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

May 8, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-May-08 (PDF)

L038 - Wed 8 May 2013 / Mer 8 mai 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 8 May 2013 Mercredi 8 mai 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

POWER PLANTS

CANCER TREATMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDING

POWER PLANTS

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

POWER PLANTS

TORONTO WATERFRONT

WEARING OF BOW TIE STICKERS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

LOCAL ECONOMY

FAMILY SERVICES

BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC ANNIVERSARY

DRIVER LICENCES

CORRIERE CANADESE

GRAEME MURRAY

OUT OF THE DARKNESS WALK

AMATEUR BASEBALL

BRUCE CROZIER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIGHTING HUNGER

WITH LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT

À COMBATTRE LA FAIM

À L’AIDE D’ALIMENTS LOCAUX

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS /

SÉCURITÉ CIVILE

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

PROROGATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

TIRE DISPOSAL

LYME DISEASE

SHINGLES VACCINE

TIRE DISPOSAL

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

LANDFILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROSPEROUS AND FAIR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 POUR UN ONTARIO

PROSPÈRE ET ÉQUITABLE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 1, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in respect of non-profit housing co-operatives and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 14, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les sociétés coopératives et la Loi de 2006 sur la location à usage d’habitation en ce qui concerne les coopératives de logement sans but lucratif et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Good morning. I’m happy to speak to Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in respect of non-profit housing co-operatives and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I think all of us in this House can agree that the cost of living has risen much too quickly for Ontario families over the last 10 years. In fact, I’ve heard from my constituents in the riding of Kitchener–Conestoga who tell me that life under the Liberal government has become completely unaffordable. We know that far too many tenant households in Ontario are stretched to the limit trying to pay their bills, including their rent.

Despite this worsening situation, the Premier and her Liberal cabinet and caucus continue to allow skyrocketing hydro rates that eat away at what little disposable income these households, in fact, have left at the end of the month. Ironically, the Liberal government continues to pride itself on standing up for tenants, yet its own failed policies, like the feed-in tariff program, continue to increase the cost of living for those who can least afford it.

Now, more Ontarians are turning to affordable housing as their only option to make ends meet. Affordable community housing gives individuals and their families with low- to moderate-income households an opportunity to rent a housing unit at a lower cost. In fact, the region of Waterloo owns and operates more than 2,700 affordable rental units in Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo, Woolwich, Wellesley and Wilmot townships.

According to the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, there were more than 152,000 households on municipal waiting lists for assisted housing as early as 2011. That number was up by nearly 10,500 households from 2010, an increase of 7.4% in one year.

Closer to my home in Waterloo region there are 3,000 individuals and families currently waiting to move into an affordable home. And the wait, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is long. According to Waterloo Region Housing, seniors can wait up to two years to move into an affordable home, while families typically wait six months to four years, and individuals wait four to six years. This reality puts a real strain on families already going through tough times.

With tough economic times, co-op housing helps Ontarians to find a suitable home to raise a family and build a safe community with other tenants. Co-op housing is different from a typical landlord-tenant relationship. They have rules and policies that are uniquely set out in their bylaws. For example, co-op members determine how funds are spent, determine the cost of rent for tenants and write the rules of conduct for the co-op.

When disputes arise between tenants and their board members with regard to missed rent payments, late rent payments or behavioural problems affecting other tenants, this has great ramifications. For example, in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, a housing co-op called Sand Hills is going through an expensive court dispute between its tenants and its board members. Tenants are being told that they have outstanding rent payments, but their board members cannot provide documentation to prove it.

On top of that, residents feel that their homes are not being repaired as they should and feel unsafe in their own homes because of it. Since the region of Waterloo oversees the co-op’s management, they ruled to eject the board immediately until the matter is settled in court.

You can only imagine how stressful this must be on families, but the problems continue. Without the co-op’s approval, board members used up to $15,000 of the co-op’s fund to pay for a lawyer to represent them in court with the dispute with the region. This is greatly affecting families in the co-op, using money that could have been spent on house repairs and other necessities.

Speaker, this bill, when it was Bill 65, could have resolved this issue much more quickly at a lower cost, with fewer negative consequences. Unfortunately, though, it died on the order paper when the Liberals decided to cynically prorogue this House and spend their efforts and their time electing a new Premier. Sand Hills is just one example of a co-op dispute that could have been avoided, but I’m sure that there are hundreds more across the entire province, costing people—families—their hard-earned dollars.

If this bill was passed last fall, then the disputes resolution process could have been streamlined, and hearings like this one would have gone before the Landlord and Tenant Board rather than being placed in a long queue of court cases.

Yesterday, the former Premier, Dalton McGuinty, was back at Queen’s Park to appear as a witness in the justice committee for the cancellation of the gas plants. I wonder if he felt that legislation was moving forward in the House any better than before he left, and if prorogation was in fact actually necessary. I know my colleague from Nipissing questioned him on that several times—somewhat got an evasive answer, but anyways.

I bet, though, if he looked at the order paper today and read all the bills that were being debated for the second time, he would see how drastic his decision was to lock the doors of this House and prevent us from debating important legislation like this, especially when this bill had support from all three parties.

Clearly with the cancellation of the two power plants—costing about a half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money and growing each and every day—the lavish spending over at eHealth and the scandals at Ornge, this government has more problems than it in fact can handle.

You know, you would think that in the consultation process to develop this bill, the Liberals would have met with residents in co-op homes. These families know what it takes to push a dollar as far as it can go in order to pay for the cost of living. Clearly the Liberals didn’t learn this lesson in their consultations with these families because they continue to spend, spend, spend without any knowledge of the actual cost of their government.

But this morning I’m here to help speak to this legislation, this important legislation, that will actually reduce the cost of living on hard-working Ontarians. Bill 14 will reduce the backlog of court disputes by amending the Residential Tenancies Act and the Co-operative Corporations Act to move most co-op tenant dispute cases from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board. It also strives to streamline the internal dispute resolution process in non-profit co-ops so the Landlord and Tenant Board will deal with rent disputes and behavioural problems.

This amendment will allow for disputes to be settled a lot quicker and at a cheaper cost to residents so that they can focus on getting back on their feet and providing for their families.

In my community, the region of Waterloo, there are many co-ops, and I’ve had an opportunity to meet with many of them that have come in and talked about how this bill, although we would have preferred it to have been passed last legislative sitting, will actually help families that live in co-ops move forward.

With what little time I have left, I want to talk briefly about some of the changes that were made. Obviously, this new bill contains an amendment to allow the Landlord and Tenant Board to waive that $45 filing fee. There were a few additional things incorporated from the last bill, or changes that were made. You know what? We’ll look forward to continuing the discussion about this important matter.

I was slated to speak to this bill last fall but I didn’t get that opportunity. Today, I obviously will have had that opportunity. I wanted to speak to some of the situations that have arisen in my community, such as the Sand Hills dispute. But I know this bill will eventually move forward and we’ll get it into committee and make some of those other changes we have spoken about over the course of this debate. I’ll leave it at that and look forward to engaging in further discussion on this one.

You know what? I would have liked to have had the opportunity yesterday to speak to Premier Dalton McGuinty, to actually ask his opinion.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’ve got one more minute left. I’m going to have an opportunity to talk further about this bill—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Order, the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Mr. Michael Harris: —but I would have liked to ask Dalton McGuinty yesterday what he thought about the fact that these bills are now back. It’s like Groundhog Day—all over again. I would have liked to have asked him what he felt about that. I know he said his mother was watching. I would have liked to have asked her what she feels about the impact that his cynical decision to prorogue the Legislature last fall is having on communities across Ontario, including those who live in co-op housing.

I’ll leave it at that. I look forward to members’ comments on this bill and will wrap up in the last two minutes I have. Thanks so much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome again the co-ops this morning. Welcome, Harvey Cooper and his teammates for enduring this process and putting up with the continued debate on this matter.

I’d just like to say I was at one of my co-ops this weekend, Stoneworth. What a great co-op; they’re doing amazing things. I know they’re looking forward to this bill being passed. Hopefully, we can get that done shortly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: This bill has been debated now for 15 hours. Everybody agrees. Stop your filibustering. Let’s get on with second reading and let’s send it to committee. Stop filibustering.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak for two minutes on this. I look forward to my time here.

I too want to welcome our guests back. I know you’re here to continue to hear the good things we have to say about this bill. Our party will continue to say good things about this bill. It’s the opportunity to chat.

Hon. Liz Sandals: That is, you’ll continue to filibuster.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: As I said the last time I spoke on this—if I can have the floor, thank you—I spoke about the time that my wife, Patty, and I—I’m sorry. I’d like the floor for just one moment, if you don’t mind.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I didn’t even open my mouth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would like the member to sit down. You already said it once to the minister. I think she got the message. You didn’t have to repeat it. You may now continue.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I would like the time to be able to talk about the visit that my wife, Patty, and I shared at the housing co-op in North Bay during the last election.

I still can’t hear myself think, Speaker. I apologize, but it’s very difficult when you can’t—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You might want to sit down for a second. If you have trouble hearing with that amount of noise, can you imagine what I go through every day? I’m sorry, but it’s not that loud that it requires any effort here.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I do find it annoying.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Just deal with the issue. I’m sorry you feel it’s annoying. Deal with the issue.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My issue is that my wife, Patty, and I did enjoy our tour of the co-op. I would highly encourage all members from all parties to visit their co-op housing projects and communities. These are absolutely wonderful communities within each and every municipality that has them. It’s a real opportunity to understand, to fully understand, the important role that co-op housing plays in your local community. So I would highly encourage every MPP to get out of this Legislature and get down into the communities and visit one of these valuable housing co-operatives.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Welcome back, to those who represent co-ops. I am a mother and Mother’s Day is coming up. There are many mothers in this chamber and there are many mothers who live in co-ops. On behalf of all mothers, I appeal to my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party to maybe keep the debate short. Let’s get this to committee. Let’s get it passed so that these mothers can stay in their homes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would just like you to know that the people of Guelph support this bill—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m sorry, Minister. That was the fourth—the table just alerted me.

The member from Kitchener–Conestoga has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Michael Harris: I too would like to welcome our guests today from the co-op rental housing group to continue to hear the debate that is happening. Do you know what? The member just mentioned Mother’s Day coming up. I had an opportunity to actually give my mother a call this morning and speak to her. She is in fact from Guelph and lives in Guelph. I’ll be looking forward to of course giving her another call on Sunday.

I want to just follow up on some of the comments made by the Attorney General. You know what? I hope he was as discouraged and as vocal in cabinet last year, when the Premier cynically prorogued the House, as he is today with members who didn’t get an opportunity to actually speak to this bill last year. I hope that he pounded the table and screamed and yelled, as he is today, when the Premier made that cynical decision to prorogue the Legislature and kill important legislation that we’re now re-debating this session.

I hope he was as discouraged as he is this morning with his former Premier on that cynical attempt to prorogue the Legislature, to simply kill any further discussion on power plants and you name it that we’re now hearing about today.

I just want to talk quickly, in the last 30 seconds, about the one item that in fact was changed. That’s the one-sided amendment to the LTB that would consider, without widespread consultation—landlords were upset, justifiably fearing that the door will be open to disgruntled tenants to take over every minor dispute. You know what? We need to stress that these nuisance hearings that they’ve now incorporated will only cause further delays in the already backlogged LTB system. This is bad news for landlords and it’s bad news for tenants who actually have legitimate cases before the board that they need resolved in a timely manner.

Speaker, with that, I appreciate the time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I too am very pleased to join this debate today for Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in respect of non-profit housing co-operatives and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I’m really pleased to see this bill come back here to the House. I actually was very disappointed when we prorogued and this bill fell off the table last fall, because quite frankly I’m always pleased to have an opportunity to speak about co-operatives.

Prior to October 6, 2011, I was actually general manager of the Ontario Dairy Goat Co-operative. I appreciate and thank the leadership from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada for being here throughout all this debate. It’s a special mindset that embraces co-operativeness. I have to tell you, the village that I’m from, Teeswater, Ontario—we actually exist because of four co-operatives.

We have the Huron Bay Co-operative, the Gay Lea Foods Co-operative, the Ontario Dairy Goat Co-operative, and we have our own grocery store because people pulled together, after two years without a local grocery store, to chip in some dollars, so we are very proud to have our own grocery store on our main street. Otherwise, it would be gone. So I really, truly appreciate the whole essence behind co-operativeness and that’s why I really look forward to the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Specifically, Bill 14 is intended to help people who are having a tough time. That’s one thing about the Ontario Dairy Goat Co-operative: It didn’t matter whether you were milking 1,000 goats or 200 goats; you all pooled your milk together to make a difference and to make life a little bit easier. That’s what we want to provide and see through Bill 14 as well. We want to provide people who are having a tough time with non-profit co-operative housing, and we want to look after them in a fair and responsible way. That’s the thing: Everyone is equal in this particular essence. I think it’s an obligation as a society that we continue to support this type of initiative.

The intention of this bill is to streamline the system of solving problems and disputes, and we support that. There has been significant cost in going to court, as opposed to going to the Landlord and Tenant Board to solve these problems. It would seem that going to the Landlord and Tenant Board to solve these problems is a logical thing to do. It gives the opportunity to take disputes between landlords and tenants to this board, as opposed to running them through the courts.

Anyone who has ever been in the court system knows it is not cheap and sometimes is very unproductive. It is estimated that the cost of—

Mr. Michael Harris: Like proroguing.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Like proroguing, absolutely.

Mr. Michael Harris: Very unproductive.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes, unproductive, just like proroguing, as my friend from Kitchener–Conestoga mentioned.

In terms of being costly, it’s estimated that the cost of resolving these co-op disputes in courts runs between $3,000 and $5,000 each. We want to see these types of things get out of the courts so that other, more pressing issues can be there. There is our alternative: Get it to the Landlord and Tenant Board. That’s the alternative we have to consider, but we have to do it with a balance. It needs to be a fair, balanced process for both sides—the landlords as well as the tenants. It needs to ensure that there’s no frivolousness or nuisance stuff being able to actually backlog the issues.

Speaking about backlogging, we have so much to talk about with regard to this bill and other bills that we see coming through this House. Because of prorogation, so much fell off the table. We have a huge backlog. But we in the PC caucus take our job very seriously, and we want to represent our constituents and the issues, and that’s why we’re taking time to speak to each and every bill.

Back to Bill 14: There’s never an opportunity to do better—outside of Bill 14. To do better is to make life easier, to make life a little bit more streamlined so that the people in co-operative housing can find a better way. We have a problem right now that costs co-op members millions of dollars in unnecessary legal costs every year. That isn’t the better way; it’s not a fairer way. It costs millions of dollars, and we also, as I said, clog up the court system, which costs all Ontarians time and money. Yet it goes on and on, millions add up, and the court dockets just get more backlogged.

These disputes includes rent arrears, late payment of rent, wilful damage, illegal activity by tenants, interfering with other tenants’ enjoyment of their property. These cases don’t belong in court. They belong in front of the Landlord and Tenant Board. Let’s streamline this and make life easier.

Roughly 125,000 people live in more than 550 not-for-profit housing co-operatives across Ontario. There are co-ops in 95 of the province’s 107 ridings. With co-operatives in so many ridings, Speaker, clearly this is not just a specific urban issue. It impacts constituencies and ridings right across this wonderful province.

When I think about affordable housing and the people who are struggling to find it, because it’s not easy, I have to think about how much we could do in terms of being better and how much more we could put into affordable housing if we didn’t have all the scandals. Unfortunately, today I read a headline that really is disturbing. According to the headlines today, for the Liberal government, scandal is the new normal. Well, let me tell you, that is not acceptable in the Ontario that I am proud—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: My point of order is that the member should be speaking about the bill, as she well knows the rules of the House, and I would ask you to instruct her to do so.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you for your point of order. I was getting close. She was wandering a bit. I gave her a little latitude, but if she wanders any further she will be getting a warning. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Duly noted, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we could do so much more with dollars that, unfortunately, are being thrown out the window with scandal after scandal after scandal—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): All right. You had your latitude. Now you stick to the issue. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: As I said, Speaker, if we had the dollars to afford co-operative housing in the manner it should be treated, we would have so many more opportunities to have affordable housing units, to have more long-term-care beds, more home care, more special education teachers. I could go on for days and days, but I don’t want to digress, because speaking about affordable housing is so, so important. That’s why we have to address this through our debate on Bill 14. We don’t want to see this file mismanaged like so many other files that have been by this Liberal government.

Specifically, in my riding of Huron–Bruce, in my Blyth and Kincardine constituency offices, I hear from people who are struggling to pay their own housing, their own utilities, and it’s becoming harder and harder under this government. My office hears from people struggling to pay for their basic needs—home heating, auto insurance, healthy food, just as a few examples. These are expenses that families cannot avoid. They’re basic necessities which need to be paid, and we can no longer see a government squander our hard-earned dollars away through issue after issue after issue. You know what I mean, Speaker.

We know that’s the problem faced by those folks who actually need a place to call home, a safe place such as that that over 140,000 Ontarians are waiting to call home. We have a waiting list with over 140,000 Ontarians waiting for co-operative housing, Again, we have to stop the squandering, we have to stop the waste and we need to be able to support co-operative housing in the manner which it deserves.

Thirty-two per cent of tenants have accommodations that fail to meet standards of adequacy, suitability and affordability. This is all wrong. And the loss of the industrial sector, with over 600,000 Ontario men and women out of work, might cause that waiting list to grow.

Speaker, Ontario’s in dire straits and we need a party that will address the tough issues and address what’s right for Ontarians, as opposed to squandering our hard-earned tax dollars away.

We know that too many Ontarians—1.31 million tenant households—are stretched to the limit trying to pay their household bills, including their rent. We know that some 20% of these households spend more than 50% of their income on rent, while 32% are in core need, meaning their current accommodation fails to meet standards. And you know what? Under this current government, I worry about the standards that we have come to value in Ontario.

Our standards across the board, be it the manner in which government conducts itself, be it the manner in which people should assume they can have a roof over their head, are spiralling downwards. We need to put a stop to it. The only stop really and truly is to bring around a change that Ontarians are asking for.

Mr. Michael Harris: Change the team.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: And we all know what that change is: It’s a change of team, absolutely.

But back to affordable housing: There are massive wait-lists, as I said, and there’s nothing for these people except to wait and to get into some sort of housing.

In my riding, with the way this Liberal government is headed, affordable housing is going to be a huge issue. The government closed the Walkerton jail—hundreds of jobs lost. The government closed Bluewater Youth Centre—over 200 jobs lost. E.D. Smith in Seaforth is relocating in June to the US—again, more jobs lost.

We have to take a look at Bill 14, make the amendments and make sure affordable housing is a reality for everyone.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’ll briefly join the debate, welcome guests here to the gallery and just tell you what’s happening here. So there’s a little bill—it’s not a big bill; it’s a small bill—that would help co-ops, a really important kind of affordable housing in Ontario, something we desperately need to invest in and build. So many people can’t afford rent. We have a government that’s done far too little to protect tenants, to build affordable housing, and we have an opposition party that’s now stalling so we can’t do anything else. I’m not going to stall anymore; I just wanted to get you up to speed. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments. Which one? There are two people standing. The Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you, and thank you to Harvey and his cohorts up there, who are being very patient waiting for us to finish the debate.

My constituents in Guelph support this bill. Let’s stop the filibuster; let’s get this bill passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to follow the address by my colleague from Huron–Bruce, Ms. Thompson—a wonderful address. I’m always interested in hearing about how the co-operatives work. And the goat-milking industry; that’s quite interesting. I had a chance to join Lisa in her riding back before she was elected, and a very interesting day we had.

Anyway, my constituents talk to me about what’s bothering them, too. And this bill is going to get through because we support this bill, but we also support the right of every member to speak to a bill, Speaker. That is part of the process here in this Legislature. But I’ll tell you what my constituents are telling me—and a shout-out to Harvey Cooper and his folks; they are wonderful, dedicated, committed folks that keep coming here whenever this bill is debated.

You know what my constituents were telling me when I was home on the weekend? “What is wrong with this government?” Scandal after scandal after scandal, and now we know, at a very minimum, I say to the Attorney General, $585 million. That’s not the top. We think it’s going to go higher, but at a very minimum—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: She’s talking about what her constituents are telling her. We’re talking about—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Is the Attorney General done now?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. You got that off your chest; I’m happy. There are a few ministers that are getting very lively.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, continue. You do have a way of bringing it out. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Perhaps the Attorney General simply wants to stand in his place and rise and apologize for this scandal on behalf of his corrupt government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Kenora–Rainy River.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: You know what? It is time for us to move this bill on to committee. There are so many important things that we need to deal with in Ontario, and I believe that the Conservatives, on some level, know this, because they have officially run out of things to say. When they’re talking about, “We need to build more affordable housing units,” I think they might need a history lesson. Do they remember what they did when they were in government in the 1990s?

So you know what? You’ve run out of things to say. Let’s move it on to committee. We’ll make amendments. It’s not perfect, but we can get there. So, please.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): And I thought it was going to be boring today.

The member from Huron–Bruce has two minutes.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to extend my appreciation to the members from Davenport, Guelph, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and Kenora–Rainy River. But with all due respect, especially around the whole essence of co-operativeness, I never run out of things to say, because as I said, my village exists because of co-operatives.

To the leadership of the housing federation of Canada: I sincerely thank you. It’s a different mindset that embraces the whole concept of co-operativeness. This is where we, as a House, need to be open and willing to hear what people have to say.

Ladies and gentlemen, while we squander and see this government waste dollars down the drain over and over and over again, we can’t lose sight of the fact that people across this province, in 95 out of 107 ridings, live in co-operative housing—95 ridings have this issue in their home. People are on a waiting list; over 140,000 people are waiting to get into affordable housing.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to keep talking about this, because it’s an absolute shame. With 600,000 people out of work, and more manufacturing jobs being lost every week, we are going to be in dire straits.

Scandal being the new norm in Ontario is not acceptable. The only way to change this is to change course with a new team.

Let us tell you this: The PC caucus feels Bill 14 is very, very important. We need some amendments; we need some tweaks; we need to get it into committee. But we need a chance to talk about this.

I’d like to use the last seconds of my time here today to revisit the fact that we need fairness and balance. Co-operatives across this province strive hard to serve their members well. I would dare say this Ontario government could learn a thing or two about co-operatives and from co-operatives.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 14, the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act, 2013. I’m sure the Attorney General is excited to hear the debate.

Anyway, housing co-operatives are an integral part of many communities across the province. As the member from Huron–Bruce has just stated, there are many different co-operatives that she has in her communities.

In this case, with non-profit housing—since not everyone can afford to buy a house or a condo—co-op housing can provide the affordable housing for people with moderate incomes, a valuable part of our communities, especially mine, that struggle for affordable housing. Since the floods have certainly hit parts of my riding, we’re going to have an even greater need for affordable housing for those poor people who have been affected, both in the Minden Hills township and in Kawartha Lakes.

But it’s the co-operative members themselves who make the big decisions about how the buildings will be maintained and how the business of the co-op will be managed. Because the members who live in housing co-operatives are the ones responsible for running it, they develop a pride of ownership and a sense of responsibility, and that’s what we’d like to help build into people’s lives—that sense of pride and ownership in where they live.

Housing co-ops come from all walks of life. The diverse backgrounds of the inhabitants often turn these residences into vibrant, thriving communities, as has been mentioned again by the member from Huron–Bruce this morning. There are around 550 non-profit housing co-ops in Ontario. These co-ops provide affordable housing for 44,000 households which represent about 125,000 Ontarians, including many of our citizens who, as I mentioned before, are least able to afford high-quality housing. So there certainly is a need.

Like all forms of housing, co-ops are not immune to the inevitable disputes that occasionally arise over rent arrears, late payments, wilful property damage and illegal activities—and those are just a few of the examples that exist out there. But the bulk of this bill aims to improve how those disputes are dealt with. So in making some important and overdue changes, I do agree, to the laws governing housing co-ops, this bill has been a long time coming.

It’s been clear for many years that much of what is proposed in Bill 14 has enjoyed the support of many members of the Legislature, from all parties, but I know my colleague the member from Leeds–Grenville is an expert on this issue. He’s our critic for municipal affairs and housing. He said that these changes are mostly good public policy and that the people living in co-op housing have been asking for them for years

It’s clear that the current process for ending occupancy agreements in co-ops is time-consuming, expensive and complicated for these non-profit housing providers and their members. The bill will amend the Residential Tenancies Act and the Co-operative Corporations Act to move most co-op tenure disputes from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board. This board was established under the Residential Tenancies Act to resolve rental housing disputes.

So under the proposed legislation, co-ops would apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to resolve tenure disputes when they are based on grounds currently provided for under the Residential Tenancies Act. Essentially, we would be moving co-op housing disputes into the forum where all other housing disputes are settled. As my colleagues have mentioned, the Co-operative Housing Federation has asked for this change to ensure that decisions related to evictions are fair to co-ops and their members.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s an important change.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It is an important change. Several of my colleagues have also mentioned that the Landlord and Tenant Board is not a perfect institution. However, it can fulfill its goal of providing timely access to specialized, expert and effective dispute resolution. It is clearly a better forum than the courts in which to resolve matters between co-op housing organizations and members.

Unfortunately, the government has decided to tinker with this version of the bill in a way that could well make timely, expert and effective dispute resolution less rather than more likely. The bill before us today is in every respect identical to its predecessor Bill 65, with one exception. We now find a

section of the bill proposing to authorize the Landlord and Tenant Board to waive the $45 filing fee for low-income tenants.

There are two potential problems with this. Firstly, we want to be sure that this change won’t encourage disgruntled tenants to take every minor dispute to the Landlord and Tenant Board. If this were to happen, we could see even more congestion in a system that, by many accounts, already suffers from the large backlogs and delays. The second potential issue is that this fee collectively represents an important source of revenue from which the board can recover some of its costs. We worry that Ontario taxpayers will be on the hook to cover any revenue shortfalls that result from waiving this fee.

As this legislation transfers disputes to the Landlord and Tenant Board, it seems likely that the board’s operating costs will see a corresponding increase. So this amendment therefore has the potential to be self-defeating. What is the point of rerouting disputes from the court system if we are going to send them to a similarly backlogged board?

Fundamentally, we don’t know the effects and unintended consequences of this new addition to an old bill. It’s disappointing that the government has chosen to tamper with the widespread cooperation that we achieved over the bill in the last session by throwing in this amendment.

Let me return to the important point that the PC caucus supported the bill’s predecessor, Bill 65. When it was introduced in the last legislative session here in this chamber, we debated its merits and eventually decided that it was a piece of legislation that largely made sense. Unfortunately, when the former Premier decided to prorogue the Legislature in order to give the Liberal Party time to reinvent itself, this bill, along with 100 other pieces of legislation, died on the order paper.

Going back even further, several members have mentioned the private member’s Bill 198 brought forward by the member from Etobicoke Centre, which suffered the same fate as Bill 65 by dying on the order paper.

Those in the co-op industry must have an incredible amount of patience, and we’re testing it. This Legislature has been talking about this change for half a decade. To me, that says it’s about time, particularly when measures have enjoyed support from all three parties. We do want to debate this bill, for everyone to have an opportunity to debate it, but it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that the Liberal government should stand up and sing the praises of the bill when they’ve repeatedly shown the people of Ontario that they care more about avoiding a contempt motion and picking a new leader than crafting sound public policy.

Our party indicated over a year ago that we were prepared to support the changes by this bill’s predecessor. The important and consequential provisions in the bill, those that we on this side of the House support, should already be law and making life easier for housing co-operatives. However, the former Premier and his team had other priorities.

Returning to the aspects of this bill that caused all three parties to support its various incarnations over the years, our court system is busy enough without having to deal with disputes involving the residents of co-operative housing. Courts are simply not the appropriate place to be dealing with issues arising between co-ops and their members. The Landlord and Tenant Board, on the other hand, is set up to deal with just these sorts of issues. Perhaps sometimes stakeholders become frustrated with the board, but its design is a far better fit than the court system.

Bill 198, Bill 65 and now Bill 14 were on the right track in seeking to shift disputes between co-ops and their members to the Landlord and Tenant Board. The numbers that I have seen suggested that court disputes cost co-ops about $1 million a year.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Shameful.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It is too much.

The ministry has estimated that the cost of resolving co-op disputes in the courts can range from $3,000 to $5,000 each, which is just too large for people. Of course dollar amounts don’t consider the huge amounts of time, effort and voluminous paperwork that parties are required to invest in when they are involved in a dispute that is going through the court system. I hear that every day in the riding. That is money and effort that could be invested into our co-ops rather than wasted on resolving disputes.

It’s important to ensure that co-op housing in this province can function as effectively as possible. The co-op model has great potential as a means of creating housing, and I think everybody in this House has talked about the need for affordable housing in their riding. In this debate, we’ve heard from members from across our province about examples of successful co-ops whose members have created an environment in which to live. However, we’ve also heard that an effective eviction dispute resolution process is simply not in place. It is therefore only logical to allow non-profit housing cooperatives to follow the same well-established process that exists for ordinary landlords and tenants.

Mr. Speaker, I see my allotted time is just about to run out. We look forward to further debate and to seeing this bill move toward committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for her comments. I would say, though, that it’s a bit odd for us on this side of the House to listen to the Conservative members speak about a lack of investment in affordable housing. I suppose it’s possible that some of the newer members may not be aware of the record of the Conservatives from 1995 to 2003. I would add to that as well the lack of investment that continues to flow from their federal cousins. This is obviously having a big impact.

This is a relatively small but significant reform to this piece of legislation. The co-op sector is here again representing their people in the Legislature. They’re looking forward to seeing this move forward as quickly as possible, and we’d look for some co-operation from that side of the House to make that happen.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to comment on the address by my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Clearly, she has spent a great deal of time looking at this issue and has understood the ramifications and the effect that this bill will have on the co-op housing industry, and she stated in a very passionate way that it’s a change that is required and should be implemented as soon as possible.

The number that she cited as $1 million being spent in the courts on disputes—sadly, that is money badly spent. These changes that we support in the legislation, in moving those disputes to the Landlord and Tenant Board, are supported by all parties.

I want to thank the member for her comments on the bill; also, for taking her right to speak to the bill seriously, as all members of our party have. Members of other parties have decided that they do not wish to speak to this legislation. Here in the PC Party, we’ve made it clear that we want to speak to bills, after having our rights as parliamentarians taken away from us back in October when former Premier McGuinty, without any warning, just like a tsunami, shut down this House, shut down the Legislature.

We have made it clear that members take their rights seriously, and we were not pleased with the way the Liberal government, in order to hide from controversy and scandal, decided to shut down this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we hope that they will take their responsibility seriously, look up at that wall and look up at that owl and govern themselves accordingly, and ensure that the rights of members of this Legislature are not trampled on in that fashion again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I would just respond to my friend from the Progressive Conservative Party that two wrongs do not make a right. We didn’t agree with prorogation either, but that doesn’t mean that in this instance we’re going to take that cost out on our co-op housing providers. Right now, we have an opportunity to get this dealt with at committee, and any concerns they have can be done there, so let’s get on with it. Let’s pass the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Just for the record, I didn’t agree with prorogation either, as is well reported in the Kingston Whig-Standard of those days.

I was elected in 1995, and two things happened. Number one, you cut the social service budgets for the people of Ontario by 22%, something that’s totally unforgivable. The other thing you did—and some of the members who were elected at the same time know this quite well: There were all sorts of non-profit housing projects slated to be built, ready to go—some were already halfway on the ground—and you cancelled each and every project.

Finally, I was Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for four years. I do not recall one question being asked, during those four years, by the official opposition about social housing. You have absolutely no interest in it. Do not make the people of Ontario believe that all of a sudden you believe in social housing, because you don’t.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, come on. Go back. Ask Joyce Savoline.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Nepean–Carleton.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): —Nepean–Carleton is quite robust today. So we’ll cut it back a little, won’t we?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My Sens won last night.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We will cut it back a little, won’t we? Thank you.

The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, if I could just pick up a little bit on the comments by the Attorney General. How outrageous that he thinks that the PC Party and the members over here don’t care about affordable housing. It’s selective memory. You’ve actually gone through all the Hansards for the last years and have the nerve to tell us that we don’t care about affordable social housing—is not accurate; I’m trying to pick the right legislative word. But for him—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thanks.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back to the bill, after I’ve already commented on the Attorney General’s misinformation and his remarks to us. Look, this bill is being debated—Bill 14. I think we’re bringing some logical amendments that need to be brought forward. They were the government in power for over nine years that didn’t deal with this. Now, of a sudden, they want to deal with it, even though they prorogued and didn’t do—I think I’ve mentioned three forms of this bill that we have seen.

Maybe we should ask the government—if we can get it to committee and there are actually amendments made. Your track record of bringing bills back and actually completing bills to help the people of the province of Ontario is really not stellar.

I care about affordable housing for the people in my riding, even though the minister disagrees with that. I’ve mentioned some very vulnerable people who are in my riding, who are recovering from floods, who may not be able to go back to their houses—most of them probably won’t.

We have some reservations about this bill. We are happy when it does go to committee, and we would be even more pleased if the government would listen to the amendments brought forward from the people of Ontario, not just us, and make appropriate changes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): A point of order from the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the comments being made by the Attorney General contravene standing order 23(h). He is making allegations against members of this House that are unfounded—figments of his own imagination. Unlike the gas plant scandals, which we have facts on, this man is now trying to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): All right. Can I speak? Thank you. I think that’s not a point of order, and you know that. Any differences that members have in the House, they can certainly discuss it, or if there’s a problem, usually in question period you can ask for a late show. But I think you can deal with that other than in this place, so I think we’ll continue on.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you for at least recognizing me, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Further debate?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Have we all figured this out now?

The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Welcome back.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s great to be back here; thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

As I sit here this morning, listening to the bantering go back and forth between the government heckling the opposition who are actually trying to do their democratic rights in representing our constituents, it’s quite disturbing.

Obviously, co-operative housing is an important issue. We’ve made it very clear in the PC caucus that co-operative housing and this piece of legislation, Bill 14, does need to go forward. It’s something that when we look at the bill itself, it is quite heavy. It addresses a good number of issues that do need to be addressed. It’s actually, in comparison to the Liberal budget, only seven pages short of the budget bill, Bill 65, brought forward by the Minister of Finance. So it is going to do some good—Bill 14, that is.

Bill 65, the government’s proposed budget, does more damage to actually hinder, I would say, low-income housing for individuals who are struggling to make ends meet. Here we have a government that is spending over $10 billion annually on interest alone because of the debt that they’ve generated in this province. Imagine what $10 billion could do for health care, education, infrastructure and low-income housing for those who need it the most—$10 billion.

If there was a ministry just to handle interest that we’re paying on our provincial debt, it would be the third-largest ministry the government would be handling, next to health care and education, respectively. So I do have some grave concerns with the Liberal government bantering the opposition about us not actually caring for low-income housing.

I have, in my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, quite a few individuals who use co-operative housing, and others who are struggling to make ends meet who are in low-income housing. It’s a great thing—the member from Huron–Bruce pointed out—coming from the smaller areas of my riding and the rural areas, the co-operatives are imperative to the functioning and day-to-day activities that transpire there.

The reason that this government has been forthcoming with this bill, because of the prorogation—and I want to make a strong point here and impress upon the viewers at home: Prorogation actually took away the rights of their elected officials to address major bills, like Bill 14, that are going to actually have an impact on the day-to-day proceedings and the duties of those individuals back home who are struggling, again.

To the point we have here, there are some great things in Bill 14, and I think that it’s moving in the right direction. It will be interesting, when it does go to committee. We can actually sit down and make some amendments, because, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, no piece of legislation is perfect. So when it gets to committee, that’s where we can actually get some more input from stakeholders and make the tweaks, the final tweaks, to make it work.

I think the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock brought in a very good point, and that is the point that this government is notorious for putting forward bills that are actually substantive and are going to actually have a positive impact on the lives of the people of Ontario, but never bring it forward once it gets to committee. They keep their bills in committee.

Interjection: They hide.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: They hide, and this is unbecoming. This isn’t what the process is supposed to be.

So, Mr. Speaker, we do have some serious concerns with the way this government has brought forward the bill. For them to sit here and say that we, on this side, have no authority when it comes to speaking to co-operative housing—I have great concerns with that. What they’re doing, by allowing us to continue this debate—they’re not debating. They’re not standing up and letting us exercise our democratic rights. I think that’s quite important. I think this is a tradition, obviously, historically, about the parliamentary process.

It’s well documented that this Liberal government, obviously, does not care about democracy and the parliamentary process and how that works here in the province of Ontario. We here in the PC caucus appreciate the history and the tradition that those who came before us fought and died for, and actually took the time to exercise those rights.

We’re excited about getting Bill 14 to committee. But again, this scandal-plagued government needs to be held to account. The Liberal government has had the opportunity to really work on this bill, thanks to all their self-imposed delays. However, maybe they would have been too busy working on scandal cover-ups instead, because this is, again, a fairly weak bill.

I do first remember when this bill was previously introduced by the current Premier. I think that on all sides of the chamber here, we can agree—which we have—that this is something that needs to be addressed, and we can do a better job.

But until we get our province in a situation—and I think our leader, Tim Hudak, said it best. It’s one thing to have a social conscience and help others who are struggling. That’s what we all are: We’re in this together, collaboratively, collectively, co-operatively, as a whole. But when you’re mortgaging the future lives of our young children—a newborn child this moment in the province of Ontario is already strapped with $20,000 of debt thanks to this Liberal government. Think about that for a moment. “It’s only $20,000,” some people might be saying, but that is a significant amount of money.

That is money that we cannot afford to have. That’s money, as I pointed out earlier when I stood, that could go directly into helping low-income families, providing a roof over their heads.

I’ve seen from an education standpoint how important having housing is for the development of young children. When children are in a home where they feel safe and secure, they actually do much better in school. So it is important for all of us, as concerned citizens of this province and this great nation, to ensure that Bill 14 gets to committee and we work on that.

But this Liberal government has shown contempt for the scandals that they’ve brought forward. They’re hiding behind the gas plant scandals, the millions of dollars that they’ve wasted. It’s quite disturbing.

I think what we need to do is that when we get this to committee, I’m going to greatly anticipate—I won’t hold my breath, but I can’t wait to see if this government actually brings Bill 14 to the forefront once it gets to committee and the debates have been handled there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I just want to respond to one of the things that the member from Northumberland–Quinte West said. When he was talking about us wanting to move this on to committee, he likens that to us being anti-democratic. I want to take a minute, as my colleague from Davenport does, and explain the process to the people at home. The first step is that we debate this piece of legislation in this House. Then it moves on to committee, where we’re able to discuss it line by line, clause by clause. So this is by no means the end of the democratic process for this bill.

No one is suggesting that we turf this bill out the window; we’re just suggesting—it sounds like the Conservatives may be in support of this. I’ve heard other members of the House who are in support of it. So let’s move it on so we can discuss it clause by clause, we can improve it and we can get results, which is something, let’s face it, we really need to do in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I think I represent more co-ops than anyone else in Canada. I keep on hearing from the official opposition that they care about people who live in co-ops. There are folks who are down here—

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I actually don’t usually interrupt the person from Nepean–Carleton when she’s speaking, so I’d like the same courtesy.

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Did you want the floor or—because I can sit down.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, you can sit down for a second right now. We won’t have any cross-dialogue, we won’t be talking to the people in the gallery, and the member from Nepean–Carleton will allow the member to speak. Thank you.

Continue.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very large issue for people. This is something that’s in the middle of their lives. It’s in their homes; it’s in their co-ops; it’s their ability to resolve conflicts. It’s a critical piece of legislation that has—this is the third attempt, I think, to get it forward. It would be good if we could actually get this to committee and get it back.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Some of the members opposite right now who are heckling me are a little concerned. Their federal counterparts over the next five years will take 24,000 people who are low-income families living in co-ops, cut off their subsidies and geared-to-rent and put them out in the street. This will be one of the largest losses of affordable housing in the history of the province.

So if the official opposition, the Conservative Party, actually really cares about people in co-ops, those 24,000 people who their federal cousins are dumping in the street, maybe they could get some hearing from them. And they could at least have the decency to move this bill forward in a reasonable way. There has not been one new idea. We’ve heard the same statements repeated over and over again. If they have something new to say, either say it or allow it to go to committee.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Nepean–Carleton, point of order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Similar to the point of order raised earlier by my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke about the Attorney General making allegations, I think the people on this side of the House are a little tired of hearing from blowhards on the opposite side that we don’t care about people. I think that’s a bit unacceptable and I think it’s beyond the pale of expectation in this chamber.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): As the member knows, she got her points in even though it’s not a point of order. I can’t distinguish whether the member is going by history or his own information; I can’t distinguish that. That’s not my position.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Oxford isn’t talking when I’m talking, is he?

I don’t call that a point of order. Continue.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill and we do support it as the PC Party of Ontario. We would like to see it progress quickly, and this is work that needs to be done. It provides for much-needed reform to the dispute resolution process, which would save great dollars for the co-ops, which they need, because there are far too scarce dollars. It might need a little bit of fine-tuning, but that can be done in committee; we know that. We need to address the concerns and rights of landlords—they have expressed some issues to us—but we can do that in committee. All the little details that aren’t in the bill that satisfy all of us can be fixed, and we know that.

The real sad thing here is that it could have been done a long time ago. This is 2013. It could have been done in 2012. The reason it wasn’t done in 2012 is because this government prorogued. They did not prorogue because they were interested in co-op housing in Ontario. They did not prorogue because they were interested in improving the legislation that would help the people who live in co-op housing in Ontario. Three times this has come up; three times it has not happened. This last time, with prorogation, they suspended government because they had one scandal too many.

There was eHealth, there was Ornge, there was Presto, and now gas plant scandals, and their feet were just getting a little too close to the fire. The way to get out of that kitchen was to prorogue.

There was no concern given to the people in the co-op housing organization, the good people who are here to see this passed today. They’ve defiled this place, the Ontario Legislative Assembly, the seat of government for the province of Ontario, which is based on a British cultural Christian heritage going back to the Magna Carta of 1215. All of that history, all of those hard-won battles for freedom and rights of people, which is property rights and people’s rights, which are the same thing, were defiled.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Miss Monique Taylor: The previous member is correct: The Liberals have held this bill up for this many years, and it’s unforgivable. But for the Conservatives to continue filibustering when this could have been done in April 2013 or possibly March 2013, and now we’re in May 2013, is just as guilty. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Let’s get it done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West has two minutes.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills said it quite eloquently in the fact that this is not just a bill that we’re debating here. We’re talking about the rights of Ontarians; we’re talking about the rights of individuals who live in a free democracy. We’re talking about the rights of the citizens here that this bill will actually affect.

The Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation pointed out that this is the third attempt at bringing forward this bill. We agree. But my challenge to this government—and you can mark my words, those individuals who came here today, out of their busy schedule, to listen to us further debate on this: Once this gets to committee, this government will not bring this bill forward in committee.

My friends, I’m sad to say this, but this is how this government operates. They invite you, it looks good, they get a photo op; they get to put out a press release—that thing is great. But the fact of the matter is the underlying messaging that they’re going to do is not going to be effective. That’s the Liberal government of the province of Ontario for you. It’s sad.

But yes, when we get it to committee, we are going to do our very best to try to bring this forward and make amendments that are actually going to be substantive and actually have a positive impact on the individuals who this bill is designed to help. This government will not. Mark my words: It’s going to happen.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? The member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This, of course, is not an introduction of guests. It’s obviously an update for my favourite Montreal Canadiens fan, the Speaker.

Yesterday, my team, the Ottawa Senators, were down 2-0, until the third period, when we scored not one, but two goals to put it into overtime. I watched that overtime goal by Turris. Now the Ottawa Senators are leading their Stanley Cup playoff series 3-1, Speaker. I couldn’t have done it without you, and they couldn’t have done it without the great support of allowing us to have these updates.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I thank the member for the update—maybe.

Introduction of guests.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I could spend some time defending the Montreal Canadiens this morning, but we’ll wait till Thursday night.

More importantly, I’d like to introduce two people from my riding of Peterborough today: Bob Campbell, president of the board of the Peterborough Community Counselling and Resource Centre, and Ms. Casey Ready, executive director of the Peterborough Community Counselling and Resource Centre. We welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to extend a special invitation and welcome to Bryce Davison, a grade 7 student at Light of Christ Catholic Elementary School in Aurora. He’s joined by his grandfather His Worship Gary Davison, mayor of the township of South Frontenac.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The Minister of Children and Youth Services. Oh, sorry. The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Let’s keep these as quick as possible, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: While I’m standing, I want to congratulate my colleague from Nepean–Carleton on her thrill of having the Sens win a game—probably their last one in this series, Speaker.

We’re all looking forward to the Toronto Maple Leafs tonight—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay. I think we’ve probably had the last of our updates. We have to keep going.

Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you, Speaker. Today is family service day here at Queen’s Park, and I’d like to speak a little bit about family service day and make a couple of introductions.

I know that the staff who work at Family Service centres make an extremely important contribution to our families and our communities. Today I’d like to introduce to the House some people from Family Service Thames Valley and Family Services Windsor-Essex. Sandra Savage and Robert Young are from Thames Valley. As well, from Family Services Windsor-Essex, I would like to introduce Joyce Zuk. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I welcome everyone to the reception in room 228 after question period.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I rise today to welcome our page from Thornhill, Shruti Sandhu, and her family, who are here with us for question period. They are Davinder Chawla, Devender Sandhu, Aditi Sandhu, Surinder Sandhu Kaur, Vivek Gupta, Rhea Gupta, Manish Agarwal, Dhanu Agarwal, Priya Rastogi, Neha Rastogi and Anu Agarwal. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Paul Miller: In the west gallery, I’d like to introduce Mr. Cesar Kowalski and Cindy Preer, good friends of mine from Stoney Creek, and accompanying them is my lovely wife, Carole.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Obviously, it’s a special day here: family service Ontario day. I’m pleased to introduce a couple of people who are here from the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre: Nancy Chamberlain, executive director, and Danielle Peuramaki, who’s a board member with the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre. Welcome. Everybody come to the lunch in rooms 228 and 230.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to recognize that it is Harry S. Truman’s 129th birthday. Receiving celebration at that was Marcel Beaubien, who was the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex in 1995 and 1999. Welcome to the Ontario Parliament, Marcel. Thanks for coming.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to acknowledge Kitchener-Waterloo Counselling Services Inc. for all of their tremendously important work in our community and welcome their executive director, Leslie Josling, who is here to represent them today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Leslie.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to welcome two individuals visiting the House today. Their names are Sophia Karapita and Farina Ekra. They are from my ministry.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to welcome, from the Community Counselling Centre of Nipissing, Alan McQuarrie, Helen Antebi and Derek Thompson to the House.

Mr. Bill Mauro: In addition to Nancy Chamberlain and Danielle Peuramaki from the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre, we also have Rob Barrett, the executive director of the Catholic Family Development Centre from Thunder Bay, here as part of family service day in Ontario.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d like all members in the House to recognize the York region board of family services that are also joining us today. Please help me welcome them here to Queen’s Park.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to acknowledge Family and Children Services Niagara here today. Bonnie Filipchuk, service director, community and clinical services, Family Counselling Centre Niagara, is with us today.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s my pleasure to introduce Patricia Hollingsworth to the chamber this morning. She is the executive director of the Northumberland Community Counselling Centre. Welcome.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce the family of one of our hard-working pages, Victoria Farkas, from my riding of St. Paul’s, and they are here in the gallery today to observe question period. They are Gabriella Evinich, Balazs Farkas and Abigail Farkas. In fact, it’s Abigail’s 11th birthday today. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m delighted to introduce, from my riding of Guelph, Kate Power, who is the executive director of Family Counselling and Support Services for Guelph Wellington. They provide a number of wonderful counselling services in our community.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to introduce Mariana Benitez, Susan Warren and Elisha Laker of York Region family services. Please join me in welcoming them to Queen’s Park.

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

There is a reason why I went over the clock in making sure that everyone had an opportunity to introduce their guests. I want to define this once more. I will have to be stricter, and I blame myself for that, and I apologize.

I would ask you to stand, introduce your guests and sit down. Please avoid the extra add-ons. That way, everyone gets a chance, within the five minutes allotted, to introduce their guests, because that’s the purpose.

I’m going to ask, kindly, the member from Nepean–Carleton and the member from—should I say that, Newmarket–Aurora, even though you’re defending me?—to give us updates at a later date, or somewhere else.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Whatever. So I would ask us to stay focused on introducing our guests here in the House. Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question to the Minister of Finance: Minister, at committee yesterday, we saw former Premier McGuinty display the same disrespect for taxpayers that we saw from Premier Wynne at committee the other day. It seems sad that the Liberals treat truth like an inconvenience, and accountability like a bother.

Given the serious nature of the matters, Minister, before the Ontario Legislature, don’t you think it’s time that we allow Ontarians to have their say? Do they believe that your move to spend their tax money to cancel gas plants—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry for the interruption. I believe the member was finished, the leader was just finished—or not?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. No, no. And I’ll stop the clock for that.

I’m going to ask people to come to order on this. The shout-outs are not necessary, and I’ll start to name your riding quickly.

Leader.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Finance Minister, given the serious nature of the matters before the Legislature and committee surrounding the gas plant scandal, don’t you think it’s time that people had their say—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —a vote in the Legislature. Does this cross the line into corruption, or is it simply the cost of doing business?

Hon. Charles Sousa: So, Mr. Speaker, what I know is this: This side of the House has been asked to report to the committee. This side of the House has taken leadership by being more open and transparent and by initiating initiatives to disclose as much as possible. This side of the House has reported and delivered and appeared before this committee to disclose all that they know. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that side of the House doesn’t show up. The Leader of the Opposition has been called and he hasn’t appeared. For that matter, neither have any of the other candidates who fought and said that they too would not put the power plant in that spot—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The same goes for this side.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We all in this House agreed that the siting of those power plants was inappropriate. They all said they would cancel it and/or move it, as did we, and that’s exactly what we’ve done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: It is disappointing to see the same smug disregard for taxpayers from the finance minister that we saw in evidence from Premier McGuinty and Premier Wynne; similarly, the same degree of evasiveness, to put it kindly.

Let me ask—and hopefully I’ll get a more serious answer from the finance minister. So Colin Andersen appeared at the committee. He refuted the testimony of both Premiers Wynne and McGuinty, and he said that everybody knew the cost was more than $40 million. Premier Wynne and Premier McGuinty said they were not aware of that.

So, Finance Minister, clearly somebody is not being honest with the people of Ontario, and it should be up to them to decide. So if Colin Andersen was not being honest with the people, shouldn’t he be fired, or if Premier Wynne was not being honest, isn’t it time for her to go?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The only one being smug is the Leader of the Opposition, who does not appear. We’ve asked for him to appear. We’ve said to him and to all others that we’re willing to work together for the very purpose of getting to the truth and understanding what has taken place, understanding that they themselves also said that they would not build the power plant.

They themselves took the steps, by way of an election no less, to say that they would cancel it, and they appeared before the communities with a bus and did a press conference. They even had a pink elephant right on the site, saying, “Vote for me because I will be the one who will cancel the power plant.” And he sent out robocalls, and he was on the telephone and doing town halls, standing up for the fact that we should not put a power plant in that place, and that’s what we’ve done. We’ve delivered on the very promise that he said he would do.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, that’s the kind of clownish answer from a finance minister that shows us why we have lost confidence in the ability of this government to get us out of the hole that we’re in.

Let me ask you a question, Finance Minister, that you dodged the first time, and hopefully you’ll be more honest and direct this time. We’re tired of the Liberals blocking a confidence vote here in the Legislature. We’re tired of the Liberals blocking the ability of members to stand up—or sit down—when it comes to deciding, does this gas plant scandal cross the line into corruption, or is any price worthy of being paid simply to save Liberal seats. Don’t you think we owe it to Ontarians to actually stand in our place and say this was right or this was wrong?

Don’t we owe it to Ontarians to actually stand in our place and say this goes across the line, or is it simply the way this government is going to operate? Minister, will you call that confidence motion to the floor of the Legislature today?

Interjections.

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

Finance minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the only circus that has been happening here has been the actions of the opposition. We have taken the steps necessary. The Premier wrote to the AG in regard to Oakville. We all agreed that was a good thing. We immediately called the House back, and we struck some committees. We expanded the scope of the committees. We offered documents from across the government. The Premier appeared before the committee, and the committee, since February, has heard from over 26 witnesses.

Furthermore, we have listened to the local communities. We recognize that we need to take proper steps going forward so that this doesn’t happen anywhere else ever again. We need to make sure that we have the proper setbacks and the proper siting.

Mr. Speaker, we will stay focused, and what we need to be focused on, when it comes to a confidence motion, is the budget. The budget is what matters to the people of Ontario. They’re asking for us to continue moving forward, continue stimulating economic growth and continue to create jobs and the well-being of everyday people in their everyday lives.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, it’s time your Liberal government stops evading accountability. The ultimate accountability measure is a confidence vote right here in the Legislative Assembly, right on the floor.

It seems to me, if I was the finance minister, the first meeting I would have called, had I been you, would be to ask Colin Andersen of the Ontario Power Authority to give me a full costing of the cancellation of the Oakville and Mississauga plants. As the incoming finance minister, when did you ask for a briefing from Colin Andersen of the OPA to get a full cost on the cancellations of Oakville and Mississauga?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We immediately wrote to the Auditor General to examine the cost of the Oakville relocation. We immediately took the steps to identify all the costs that had taken place. The complexity and the changing of OPA estimates is understood now by all, so we have to make certain that we get it to the right numbers. I have taken the precautions necessary in putting something in our budget that accommodates the costs that we do know and, going forward, will ensure that the contingencies and so forth are taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition wants to continue to deliberate over an issue that we are already resolving. What the people of Ontario want to know is, what are you going to do to help their lot in life on their everyday issues? What are you going to do to support this budget that speaks to the needs of the people of Ontario right now? We need to continue to create jobs—

Interjections.

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

While we’re at it—stop the clock—I’ve been hearing people use people’s names again. This time, I will go to that individual if I continue to hear first names, second names, other than—you must address people by their riding or by their title. If it continues, I’ll single that person out.

Start the clock.

Finish—10-second wrap-up.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I do appreciate the opportunity to reaffirm what’s really important here, and that’s to stimulate economic growth, ensure that we’re creating the jobs necessary for the people of Ontario and move forward.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister: Well, with all due respect, Ontarians want to know when you asked for a full briefing from Colin Andersen of the OPA in your capacity as finance minister on one of the biggest, most expensive scandals in the province’s history.

Sir, you asked for the job, you campaigned for the job; Ontarians spent billions of dollars for you to keep your job. Sandra Pupatello turned down the job so you could get it. Now you need to do your job.

Will you tell us when you asked for a full briefing from Colin Andersen of the OPA? Why aren’t you doing your job?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I believe that—

Interjections.

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

Attorney General?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I believe that Hazel McCallion, the much-revered mayor of Mississauga, had it spot-on when she came before the committee and she said, let the committee do its work. Get on to something else. Get on to the issues that the people of Ontario really and truly care about.

We have been as open and transparent as you possibly could be. The Premier appeared before the committee, which has never, to the best of my knowledge, happened before. The former Premier appeared before the committee. All of these people are trying to be open and transparent, to tell you exactly what they knew and when they knew it. Let the committee do its work; let the Auditor General do his work—

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I can’t believe what I just heard.

Back to the Minister of Finance: Minister, the hard-working people of Ontario want the accountability resorted to in this Legislature. Your Liberal government’s unwillingness to call our want-of-confidence motion for debate shows the arrogance with which you have treated this entire scandal and your refusal to deal with the consequences.

Today I tabled a motion that will be debated this week and will automatically cause a vote on the call to motion for the want of confidence. The NDP need to decide whether they’re going to prop up this government, a government they continue to criticize. We look forward to them voting in favour of the want of confidence motion. We believe Ontarians deserve a vote in this Legislature to see if the Liberals have the confidence of the people. It is imperative that all members get that opportunity to vote on the want of confidence motion. Will you call that motion?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Stand up and do the right thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You know we’ve talked about timing before. You have got to be better at it because when everything gets quiet, you are heard. Thank you.

Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: The Premier appeared before the committee, which is unprecedented in the history of this Legislature. The former Premier appeared. When is the Leader of the Opposition going to appear? When is he going to appear? When is he going to come up with his costing as to what it would take? The costing will be—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Actually, this is a comment to both sides: Someone is answering, let them answer. Someone is asking, let them ask. And the shouting back and forth will be stopped quite quickly.

Finish, please.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Very simply, when is the Leader of the Opposition going to appear in front of the committee and tell them what he would have paid to cancel those plants, because if he had formed government, heaven forbid—he didn’t—he would have cancelled the plants as well.

Let the Auditor General continue with the work on the Mississauga plant—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Hon. John Gerretsen: That’s decent. Now you don’t even want to listen to the answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Oxford, come to order. The member from Thornhill, come to order. The member from York, come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order. Second time, the member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

I’ve got a system, and it will work.

Finish.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, it’s very unfortunate that the members ask the question and they don’t even want to listen to the answer. They want to shout down the government in giving them an answer to the question they’ve asked.

My question is, when is the Leader of the Opposition going to come up with his estimate of what it would cost to—

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

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Over the last few days, we have heard from thousands of Ontarians who say they want to see positive change in the budget but they also need to know that the government is going to be investing their money transparently and accountably. We think that’s a concern that we should all take seriously in this House. Does the Minister of Finance agree?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Of course we agree. It’s why we’ve put in our budget a number of accountability measures. On pages 217 to 220, we talk about a number of initiatives that we’ve put in place to support accountability; we also put it on pages 143 to 145.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it was this government that also introduced legislation around the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010, as well as the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, 2004. We as a government took the steps necessary, because of what has happened in the past, to ensure that even pre-election reporting be reviewed by the Attorney General. We are always open to more transparency and fiscal oversight in the things that we do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my initial thoughts are two words: gas plants. That’s how well their accountability works.

People are being told that they have to make sacrifices in tough times, that there’s not enough money to go around while we try to balance the books. They see hundreds of millions of dollars going to waste at Ornge, at eHealth and at the gas plants, while their government claims they have to make cuts at hospitals in order to invest in home care. Is the minister ready to admit this is a problem and take concrete steps to address it?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s why we’ve taken a number of measures already. We’re strengthening the post-secondary education accountability measures in our budget. We’re taking steps to ensure even more accountability around home care and community care. We’ve taken steps around the child welfare initiatives in our budget. There’s a whole slew of opportunities that we recognize are important to take better measures, including transfer payment accountability, tax report accountability and agency accountability—all issues that we recognize are important, that we know require greater oversight, and we will continue to work towards doing just that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday the Premier claimed she had “done everything in her power” to be accountable. With respect, I don’t think that’s a good enough answer. Ontarians are frustrated with the government’s failure to be accountable, and families deserve to have a government that’s accountable to them.

Today I put forward a simple idea: a financial accountability office modeled on Ottawa’s parliamentary budget office. Is the government ready to start rebuilding trust with Ontarians?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, we’ve taken a number of initiatives, a number of steps to improve accountability. I believe that to be a very interesting idea. I do look forward to having this discussion and I look forward to having a very productive conversation around the issue.

I think what’s necessary here, as well, is to get this budget passed because there are a number of things at stake, a number of things that the opposition members recognize all too well need to be addressed and need to be passed in order to proceed. I would like to cite those measures in the budget and recognize that what’s important here is the well-being of the people of Ontario. I look forward to continuing to work with the opposition members to do just that.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Minister of Finance. Ontarians want to see real, positive change that improves their lives, but too often they’ve seen governments act in the interests of their own political party instead of the interests of the public. And instead of giving people the facts, their government gives them empty spin and misleading information. A financial accountability office would take a small step to providing some real accountability. Does the minister agree that more accountability is needed here?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that. We have already cited the fact that we’re taking a number of measures in our budget to address greater accountability. We’ve taken the steps necessary to improve what we need to do going forward. We recognize that the idea put forward is a good idea. It’s interesting; it’s something that we see has happened with the federal government.

What’s at stake right now, though, Mr. Speaker, is increasing the Ontario child benefits. What’s at stake is the Ontario Trillium Benefit that the member from Beaches–East York has been advocating for. What’s at stake is auto insurance that the member from Brampton has also been advocating for. What’s at stake is permanent gas tax funding for our municipalities. What’s at stake is more roads and bridges funding for our rural communities. What’s at stake is an infrastructure modernization plan that will continue to support the people of Ontario and greater competitiveness going forward.

Mr. Speaker, what’s at stake is for us to ensure that we’re on plan to reduce our deficit to zero, and we need to do that for the benefit of creating more jobs and helping people in their everyday lives.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: With all due respect, what’s at stake is the trust of the people in their government. That’s what’s at stake.

Yesterday, the former Premier admitted that he didn’t know and didn’t much care what the cost would be of cancelling the private power deals in Mississauga and Oakville. And in her testimony, the current Premier made it clear that she didn’t much care either. Ontarians deserve a lot better than that. That’s why New Democrats put guarantees in our suggestions for the budget and it’s why we clearly identified savings so that we could invest in prosperity that everyone can share in without making harmful cuts.

And it’s why we’re calling for a financial accountability office that would let the public know how the government intends on spending their money. Surely the minister doesn’t have a problem with accountability.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’re taking steps necessary to improve and enhance our accountability, so that’s not the issue. The notion of being a caring and more compassionate party—we actually have a whole

section in our budget around a fairer society. We know we need to support those most vulnerable so they get a better start and ability in life. The member opposite should be looking towards them and finding ways to support this budget on that score.

But as I said, it’s an interesting idea. I welcome the opportunity to have that conversation. This is not about being partisan. This is about the people of Ontario. Let’s look after them.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I fear that what I heard is that the minister seems to think the status quo is good enough, but he seems to be the only one who thinks that, because people are telling me that they want to see a budget that is fair, transparent and accountable to them. That’s not what they see right now.

Will the minister tell Ontarians whether the status quo is good enough or whether he agrees that Ontarians deserve something better?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’ve consulted with over 600,000 people in the preparation of this budget. For the member now to suggest that we’re going to consult after the budget has been prepared, after all the work that’s been done, after the contributions and recommendations that have been made by all members of the House—we’ve taken those initiatives, we’ve taken those steps and we do agree: We want to be more accountable, we want to be more transparent and we want to take those measures. We’re implementing those in this budget.

It’s interesting that the member now is trying to somehow express that they’re the ones bringing this idea forward. Fine; take credit all you want. What really matters is the people of Ontario. We will work for them. We’ll work with you and we’ll work with the official opposition to that end, because what we want is to stimulate economic growth. We have a very sensitive recovery, all the more reason that we need stability—

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

New question.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, we’ve always known that the Liberals will do and say anything to put their party’s interests first. We saw more proof of that yesterday as the former Premier tried to explain away your gas plant scandal. First you needed the power, then you said you didn’t need the power. The current Premier finally admitted it was a political decision, but the former Premier says he cancelled the gas plants for the kids—too bad no one over there cared about those kids a few years earlier; we could have saved at least $585 million—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The members will come to order. Thank you.

Please carry on.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’ll ask the minister: Tell us how much money you’ve set aside in your budget for your seat-saver program.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I don’t know where that member was five or six years ago. I know where I was, and I know what I was doing to support and protect communities. These power plants weren’t even in my riding, but I was concerned about the well-being of the people of the communities that surround it.

That is why I sat on the Clarkson Airshed Advisory Committee. That’s why I stood with 12 to 15 different town halls to support the community. That is why I advocated to move those power plants from the very beginning. I stood by, and I asked for the support of the members opposite—I stood by the energy critic, no less. When he went to those communities, he said “No, it’s a done deal”—only after I came forward and fought for it. As I sat in the rump, I sought people’s support.

To the member opposite: We were there; I was there all along, fighting for the community and making certain that this sort of thing never happens again anywhere in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I never heard a budget figure, so—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —it’s obvious the minister has taken tap dancing lessons from the House leader.

There’s more proof of how desperate your Liberals are to save their own hides and cling to power. They continue to ignore a centuries-old parliamentary tradition in bringing our non-confidence motion to the floor of this House. They continue to hope their orange life preservers to my left will sell themselves out and rescue them from the orange sea of scandal.

We tabled a motion today calling on this House to bring our original non-confidence motion to a vote. Minister, will you do the honourable thing, put democracy and the people ahead of the Liberal Party, and bring forward our non-confidence motion?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: To the Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: The member is a former mayor, and he knows very well that the real confidence motion and vote is on the budget. That’s what we’re talking about here. This is a fair budget that’s being presented to the people of Ontario. That will be the confidence vote, and we’ll see how you and the members of the NDP vote on it.

But in the meantime, I still come back to the point I made a little bit earlier. Why is the Leader of the Opposition not appearing before the committee with his numbers as to what it would cost to move those plants? We’ve got the Auditor General, who did a report on the Oakville plant situation. We’ve got him doing one now on the Mississauga plant situation. The Auditor General is highly regarded. Why don’t we let him do his work and why don’t we get on with the rest of the work for the people of Ontario?

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Acting Premier. Minister, when the Premier was selected by the Liberal Party, she didn’t even bother to ask the outgoing Premier how much it would cost to cancel the plants in Mississauga and Oakville in the scandal that eventually cost the member for Ottawa South his Premiership. Being a leader means asking tough questions and it means giving tough answers, but neither the former Premier nor the current Premier did that.

Doesn’t the Acting Premier think that showing real government accountability to the people means that the Premier should have at least asked her predecessor about the cost of the cancelling of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The Premier has gone well beyond. She has taken full responsibility and she wants to increase her accountability and transparency on this measure. That’s why she sought support from the other members of the House to do a committee that would allow for all of this to come out even more quickly. She has asked the right questions. She has now written to the AG in terms of getting all the costs that were involved with Oakville, and they agreed; we anticipate them shortly. She has asked for an immediate call back to the House so that we can strike these committees.

We’ve expanded the scope of the committees. We’ve offered documents from across the government. The Premier has appeared before the committee; the past Premier has done the same. We’ve had our Ministers of Energy appearing before the committee. We have taken over 26 witnesses to this committee. We are doing our utmost to try to get to the issues and to resolve them, more importantly, so they never occur again in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yesterday I asked the former Premier whether the current Premier ever asked how much the promise to cancel the Mississauga gas plant would cost when she was the campaign vice-chair on the very campaign that made that promise. He said no, she never asked. I asked, when the member for Don Valley West was a cabinet minister signing cabinet documents on Oakville, did she ask the Premier about costs then? He said no, she never asked.

Ignoring these problems doesn’t make them go away and it doesn’t show respect for the Ontarians who are paying the bills. Does the Acting Premier think that the way to show respect for families means denying the people real accountability for wasting their dollars?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Unlike the official Leader of the Opposition, the Premier did appear before the committee. The Premier did respond to these questions. We are doing what the committee wants us to do. More importantly, though, the members should be asking, what are we going to do going forward? What are we going to do now to ensure that these sorts of things never happen again?

What steps have we taken to do that? We’re providing for siting restrictions. We’re ensuring that community engagement is there. We want to make certain that greater accountability exists.

More importantly, in this budget we talk about some of these initiatives, and this is what the member opposite should be working towards: supporting this budget so that we can get on with the business of helping the people of Ontario.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The budget speaks to creating a prosperous and a fair Ontario. It’s something I know everybody across this province wants to see. We’ve heard a lot about the government’s plan to increase jobs, tackle gridlock, reduce the price of auto insurance and improve access to home care, but homelessness is still a problem that affects far too many people in Ontario and across Canada.

All members of this House know that when people are given the opportunity to live in safe and affordable housing, our communities thrive. People are healthier, mentally and physically, and their children do much better in school.

The question this morning to the minister is: Can you tell us what our government is doing to tackle the pressing issue of homelessness across communities in Ontario?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member for the question. There’s nothing more distressing to me or our government than the knowledge that, somewhere in Ontario, there’s a child or a family or a senior wondering where they’re going to sleep tonight.

That’s why our government remains committed to a long-term affordable housing strategy, the first of its kind, actually, in Ontario. Our investment in affordable housing is a partnership with the federal government. It’s a $480-million investment to repair 7,000 affordable housing units in Ontario. The program allows service managers to increase flexibility to let them develop local solutions to reduce wait times in communities across the province for people who need affordable housing.

In the first year of the program, we helped 600 households which are no longer in need of a roof over their head. It is our government’s goal to ensure that those who need assistance when they’re at their most vulnerable get the help that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s good to hear the government takes homelessness seriously, as we all know the impacts of not doing that would be damaging.

But this conversation is about investing in affordable housing; it’s very similar to the debate we’re having about transit in the GTHA. They both require infrastructure investments, they take a long time to construct, and they’re very expensive to build. We know the politics of these types of investments aren’t easy; otherwise, other governments of other stripes would have come up with a long-term affordable housing strategy long ago. At the end of the day, all levels of government have a stake in seeing a plan materialize.

In the minister’s answer, Speaker, she spoke about our partnership with the federal government. What I want to know is, what is this government going to do to continue dealing with homelessness after the current $480-million commitment from the federal government runs out?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Again, I thank the member for the question. We recognize the importance of affordable housing and continue to make this case to the federal government. While our government welcomes the federal commitment to affordable housing as they recently announced in their budget, the fact remains that the federal government is reducing its contribution to social housing over the next 20 years to zero. That’s why, along with other provinces and territories, we are going to be meeting our federal counterparts this June. I hope that we can work together to encourage our federal counterparts to live up to their shared obligation, in fact, their moral imperative on affordable housing.

I want to urge every member in the House, in this chamber, to join with our government to get them back at the table because this need for social housing is not a municipal issue, and it’s not a provincial issue; it’s a societal issue.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, I deeply regret that I must, once again, ask the same question of you that we’ve been asking in committee and in this chamber on behalf of the people of Ontario. Both your current and former Premier have stuck to their talking points about regretting the decision to cancel the Mississauga and Oakville power plants at the cost of at least $585 million.

At the recent retirement of Ontario’s Auditor General, Jim McCarter said that governments work best when they’re watched. Minister, you’re being watched. Please use the opportunity to explain to the Ontario taxpayers how it is that a decision that had such serious financial implications would not be fully costed out before any cabinet decision was made.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: You know, the opposition can’t have it both ways, Speaker. They wanted the power plants cancelled. All of your candidates said that. Your own leader said that. The third party wanted to get the power plants cancelled. We did exactly what every party and everybody wanted done. The people of Oakville and the people of Mississauga did not want those plants there. It’s as simple as that.

Why don’t we just let the Auditor General do his work? He is an independent officer of this Legislature. He did a report on the Oakville situation, and he’ll do a report on the Mississauga situation. People of Ontario will make up their own minds about that. That’s what this is really all about. Let’s leave it to the committee. Let’s leave it to the Auditor General. Let’s talk about the real issues that are facing the people of Ontario today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: You signed this contract. You ripped up this contract. You need to take responsibility for this mess. At what point in this embarrassing charade do you actually acknowledge your mistake and admit that you were wrong to cancel the gas plant before you knew how much it was going to cost the people of Ontario? As the finance minister, surely you understand how that makes the Liberals look so willing to waste millions of dollars while other people pay.

You could turn the page on this mess right now; you could do the right thing today and allow this assembly to debate the member from Simcoe–Grey’s non-confidence motion. Will you do it?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, Speaker, you know what this is all about as far as the opposition is concerned. It’s all about political posturing. That’s all you’re doing, is political posturing.

Let the Auditor General do his work with respect to Oakville. Let him do his work with respect to Mississauga. We have been as open and transparent as we possibly could be. The Premier has appeared before the committee. The former Premier has appeared before the committee. And no matter what’s done, no matter what further we’ll do in this regard, you will not be supportive. You know it. You wanted the plants cancelled. They were cancelled. It’s better for the people of Mississauga, it’s better for the people of Oakville, and it’s better for the people of Ontario.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today the CEO of Windsor Regional Hospital is raising concerns about the financial donations that were revealed in the newly released contract between Medbuy and Marchese for chemotherapy drugs. He asked some pretty straightforward questions. Why is a $20,000 contribution part of the bidding process? Can the Acting Premier answer this question?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I can say this, Mr. Speaker: The issue of the chemo drug dilution, everything that has occurred, is distressing for all of us. We all have members of our family or friends who have been affected. This has been drastic.

We’ve taken immediate steps to try to bring resolution to it. We need to do what’s best for the safety and the security of the very individuals and the patients who are affected. It affects all of us, and I have been greatly disturbed by what has taken place. But I can say that we’ve taken steps; we’ve taken action. We’ve posted new regulations with all the hospitals to ensure that purchased drugs are only from accredited and licensed suppliers.

Health Canada, of course, has a role here, a very big role, in terms of oversight and to post and to make amendments. The College of Pharmacists has posted their regulation and bylaw amendments. We’re working with organizations who have a shared responsibility on this issue. And more importantly, we’ve asked Jake Thiessen to take over—

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: The first thing that comes to my mind is, what is the province’s role? With the release of these documents, hospital CEOs and patients are left with difficult questions about the bidding process. To many, it looks like nothing but a kickback. Throughout this fiasco, we have seen a government that has checked out of their oversight role, and the consequences have been immense for the people in this province. Will the Acting Premier clarify the purpose of this contribution and whether what many see as a kickback has any place in the transparent procurement process?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’re the government that took steps to try to support the industry. That’s why we’ve been dealing with generic drugs, for example, finding ways to afford and provide better value for our taxpayers. But this is more important than that; this is more important. This is about the safety and security of our people, the patients who are affected, to ensure that this doesn’t ever happen again. It is why we have appointed a third party reviewer, Dr. Jake Thiessen, to provide recommendations on how we can prevent this from ever happening again.

We’ve asked all Ontario hospitals to ensure the appropriate quality assurance measures are put in place. We’ll follow up with those hospitals and with the industry. And we’ll continue to work with the federal government to ensure that they take the actions necessary to stop this from happening. We believe what’s necessary is to protect the people and the patients of Ontario.

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Kim Craitor: Mr. Speaker, my question, though you, is to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Our government recently tabled a great 2013 budget. This budget is about creating jobs and helping people in their everyday lives. Our government has presented a strong plan to help people across this province: creating jobs, connecting communities and giving everyone a chance to succeed.

A question that I am asked constantly by constituents in my riding of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie is, what is the government planning to do to improve and modernize our infrastructure? Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure: Can the minister please inform this House about the investments our government is proposing in the budget to help communities across Ontario address their vital infrastructure needs?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member from Niagara Falls for his question and for his advocacy on this issue.

The finance minister has built on what has been an unprecedented commitment to infrastructure in Ontario. In years past, typically we would spend $3 billion or $4 billion on infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, we spent about $13 billion this past year and have committed to $35 billion over the next three years. This is about a 400% increase after 40 years of neglect.

We’re also continuing not just to fund infrastructure but to focus on rural and northern communities. Particularly, we fund the strategic asset management plans so every community in Ontario has a good sense of the condition of its infrastructure, can help set priorities and can help work with the government to fund not just projects, but coherent plans.

We have a strong focus in the north on highways, in rural communities on bridge—and smaller communities, Mr. Speaker.

I have a feeling the Minister of Rural Affairs may like to weigh in on this as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kim Craitor: My follow-up question is back to the minister. I’m glad to hear the Ontario 2013 budget includes a focus on investing in growing infrastructure needs across the province.

In order to keep our economy moving forward and on the right track, we need to ensure we make the right investments to build infrastructure today. This includes the rural and the northern communities.

Like my riding of Niagara Falls, and Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, many communities across Ontario face unique challenges when it comes to infrastructure.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could the minister please provide an update to the House and to the people of Ontario on what our budget is proposing, particularly for rural Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Minister of Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’m proud to say that this budget delivers for rural Ontario. We know that our rural communities face unique challenges and have important infrastructure needs. That’s why the Ontario 2013 budget proposes a new $100-million infrastructure fund for 2013-14. This fund will help small rural and northern municipalities build roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that in 1997-98, 43% of all the roads and bridges were downloaded in eastern Ontario. We’re catching up on that inventory.

I have a great quote from Bill Vrebosch, the mayor of the municipality of East Ferris in the riding of Nipissing: “The $100 million being dedicated to rural and northern is exactly what we’ve been looking for for years,” in the province of Ontario.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Acting Premier.

Minister, you, the Premier and your cabinet colleagues have been governing this province with the help of smoke and mirrors to try to deflect the truth and responsibility for the ongoing gas plant scandal. We have examined countless documents and heard hours of testimony that clearly demonstrate the web of denials and half-truths which have been spun by this government.

The total disregard for the taxpayers of Ontario and the continuing attempt to conceal the entire truth is a vivid reminder to all Ontarians that your government—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m a little concerned about the weaving in and out of very close to being unparliamentary language, and I’m going to warn the member not to go down that road. Thank you. Carry on.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Their actions are a reminder to all Ontarians that the Liberal government has lost the moral right to govern. So will the government do the honourable thing and allow the non-confidence motion tabled by the member from Simcoe–Grey to come to the floor for a vote?

Hon. Charles Sousa: To the Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, let me just say what the esteemed leader of the third party said about your non-confidence motion in a recent interview on Citytv. Andrea Horwath said, “I think it’s more about grabbing headlines and getting attention than it is a serious motion. From my perspective, let’s deal with the real issues.” And she is totally correct.

Let’s see what the member from Timmins–James Bay, Mr. Bisson, said. He said, “Absolutely”—again about the Tory non-confidence motion—“not, because ... it’s a game that they’re playing. This is an attempt on the part of the Tories to do what they normally do, which is to find a weird way to try to get a headline that doesn’t get you anything in the end.” And he is totally right too.

Let’s talk about the real issues that face the people of Ontario, and let the Auditor General do—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Barrie will come to order.

Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: This is a real issue. This is the biggest scandal in the province of Ontario, and the taxpayers want an answer. Almost $1 billion of their money—you have lost the moral authority to govern, so I ask the Premier—

Interjections.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Minister, the Premier has repeatedly said that the budget will be the confidence motion. Since the NDP have demonstrated once again that their support is always for sale and that integrity is no longer a matter of principle, I ask again if the government will agree to a real vote of confidence and allow our non-confidence motion to come to the House for a vote today.

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: A great bit of acting there; I’ll tell you that much.

Speaker, do you want to hear about a real scandal that happened just before the 1999 election? Do you want to hear about a real scandal? It’s when your government at the time—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Will he tell us about the building scandal from the 1800s, Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member’s timing is pretty good again, so I’m going to ask the member from Renfrew to come to order. That will be the last time I do it.

Hon. John Gerretsen: The people of Ontario are still suffering the results of the Harris years. Do you want to hear about a real scandal? It’s when your government in 1999 sold the 407 for $3 billion—

Interjections.

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

Attorney General?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Barrie, come to order. The Minister of Rural Affairs, come to order. The member from Simcoe–Grey will withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the member from Huron–Bruce: If it continues, you’ll be warned.

Attorney General?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let the Auditor General do his work—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will go to his seat to withdraw.

Hon. James J. Bradley: He’s the new hotshot over there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment will come to order—last time.

Mr. Peter Shurman: He’s the old one.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Thornhill will come to order.

The member will withdraw.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’ll withdraw “cover-up,” Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a tremendous number of armchair quarterback