say again, our budget contains a million extra dollars of support for libraries. We hope that the members opposite will continue to support our efforts to build capacities in local libraries.

Public transit

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Speaker, as a former city councillor, I know how important it is to have strong partnerships between municipal governments and provincial and federal levels. One of the main reasons I ran as an MPP under the leadership of Premier Wynne is because I saw first-hand how committed this government is to investing in municipalities, including my own, Toronto.

Our government has always been and continues to be a strong partner, and in fact the strongest partner, for the city of Toronto on many fronts, but especially when it comes to transit. That’s why, yesterday, I was proud to join the Minister of Transportation at city hall to talk about that.

Could the minister please provide members of the House with more information on how we’re investing in Toronto transit?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Of course, I want to begin by thanking the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for his advocacy for his community and for the entire city of Toronto. This member has been working hard for a number of years—we know this, Speaker—both as a municipal councillor and as the MPP for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Just last month I was delighted to be with that member to provide an update on the Kipling Mobility Hub, a critical project that he has long been advocating for both in his time here and his time at city council.

Our government has proven time and time again that we are fundamentally committed to investing in transit and transportation projects across Ontario and here in Toronto. That’s why our government is already contributing over 70% of the funding for Toronto transit projects. This includes projects like the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch West LRTs, the Union Pearson Express and GO regional express rail, investments that have already been completed, are under construction or will soon start construction. These are not investments of the distant past or even recent past. We are and will continue to be a strong partner for Toronto, and our record demonstrates that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I was very pleased to welcome the minister to Etobicoke–Lakeshore last month to discuss the Kipling Mobility Hub, which will help to transform the Etobicoke city centre. Having served as both a councillor and now as an MPP for the great riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I know that the transit projects we’re investing in, often as the sole capital funders, are transforming communities across the city.

But there has been a lot of misinformation being reported about our commitment to the city’s transit, both for today’s needs and tomorrow’s, particularly in regard to funding projects like the new downtown relief line.

Last week, the Minister of Finance revealed our 2017 budget, which contains some important updates on infrastructure investments. Would the minister please provide the members of the House with more information on the commitment we announced in budget 2017 and what we’re going to do to advance future transit projects?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for the follow-up. Not only was budget 2017 balanced, it also contained $30 billion worth of new infrastructure funding for projects across Ontario, including Toronto. This is on top of the over $12 billion that we have already invested in Toronto transit alone.

We’ve already provided critical planning money for projects like the relief line and the Yonge north subway extension. These are projects which our other partners have not yet allocated capital funding for.

When the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and I were at city hall yesterday to clear up some of this misinformation about our commitment to Toronto, one thing became abundantly clear to me: The leader of the official opposition and the PC Party still do not have a plan to invest in transit in Toronto, let alone across the province.

The PCs can keep holding press conferences. We’ll continue to deliver on transit that the people of Toronto, the region and this province desperately need.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of the Status of Women. A couple of weeks ago I asked the minister about Hope 24/7, a victim services organization in Peel region that is powerless to help many of its vulnerable clients because of this government’s mismanagement. More than 130 people seeking care had to be turned away at the moment of their greatest need.

Do you know how the government responded to this crisis? They shamefully told Hope 24/7 that they are doing too much and that they should cut back their services.

This government hides behind the fact that they’ve funded Hope 24/7 for 20 years, but the truth is, this government doesn’t even have a clear funding formula in place. Everything is done the way it’s done simply because that is the way it’s been done in the past. Well, that just won’t cut it, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the minister is: When will this government act to address the disgraceful wait-list at Hope 24/7 and when will they implement a funding formula that actually works for victims of sexual violence?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question. I just want to say that keeping women in our province safe is absolutely one of the number-one priorities of our government. In fact, that’s why we launched several programs on this, including It’s Never Okay, the Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment in March 2015. It was groundbreaking, and it put our province on the map as a leader in this area.

When it comes to specific funding of various organizations in and around the province, we are looking into what’s happening with Hope 24/7. We know that there are some issues in terms of their formula, and we are working with them to ensure that we are helping them and supporting them to get their programs in line and their services in line.

We are motivating generational change when it comes to ensuring that we are supporting women who are victims of violence. We’re making sure that we’re creating—

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: Cutting their services is not helping them, and that’s what you told them to do.

Do you know that our victim services organizations aren’t even allowed to help children under 16 under the current funding guidelines? The minister should know that the average age of a victim of human sex trafficking is just 14 years old, yet our victim services organizations are being told not to help them because they fall outside of the funding rules.

This is a travesty, Mr. Speaker. The government should be fixing this outrageous oversight rather than hauling victim services organizations out to read them the riot act. The government keeps saying that they are responding to sexual violence with their action plan, but they have offered absolutely no timeline for a review of services. They go on dragging out and delaying, while victims like those seeking help at Hope 24/7 are denied vital services.

Again to the minister: When will this government finally stop defending outdated bureaucratic processes and finally design a system that actually prioritizes victims of sexual violence?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Let me first of all recognize that Hope 24/7 does very important work throughout the Peel region. That is why we have provided them with funding for over 20 years now. Since 2003, our funding for all sexual assault centre programs has increased by 45%. In fact, in 2005, we increased Hope 24/7’s budget by over $31,000 as part of our It’s Never Okay action plan to increase funding to all sexual assault centres by 7%. In fact, Hope 24/7 currently receives almost $500,000 from the Ministry of the Attorney General, the sixth-highest funding allocation in all of Ontario.

We have committed to reviewing counselling services across the province, and we have asked Hope 24/7 to be part of this conversation. In addition, there’s a provincial working group of sexual assault centres currently reviewing the program as well. We look forward to continue working with them.

Mercury poisoning

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, for four decades, the people of Grassy Narrows have been suffering from mercury poisoning. In February, the Premier—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Who are you asking?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Sorry; to the Acting Premier. Thank you.

In February, the Premier met with Chief Fobister of Grassy Narrows. At the time, Chief Fobister and media reported that the Premier had committed, finally, to cleaning up that mercury contamination, and doing it quickly.

In the budget last week, there was no money set aside for that cleanup. There wasn’t even a mention of Grassy Narrows. Why did the Premier break her promise?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to be very clear. There is, right now, dedicated in the budget the initial $2.1 million to complete the science work that we committed to do to determine that.

The Premier has been very clear. I’ve been very clear. The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has been very clear. This government will fully fund and fully implement Dr. Rudd’s—and the recommendations.

We are also aware, as I’m sure the member opposite is, that there is an ongoing leak—I take