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

September 23, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Sep-23 (PDF)

L098 - Wed 23 Sep 2015 / Mer 23 sep 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 23 September 2015 Mercredi 23 septembre 2015

Supplementary estimates

Orders of the Day

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

Special report, Auditor General

Introduction of Visitors

Tragedy in Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke

Appointment of temporary Ombudsman

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

First responders

Taxation

Home care

International Plowing Match

Air-rail link

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Affordable housing

Special-needs students

Air-rail link

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Tragedy in Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke

Franco-Ontarian Day

Ontario Federation of Agriculture

Landfill

International Plowing Match

Community Living Mississauga

Gin-Cor Industries

Society of St. Vincent de Paul

International Plowing Match

Visitor

Introduction of Bills

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

Petitions

Environmental protection

Addiction services

Concussion

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Ontario Disability Support Program

Privatization of public assets

Public transit

Health care

Taxation

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Hydro rates

Lung health

Visitors

Opposition Day

Privatization of public assets / Privatisation des biens publics

Adjournment Debate

Wind turbines

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Orders of the day.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to give the President of the Treasury Board an opportunity to do something before I do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader makes a fine point, and I shall allow us some rustle time.

I acknowledge the President of the Treasury Board.

Supplementary estimates

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

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

The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 2016, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Toronto, September 22, 2015. Elizabeth Dowdeswell.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 17, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 106,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last had this topic, the member from London West had finished her time. We are now into questions and comments.

The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Chris Ballard: It gives me great pleasure to be able to respond to the comments made by the third party. I just wanted to say that buying a condo is obviously one of the most significant purchases in a person’s life. We’re taking action through this proposed bill, Bill 106, not only to protect this important investment for owners but for all those who currently call a condominium home.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that one of my beliefs is that Bill 106 will also be very good for the condominium development and building industry, in that it will strengthen consumer support for those purchases.

I just wanted to touch on a few of the things we heard through our very extensive consultation. I’ll say that in all my years, I haven’t come across such an extensive consultation process as the one that the government undertook to listen to consumers, listen to builders etc.

Three of the things we heard were that condo owners need timely and reliable information and direct access to their condo corporation’s financial records; clear and consistent rules are needed to ensure condo reserve funds are properly funded; and clearer rules are also needed to ensure that appropriate financial controls are in place when condo corporations spend their owners’ money. Mr. Speaker, Bill 106, the proposed legislation, fulfills all of these requirements. I’m glad to hear that there is support, if qualified, from members opposite.

This legislation, if passed, will strengthen financial management requirements, and it will be the right thing for the condo market. I am quite delighted to support it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I am very pleased to join the discussion today on Bill 106, the Protecting Condominium Owners Act. Buying a condominium is a very important investment in a person’s life, and I’m very encouraged to see that our government is taking action to protect homeowners’ investments.

In my riding of Kitchener Centre, I can tell you that the condo market has experienced remarkable growth in recent years. We are seeing old, empty buildings being transformed into new condominium residences. For instance, the Kaufman Lofts was once home of the Kaufman rubber factory where they made boots. The one-time Arrow Shirt Factory is now an upscale condo complex and the old Eaton’s store on our main street is now a fashionable living space in our downtown.

If you are to drive through downtown Kitchener today, you’re going to see a couple of new, large condo developments that are under construction, such as the One Victoria building. Just a few blocks away on the main street, King Street, you’re going to see the City Centre condos.

The people who are interested in locating in the downtown are aging boomers, like I mentioned, my husband and myself. They’re looking at downsizing and taking advantage of the amenities that can be found in the heart of the city. You also see younger individuals and couples; oftentimes, a condo is the first home that they can afford. So condos do seem to have a very wide-ranging appeal to people. However, when you make this investment, you want to make sure that you are protecting your investment. This is why we are looking at reforming—updating—the rules that currently govern how people live in condominiums.

As you heard my colleague from Newmarket–Aurora mention, we consulted extensively for 18 months during this process; we listened to many stakeholders who told us that they want to see us fortifying our legislation. Condo owners are now going to have access to dispute resolution. They’re going to have protection on legal proceedings when they are involved in that. I say that this new legislation is going to go a long way in protecting people’s rights.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: With respect to this bill, I spoke last week extensively on it. I want to repeat one area of particular interest, and that is the differences that will be required in this act to pay particular attention to rural and northern Ontario. As I often do, Speaker, I remind this Legislature that when you have an area that is two thirds the size of the province of Ontario, but with a very sparse population spread out over that vast area, we really do have a lot of different requirements.

Yes, we have condominiums in northern Ontario. They are, for the most part, not anything like the condominiums in the urban centres of Ontario, especially the ones here in the GTA. When you think about how any one of the condo buildings in the GTA could house many of the communities in my riding in the one building, you really do realize that you have very distinct needs.

So when I see some of the rules and regulations about websites that are going to be required, when I think of the condominiums in northern and rural Ontario, they are very different than the condominiums in the urban centres, and the rules and regulations may need to be adjusted or adapted, if you will, to some of the realities of northern Ontario.

When we have a condo, some of them are very, very, very small. I’m not quite certain the rules will work as well in northern Ontario, especially when I see things such as these websites and other boards and training that must be held. I look for that through the amendment area.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a pleasure to follow my colleague from London West, who addressed this bill at greater length. As you are well aware, the NDP has been pushing hard for changes to condo law since our colleague Rosario Marchese from Trinity–Spadina introduced his first bill in March 2007. There are some useful elements in this bill—no one can deny that—but clearly our concern is the number of elements that are missing from this bill.

We believe that creation of a place where condo owners can resolve disputes quickly and cheaply is critical to the well-being of condo owners and the condo industry across Ontario. This bill will provide an opportunity, a forum, for resolving disputes between condo members, condo management and condo boards, but it excludes resolving disputes between condo owners and developers. That leaves many condo owners and buyers without adequate protection.

In my riding, on Carlaw Avenue, a number of condos have been built in the last decade. In one condo, at the south end of Carlaw, the owners found that the flooring that was installed was completely contrary to what had been presented in the showroom, that they had been promised. And they, individually, had to take on the condo developer and bankroll their lawsuit with their own money in order to get any satisfaction.

That shouldn’t have to happen. There should be a low-cost, government-supervised tribunal where condo owners who have been given a unit that doesn’t meet any or even significant parts of the units that were displayed at the presentation should be able to go for inexpensive, fair resolution of those problems. That’s a significant shortcoming in this bill.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to thank the member for Newmarket–Aurora, the member for Kitchener Centre, the member for Nipissing and, of course, my colleague the member for Toronto–Danforth for their comments on my remarks. Some of the issues they touched on reinforce some of the points that I made during my speech on Bill 106.

In particular, I wanted to reference the concern of the member for Toronto–Danforth about the lack of a dispute mechanism to address issues that arise between owners and developers. During my remarks, I shared the story of constituents in London West, Barry and Nicole Cotton, and their nightmare experiences. They’ve seen their retirement savings go out the window because of a condo deal gone bad.

The member for Nipissing talked about regional differences and the importance of the legislation not taking a one-size-fits-all approach to condo issues in this province. Certainly, I mentioned in my speech that London is unique among Canadian CMAs because 70% of our condo stock is row houses or single detached homes. Of course, that means that the kinds of issues that arise in London may be quite different than issues that arise in other parts of the province.

In particular, when you have condos that consist of row houses or single detached homes, many of the issues concern developer or builder kinds of flaws, and there are no mechanisms currently within the legislation to address disputes that arise. There is no meaningful reform of Tarion to ensure that condo purchasers are covered when they make this very significant investment.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m going to be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener Centre and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs as well.

I want to begin by welcoming all of my colleagues back from Finch, Ontario. We’re all freshly back from the International Plowing Match, where I think we all had a fantastic time. I still feel like I’ve got a little bit of farm sand in my throat right now. Aside from that, it was a fantastic experience, I think, again, for all of us. Welcome back. It’s always a tough morning to come in after having a great day out in the outdoors, talking to our colleagues in rural Ontario. Now here we are back in downtown Toronto at Queen’s Park, ready to begin debate again. I think I’d prefer to spend another two or three days in Finch. Some of my colleagues are nodding their heads.

But we’re back at work here today at Queen’s Park, and I’m always happy to be here to talk about important legislation. This Bill 106, Protecting Condominium Owners Act, is an important piece of legislation. This is the first time the legislation has been amended since 1998, so it’s overdue.

I think back to my days here as an assistant in the Peterson government, and I remember the debates about housing used to all be about the Tenant Protection Act—at the time it was the Landlord and Tenant Act. That was really what we talked about when we talked about buildings. There really was not a lot of discussion about protecting condo owners. There weren’t a lot of political issues about condos in those days. There were probably things going on, but they really weren’t rising to the surface. But now, many of us have communities that have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of condo dwellers.

I have one of them. I’m in Scarborough Centre, where the city centre of Scarborough is located. We’re one of the fastest-growing city centres in North America, and most of that growth is condo dwellers. So my constituency has changed very much in the last 20 years, and I think it’s very important that we keep up our legislation to ensure that the changes in lifestyle that our constituents are going through are protected by the legislation we have in place. I think that’s exactly what the amendments do.

I get a sense that there is a fair amount of support around the Legislature, on all sides of the House. I don’t know where the other parties are going to eventually fall on this, but I think we all know that there is a need to provide greater protection for condo dwellers.

It doesn’t mean that every condo manager is doing a poor job, by any means. I knocked on doors of all the condos in my area in the last campaign, and for the most part people are reasonably happy. In fact, there is some great quality of life developing in those condos. Many of them are relatively new, built over the last 10, 15 or 20 years, and now they’re just coming to life.

I think of Lee Centre, in my area, which is an area I’m going to be losing in the redistribution going forward in the next election. Every July 1, I’m at Lee Centre with hundreds of condo dwellers who celebrate July 1 better, I think, than anybody I’ve ever seen. When they sing O Canada, they sing it without instruments, without music, but they sing it from their hearts. It’s a very diverse community, in Lee Centre, and just a very warm group of people who welcome us in. We celebrate July 1 there every year, and it’s a great celebration. It’s a great example of how condo dwelling has now become more of a community-oriented exercise.

In the early days, it seemed to be more people coming in and going to work; coming and going but not really being directly involved in the community. I know that in my area condo dwellers have really evolved and changed.

I’m really happy that this legislation is here for a number of reasons. Number one, this is not legislation that was developed in the backrooms at Queen’s Park. This is legislation that was developed, really, by condo dwellers themselves, and that’s the key. We have a number of former ministers and current ministers who have been involved in that exercise, and even opposition members have had input into this. All of our condo dwellers across the province have had representatives who have really helped us write this legislation.

It took a lot of time. It was a very extensive consultation. It has moved forward and back as we continued to work with condo dwellers to find the right balance, and I think we have found that. That’s why it’s very heavily supported by all of those advocates that really represented our condo dwellers across Ontario, and it’s much needed.

The licensing of managers, to me, just makes sense. It really makes sense to ensure that managers are professional; that the fly-by-nighters are pulled out of the industry. That’s something that most condo managers support, because most condo managers are professional. In my experience in my area, I’ve come across very few who haven’t been. But there have been some exceptions, and there have been times when condo dwellers have not been well served. This legislation will help protect them.

I think the consumer protections are really important, because I think we’ve all heard from constituents who have been purchasers of condos who have found out, when they moved in, that things like maintenance fees weren’t exactly what they thought they were going to be and expenses were a little bit higher than they expected them to be. There is going to be more transparency now for those who want to purchase condos, so that they know what they’re getting into; they know what the future expenses are likely going to be. That’s a protection that I think is really important.

Strengthening the dispute settlement mechanisms among condo dwellers, managers and the authorities, I think, is really important as well. It is something that was raised as a concern. That’s always difficult, because you’ve got to strike a balance there. I think the advocates for condo dwellers would suggest we found that.

It’s really important that we also have accountability when it comes to financial management. I think that’s where some of the challenges have occurred, in some of the less than stellar condo managers. The financial management accountability just wasn’t where it needed to be.

We’re now going to have much stronger financial management in the operations, in how these condos are run, that’s going to help ensure that our condo dwellers are better protected and that the sustainability of these buildings is going to continue to be protected as well. That’s important too, because we do find examples where buildings have not been financially well managed and the next thing you know there is a huge debt involved or a huge deficit, and condo dwellers get caught holding the bag and having to bail out the mismanagement that has taken place.

There have been horror stories. Let’s face it: There have been a number of horror stories that have been documented through the newspapers and in the debates that we’ve had on this issue over the years and here in the Legislature. I could share them with you as well. I don’t think we need to go there; I’d rather not dwell on the negative. I think we’re going in the right direction now. I think we have the support of most of the condo industry, from what I gather. I think most condo managers recognize this is a step, a challenging step, but a step that needs to be taken. But most importantly, we have the support of those representing condo dwellers as we move forward.

These aren’t easy steps to take. There are measures in here that are going to ensure that administration processes are set up and there’s a cost to that; there’s no question. But it’s a cost I think that condo dwellers have determined is worth paying because it provides a level of protection that I know they believe that they need and they’ve asked us to do. So I think, given the consensus that’s built up on this, given the work that’s gone into this from all members—all sides of the House, previous ministers, current ministers and all of my colleagues here—I think that it’s time to move forward with this legislation.

I very much appreciate the opportunity this morning to be able to say a few words about it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll pass it on to one of my colleagues.

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

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m very happy to rise again this morning to add my voice to the discussion on Bill 106, the Protecting Condominium Owners Act. You heard me mention, Mr. Speaker, that I, too, live in a condo, so when my husband and I moved into this building—you come to learn that there are very unique policies, procedures and conditions by which you are going to be living. I will say, for the most part, it’s been a very good experience.

You also heard me mention that in my region we’re seeing a kind of explosion with condominium growth. It is surprising to hear that half of all of the new homes that are being built in our province today are condominiums. In my region, what is helping to drive the condo boom is the creation of our new LRT; it’s currently under construction. We’ve got shovels in the ground. We’re seeing greater investment from developers in real estate—people who are looking at locating along this transportation line. I will say that my government is very proud to be investing $300 million into this transportation line.

This is all working in tandem with the progress that we are also seeing in my region with the technology sector. We’ve got Google moving into the Breithaupt Block building. This was also an abandoned factory. There are other technology companies taking root there. They’re hiring staff and they’re looking for housing, so this is creating more housing options.

With half of all of the homes now being built in Ontario as condominiums, we’re looking at, currently, 700,000 condo units in our province, and there are 51,000 more under construction. So these condos currently represent about half of all the new homes in this province, as I said, in a housing sector that’s worth almost $45 billion, and we see over 300,000 people who are being employed in the sector.

I want to ensure that the investments that people are making in my riding are protected. Looking at this legislation that we are proposing, if it’s passed—it hasn’t been updated in 16 years. We see the condominium landscape in Ontario changing dramatically. As you heard some of my colleagues say, we’ve consulted very extensively for a year and a half. We asked numerous people, stakeholders in the sector, what they wanted to see in this legislation. Here is what they were telling us: They want to see us increase protection for condo owners and Ontarians purchasing condominiums. They want us to require condominium managers to be licensed.

In my building, there are only 10 units, so it’s a small building. For, I’m going to say, 30-plus years, they managed it on an ad hoc basis; two or three people in the building had the responsibilities of managing it, but it was too much work, it was complicated, and sometimes legal issues came up. Quite recently, we hired a licensed manager to take over, and things are running very smoothly. So there are advantages to this.

This legislation is also going to create new governance requirements for condo boards and strengthen the financial sustainability of condo dispute resolution. If your neighbour has a noisy parakeet, should you have to argue for six months to a year, go through a court system and perhaps pay $50,000 to resolve this? That’s taking too much time and money.

The ministry, on average, is getting about 1,000 complaints and inquiries every year on condo issues—everything from “My fees went up and I wasn’t aware this was going to happen,” to “Major financial decisions are being made without my consent,” “They’re putting on a new roof, nobody told me, and why do I have to pay all of this money?” Courts are being required to appoint an administrator to look after buildings in a financial crisis. How many buildings suddenly have an elevator that is broken down or something else that has happened, and they don’t have enough of a reserve fund?

If passed, the Protecting Condominium Owners Act will help owners save not only their hard-earned money but their time. This is time that could be spent on legal proceedings, but we want to avoid that.

All condo owners are now going to have access to a dispute resolution process. We are going to see a condominium authority created, and it’s going to have oversight over the sector and provide quicker, lower-cost resolutions than what is available today. Not only will this proposed legislation, if it is passed, benefit condo owners, but it will benefit the corporations, too, by creating equal access to dispute resolution from the condo authority for only about $1 a month per unit. That is really a very small investment, Mr. Speaker, for better protection for people who do live in condominiums in Ontario.

This condo authority will be independent, self-funded, not for profit, and it’s going to remove all the complex condo disputes from Ontario’s already overburdened court system. Again, it’s going to save people time and money.

Reforming our condominium laws was a commitment in our 2015 budget, and it’s going to empower condo owners to be more confident at all stages of condo ownership. I’m a proud and happy condo owner; however, I’ll tell you, with three adult kids, when they do come home, my one complaint is that I wish I had more room for them, but my husband tells me that’s the key to making sure they go off to be self-reliant and self-sufficient. However, we still argue about that.

I believe that Bill 106 is going to go a long way to protecting homeowner rights.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: It’s my pleasure to speak to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act.

I represent the riding of Willowdale. According to the Canadian Condominium Institute, Willowdale as a political riding has the most condominiums of any political riding in Canada—thousands and thousands. I have been hearing about these condominium issues and problems now for years and years. Every Friday, on my constituency day, I have two or three condo issues to deal with.

How did we decide to tackle this? The first thing was to find out what was really on people’s minds. We conducted a review in which we received over 2,200 submissions from various people who had an interest in the condo sector. As a result of that, there were five issues that came up, and we have decided to address those in the legislation. I’ll just go through each of the issues briefly.

First, there was a crying need for a new and more effective dispute resolution mechanism. So the act provides a very modern, very quick and very cost-efficient dispute resolution mechanism to keep these issues out of the expensive courts, as some of the members have mentioned.

The second issue that the review raised—and it came out in spades—was the need for consumer protection for owners and buyers. What the act does here, and the detail is in the act, is set out a series of extra safeguards to protect condominium owners and buyers and to help them make informed decisions. In furtherance of that, what it does is require the developers to give the condominium buyers a copy of—and here’s the key—an easy-to-read guide to what their condominium documents mean. Right now, it’s all in fine, fine, fine print and you need a philosopher and/or lawyer and accountant to help you understand it—so clear information.

Secondly, to provide clearer and more comprehensive rules about how unexpected costs are going to be dealt with in the condominium ownership—that’s one of the big things we hear about. People are in it and suddenly they’re surprised by a big cost item which they didn’t see coming—so clearer information about why those kinds of things crop up and, if they do, how they should be dealt with.

The next thing is, it provides the government the ability to create regulations for standard—and here again is the key—condominium disclosure statements so that for people moving from one condo to another condo, there’s a common set of rules and everybody knows what the ground rules are.

The next important thing is some amendments to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act so that the warranty protections that are available to buyers of new condominiums also apply to the buyers of condominium conversions. It might be an old school that is converted to a condo, and right now, the rules are murky. We want to standardize and make a common set of rules for those kinds of purchases.

In addition to that, there are three other items that are covered by the act that I just want to touch on. One is the whole issue of financial management of condominiums. For example, it would forbid condominium corporations from finalizing contracts unless they have fulfilled certain procurement process requirements. One of the issues we always hear about is, “We needed a repair and somebody on the condo board went out and his brother got the project.” So we’ve made some very clear procurement process rules so that there’s fairness and transparency to that issue.

Another one is how condominiums are actually run. We want a process that makes it easier for condominium owners and boards to participate and vote at the meetings. For example, now, it’s kind of a hodgepodge of rules about when and how condominium board meetings are called, so we’ve regularized that.

Fifth, and really important, there’s a condominium manager licensing program in place. Right now, I could go out—after I retire from politics—and I could decide that I’m going to be a condominium manager and just hold myself out without any background or training. We’ve changed those rules and there’s going to be a licensing requirement that I, David Zimmer, with all of my experience of dealing with condominiums, will still have to go through a training process, write some tests and learn some key and core competencies on how to run a condominium. That’s going to eliminate a lot of the difficulties and wrangling.

What we want to do is clear up some of the confusion, bring transparency and make condominium living easier.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The previous three speakers spoke a lot about very specific examples about condominiums and how Bill 106 will hopefully improve that.

I would actually like to reference a couple of other aspects of the bill. One is a change that will basically incorporate condominium changes under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. I think there are some real opportunities there to look much further into that Ontario new home warranty plan and see if there are other areas that need to be updated or improved for consumers, homeowners and individuals who are in that process.

The other is actually

part VI: “The act contains general provisions dealing with such matters as the preservation of secrecy, service of documents and the setting of fees by the minister. The minister may make regulations establishing a code of ethics, governing the jurisdiction of committees and in areas prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Speaker, you know I’ve spoken on a number of occasions about my concern with how many of the details of legislation are left to regulation. I don’t think there is any government—and I won’t editorialize—that needs to hide into regulation the ethics that need to happen with condominium ownership and the boards therein.

So if we could have a little more clarity on what those regulations are going to look like, I think that would be helpful for both the individuals who are looking at some real improvements coming forward on this bill, as well as, quite frankly, the members of the opposition, who would like to see it laid out very specifically. What do you mean by “code of ethics,” and what does that entail?

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It is good to be back today from the International Plowing Match that we were there for yesterday. It was a great event.

It’s good to be back debating Bill 106. We left off speaking about it last week. Speaker, it has been a long time coming, that this bill has arrived here in the Legislature, so it’s good to see that the government has finally decided to bring it forward and try to make legislation that will actually help condo owners.

In some ways, this bill does do some good things—we have all agreed on that—but there are situations or examples in this bill where things aren’t as good as they could be, and we’ve pointed out a couple of those things.

The member from Kitchener–Waterloo talked about condo complaints. That’s one of the drivers that have evolved into this bill coming forward. The complaints just don’t stop at the parakeet that she mentioned that was being chatty. The complaints go further than that, and they go further into—we’ve talked about developers and that condo owners have complaints against developers, and, obviously, sometimes condo owners have complaints against condo managers. Those are two areas of this bill that aren’t covered. Even though in this bill, there are some good steps forward that are happening in this legislation, there are those two elements that are very important to condo owners that are missing.

The member from Caledon talked about regulation. I noticed as well that there’s a lot left up to regulation. It would be interesting to see what they define. Some of those areas, like the code of ethics that the member from Caledon talked about, and what kind of authority they’re going to give to the condominium authority under regulation—that’s also a wait-to-see kind of example in this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker, for allowing me to speak for two minutes.

Not that long ago, Markham–Unionville was kind of like an open field, but things have changed. When you go to my riding, Markham–Unionville, you can see those condos. They are rising from the ground. For example, at the corner of Highway 7 and Warden Avenue, it’s just building and building and building, and obviously, people will be moving into those condos.

On a personal note, I used to own a condo in downtown Toronto around the Bloor and Yonge area. Now I no longer own that condo. One of the reasons for that is I sold it because I didn’t know, really, how much those management fees—I don’t even know how much I paid—and how those management fees were being used. What I knew was they were quite expensive and they kept rising and rose to a point that one day I decided I would no longer like to own this condo.

I think Bill 106 is a good thing to do because it would strengthen the ownership of the condo. It would require the condo to have to hire managers to manage it. Also, it would create new governance requirements for condo boards, so that whoever buys a condo and moves in there would be properly protected in terms of their fees and in terms of their living there.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to bring some comments in regard to comments made by the minister of economic development, trade and employment. We also had the member from Kitchener Centre, and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs spoke this morning as well.

I’m glad that everybody had a good time yesterday at the International Plowing Match in Finch. Sometimes we talk about condominiums rising into the sky here in Toronto like the sunflowers were in Finch yesterday; there were sunflowers everywhere. It was a great time. I hope everybody had a good time.

I have a heavy heart here this morning as a New York Yankees fan. Although they won the game last night, Yogi Berra passed away last night, a legend at age 90.

Sometimes it seems like it’s déjà vu all over again here in the Legislature, and we’re back talking about the condo act. It’s been 16 years that we’ve been waiting—as the member from Kitchener Centre pointed out—for an update to legislation when it comes to condos in Ontario.

Every riding in the province has a different number of condominiums. Obviously, the member from Willowdale has many condos in his riding. There are not so many in my riding, but there are some condo communities, especially in Prince Edward county, where they needed to have an update to the legislation. There were a lot of concerns there where different property owners, maybe, weren’t meeting the standards that they needed to meet, at least meeting the expectations of the condo owners.

I think it’s about time that we have this debate in the Legislature and get the condo act to committee so that we can update it to ensure that these homeowners—and they are homeowners, although they’re condos—are protected properly.

The member from Kitchener Centre was talking about downsizing her home to keep the kids from coming back home, right? But all she really has to do is stop cooking with cheese. Everybody knows that.

Thank you. I look forward to getting this bill to committee, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has two minutes.

Hon. David Zimmer: In my earlier remarks, I outlined what the legislation was going to do. I thought everybody might be interested in some quick facts about the state of condo life in Ontario. We have 1.3 million people now living in condominiums; that’s one in 10 Ontarians. More than 50% of new homes being built in Ontario are condominiums. There are currently 700,000 condo units in Ontario and 51,000 condominium units under construction as I speak and as we debate. Condos also represent about half of the new homes being built in this province, in a housing sector worth almost $45 billion and employing over 300,000 Ontarians.

The government of Ontario received about 2,200 submissions through its consultations on the condominium act. That is a significant number of submissions and is indicative of the importance of this issue. In addition to that, we receive, on an annual basis, a couple of thousand complaints a year.

Most importantly, the existing Condominium Act was passed more than 16 years ago. Since then the condominium landscape in Ontario has changed dramatically. The expectations of condominium owners have changed. The services that condominium developers are offering condominium purchasers, in an attempt to entice them to purchase a unit, have changed. The whole condo world has changed dramatically, and our legislation has to catch up with the existing condominium lifestyle and expectations. This legislation does that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been more than six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise. Minister?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Speaker, we wish to continue debate.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Indeed, once again, it’s an honour to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the good folks in my riding of Windsor–Tecumseh. I hope to bring forth a few issues that have yet been raised during previous discussion on Bill 106,

an act to amend the condominium act and other acts with respect to condominiums.

I have to tell you, Speaker, I’ve read this proposed bill, all 159 pages. I’ve also read a number of submissions from interested parties. There are some good points in this bill, but there are also areas that aren’t mentioned, and I wish to point out a few of them. I do so in the hope the minister will see his way to accepting suggestions on how this bill can be improved.

At the end of the day, the city’s housing stock was upgraded and that was a win for the tenants. At last count, I believe there were nearly 3,000 apartment units converted to the status of condominiums; 2,881 former apartments on paper are now known as condominiums. Three commercial units did the same thing as a means of saving money that would otherwise go to the tax man.

Of course, the tax man in this case is the city of Windsor on behalf of the more than 200,000 residents of our great city. So on the one hand, a better grade of housing stock after modest upgrades and improvements were made, and on the other hand, the millions of dollars that corporate owners saved on these conversions is money that had to be picked up by the rest of us, the other taxpayers. That’s because the cost of running the city didn’t go down; it stayed the same.

I think I’m not the only one who has some of that plowing match grit and sand still with me today from yesterday.

So without these millions coming in from the corporate owners of the high-rise buildings, the rest of us had to make up the difference. I mention this only by way of getting to the point that in my area, the condo market has been saturated, if you will. Unlike Toronto, for example, or Willowdale and other parts that we’ve heard about this morning, we’re not building very many condominiums these days. What we are seeing built are townhomes. The empty-nesters like Gale and myself wish to downsize and move into a townhome where we don’t have to shovel snow and we don’t have to mow the lawn.

Here is where a problem comes into this discussion, and I mention it as an example of how this bill could be improved. Let me point out at this juncture that these townhouses look the same as in other parts of Ontario where individual homeowners are still responsible for all of their exterior upkeep. These developments in my area are built more akin to what you find in the United States. The developers of these Windsor-area townhome subdivisions place restrictive covenants on these properties. They call for mandatory homeowners’ associations, which assume responsibilities similar to condominiums.

Now, these covenants aren’t registered restrictions under

section 119 of the Land Titles Act. They are simply put on as a notice to subsequent property owners. These covenants call on the owners to establish a townhome association with elected officers, and to establish a reserve fund to cover certain capital items which are owned by the homeowner, not the association—for example, in my case, should the roof need repair or replacement.

But it differs between townhome associations. The specifics of what might be repaired or replaced by the association differ depending on the individual bylaws. Most do, however, contract out the exterior maintenance, such as snow removal and grass cutting.

However, the fact that the restrictions are not recognized as true restrictive covenants under the law has the effect of complicating the enforcement of the restrictions. The restrictions—call it the agreement—are essentially between the developer and the homeowners. The townhome association is in effect, in legal terms, a stranger to the agreement and may not have the ability to enforce the restrictive covenants. The developer may have moved on; he or she may have gone out of business and may not have any interest at all in enforcing the restrictions. In fact, in my development, the developer has no obligation to enforce the restriction.

The association can’t even amend the restrictions. Even if 100% of current owners vote in favour of doing so, we can’t do it. That’s because we are a stranger to the agreement. The developer has the only legal means to grant approval. The developer has an absolute discretion on whether to enforce or to amend, which can be exercised, if he wants, unreasonably. Even if the association went to court—and, as you know, that can quickly become very costly and time-consuming.

These are some things which the amendments to the Condominium Act have sought to address—a more streamlined and cost-effective enforcement mechanism. This is being denied to the growing number of townhome associations.

They have taken great care to address the situation in the American experience upon which these developers and developments are modeled. However, we have yet to see common legislative provisions here to cause a legal and level playing field between condominium associations and those established for the owners of townhomes.

There is a provision for the homeowners to pay an assessment, but there is no way to enforce delinquent accounts. The association has to sue in court for the lien. Speaker, these are monthly assessments, which means, of course, you have to launch legal proceedings on a monthly basis. Go figure.

The townhome associations are looking to the minister to grant them the power and authority to address the delinquents and enforce the covenants. They want the ability to amend these restrictive covenants if they have a majority vote to do so. They do not want to go as far as everything proposed in this new legislation, but they would like the minister to put something in here to make their associations more workable.

I know in one small subdivision, there was a problem with the shingles on a roof or two with a string of new townhomes. A couple of the units had problems. They had to be replaced, these shingles. So the question comes up, who’s going to pay? Whose responsibility is it to pay for the replacement of the shingles? Might it be the manufacturer of the shingles, the company which installed them, the developer who subcontracted the shingling job, the homeowner or the townhome association?

Fingers are being pointed in every direction. Outside consultants have been called in. It has created quite a stir. That’s because there is no clear written agreement to cover circumstances such as this in this one particular phase of a new subdivision.

That’s not to say similar situations are covered in other phases of these types of new housing projects. That, Speaker, is just one example of how this bill could be improved.

I doubt the townhome associations need the training provision provided in this bill unless they have association managers. Few, if any of them, do in my area.

The townhome owners in my area are also calling for the overhaul of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. They want the minister to listen to the cries from across the province for an overhaul of the way Tarion is set up and run. They want more representation from homeowners and less representation from home builders and developers. You and I both have heard, Speaker, member after member stand in this House and call for the same thing. I say it’s time the Premier and her cabinet showed the people of this province that they have heard the calls for reform and established a process to investigate the legitimacy of these complaints.

Bill 106 is called the Protecting Condominium Owners Act. In order to live up to its name, care should be taken in setting up the tribunal which will oversee the complaint process, to ensure the actual owners of condominiums are protected. In other words, care must be taken when naming the people who will sit on this tribunal. No one can protect the owners more than the owners. If the act was called the protecting the developers of condominiums act, then I would expect we would see developers monopolizing the seats on the board—or the consultants they hire to advise them.

But since the Liberals, in their wisdom, called this the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, let’s insist that a majority of the members of the condominium authority are actual owners who live in their units, as opposed to corporations which bought them as an investment to rent them out.

This bill doesn’t go nearly far enough to protect the people who buy condos with shoddy construction. It doesn’t do much to protect consumers from the bait-and-switch campaigns of unethical developers who promise one thing and deliver a cheaper, less aesthetically pleasing finish either; for example, to the exterior of the building or the amenities, such as the lobby or recreational areas. Shoddy workmanship, cheaper products: Owners need real protection, and it’s not in here.

What do we have now in Toronto alone: about seven class action lawsuits because of this? Why hasn’t the government seen the light? Why won’t the government take the lead? Why aren’t there better protections in this bill to protect the owners? After all, they call it the Protecting Condominium Owners Act.

Speaker, our dear friend the former member for Trinity–Spadina, Mr. Marchese, is somewhat of an expert on condominium law. When the Liberals were preparing this bill and utilized the so-called expert panel for their review, Mr. Marchese pointed out that this panel for the review of the act to protect condo owners was dominated by lawyers and consultants with close ties to two condo industry lobby groups: the Canadian Condominium Institute, the CCI, and the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario, the ACMO.

Other people on the review panel, the so-called experts, included a former chief executive officer of Tarion—which, as you know, is controlled by the Ontario Home Builders’ Association—and the first vice-president of BILD, the lobby group for the development industry. We have heard repeatedly that in Ontario, more than one million people live in condominiums, yet out of those million people, only one was chosen to sit on the panel shaping this new act. That was Anne-Marie Ambert. Dr. Ambert is a retired professor of sociology from York University. She did an excellent job.

But without better consumer protection, who’s kidding who with this new act? Who is this act actually protecting?

So how can it be improved so it will live up to its name? The easiest solution, of course, is to name owners to the bodies which will oversee this act—actual individual owners, not someone who is just there to protect the developers and the bankers and the friends of the government. Let me say this again: The one owner who sat as an expert on the review panel, Dr. Ambert, did a great job. But we strongly oppose any proposal that would see the Canadian Condominium Institute or the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario operating the new condo oversight office or offices.

Let’s face it: While these groups do a good job at what they do for their industry, their interests conflict. They are not always going to be the same as the interests of condo owners.

We only have to look as far as Tarion to see how that doesn’t work. Tarion, again Speaker, an organization you’re very familiar with, administers the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. We go to Tarion with complaints against the people who build our new homes. But as you know, Tarion is run by the same development industry it’s charged with regulating—the fox in the hen house, so to speak. Eight of the 15 seats on Tarion’s board must be held by members of the OHBA, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association.

The government has given one lobby group monopoly control over all builders and homebuyers in Ontario. No wonder there are hundreds and hundreds of consumer complaints against Tarion. I’m told by people who have contacted me that there is an inherent indifference to their complaints. There are no quick resolutions, be it for faulty HVAC systems, leaky roofs, sloppy work, leaks in the basement. Whatever it is, the perception is that Tarion sides with the home builders more so than the homebuyers. Speaker, as you know, more than most of us, in politics perception quickly becomes reality.

Why else do auditors, consumer advocates, even the Ombudsman say that Tarion is not accountable to the consumer? That could be corrected in this bill, but so far, it has not been. I hope the minister and his staff are listening, and I hope they seize the opportunity to correct an injustice.

My friend Mr. Marchese, the former member for Trinity–Spadina, a real advocate for condo owners and homeowners of all kinds, used to speak and write on this on a regular basis. He stood up for his constituents. He reminded us that 11 years ago, a former consumer minister and now the mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, not only acknowledged the problem but pledged to reform Tarion. He said he would turn it into an actual consumer protection agency. Well, we’re still waiting.

Seven years ago, Ontario’s Ombudsman “warned the government to stop pretending that it had meaningful oversight over Tarion....” Board members are prevented from communicating with the minister. The minister is not entitled to the minutes of board meetings. The minister can’t gain access to the internal auditor’s reports at Tarion. The minister can’t even get an answer on the salaries, benefits and expenses of the Tarion executives or scrutinize what they pay their consultants. Inquiring minds want to know: Is this what we’re going to see duplicated and replicated by these new condo oversight bodies?

Mr. Marchese raises another interesting point: It would be unacceptable for condo owners to subsidize the training and education of building managers. Condo owners should know exactly what their mandatory levies are paying for. Let the development industry and the managers pay for their own training.

Sometimes in a conflict situation, the board of a condo takes legal action against one of its own members, another owner. There’s a double-edged sword on that one as well: The owner is paying fees to the association and the association is using his or her money to hire a lawyer to fight against the owner. So his or her fees are being used against him or her in a fight with the association, and that shouldn’t be.

If the board is using the money that the tenants put into the association in a legal fight, they should also be paying for the owner of the condo, who is a member of the association and who has a conflict with the board—if the board is going to use the money to hire a lawyer, they should also be paying the legal fees of the owner, whose money they’re using to fight against him or her.

Thank you for your time this morning.

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: It’s my pleasure to speak for a couple more minutes and respond to some of the comments from the members opposite.

As I said earlier, I’m in support of Bill 106. Anything that makes consumers feel more comfortable entering the condominium market, in my mind, is a good thing. I know in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora, most of our growth in the years coming will be in mid- to low-rise condominium development. The Aurora planning department told me there are 10 condominium projects that are either in the application phase or moving down the pipeline to that phase. I think it’s a fantastic way to address urban sprawl by intensifying our downtown core, but consumers have to feel comfortable that when they move into the condominium market they’re protected.

I’m somewhat familiar with the consumer background, consumer input into this bill, from a previous life working in consumer advocacy. For example, I know there were 2,200 comments made, many of them by condominium owners, many of them by members who sit on condominium boards, and those were considered by government. I know there are about 1,000 complaints and inquiries a year on condo issues.

I also know that when the party opposite, the third party, was in power, it gutted its support for the consumer movement in this province of ours, especially the Consumers’ Association of Canada. I find it really quite rich now that members opposite can stand up and bemoan the fact that we’re not doing enough for consumers. When, in fact, that party had the opportunity, it turned its back on consumers. I’m glad to see that we’re moving ahead with this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, I just want to make a few comments about one aspect of this bill that I think has been neglected in the debate, and that is that we’re creating another delegated administrative authority under this act. I’m sure most people in this House understand that these subordinate bodies have very little reporting mechanisms back to the House as DAAs. Tarion is a good example. There have been many cases of Tarion being in the news with troubles.

This bill creates a new licensing and adjudicative body that has no reporting requirements and no oversight by this House. So there we have a multiplicity of roles, a licensing and an education component, as well as an adjudicative role. The decisions by that adjudicative body are not subject to any judicial reviews. It is subject to oversight by the Auditor General; however, no other independent officer of the House has oversight of this new delegated authority.

I would like the government to consider some suggestions here along the lines of what the UK Parliament has done, and the same with New Zealand, on their subordinate bodies of the Legislature. They’ve made it so that people fall under the public services act in the UK and New Zealand, and the independent officers of the House do have oversight of those subordinate bodies.

We’ve heard that it’s going to be low-cost, cheap justice, but look at the Landlord and Tenant Board. Look at the Assessment Review Board. Look at the other 37 tribunals that we have, and we don’t get low-cost, cheap, timely justice.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s a real pleasure for me to stand and congratulate my colleague the member for Windsor–Tecumseh on his very well-researched and informative remarks. He provided a lot of detail about some of the very real gaps in this legislation that is before us today. As he said, certainly the New Democrat Party caucus on this side of the House supports what is in the legislation—mostly. We are very concerned about what is missing in the legislation.

There are a couple of points that were made by my colleague that really deserve to be highlighted. First is the need for a real dispute resolution mechanism to address the issues that arise between owners and developers and condo owners and condo managers. We know and we appreciate what’s in the legislation to deal with those disputes between condo boards and owners but many, many of the issues that come to our offices from our constituents deal with these other issues.

The issues that arise between condo owners and the developers who built their unit, who did, as my colleague pointed out, the bait and switch: They didn’t deliver on what was promised, used shoddy materials and tried to cut corners and costs. Those kinds of issues, those very critical issues that so deeply affect our constituents, are not addressed in this legislation.

The second issue that he pointed out that I think we really need to reflect on is the importance of having as part of Bill 106 condo owners as part of this consumer protection movement to address their concerns.

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

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’m so honoured to speak to Bill 106, Protecting Condominium Owners Act. Thank you to the members for their comments as well.

Of course, when we think about condominiums, we think about urban centres and big cities, and for sure that’s where most of them are concentrated. But when we think about development, we have to think about communities such as those in the lovely riding of Durham, such as Clarington, Scugog, which would be Port Perry, and Uxbridge. These are growing communities, and growth doesn’t just mean houses and apartment buildings. You’ll be glad to know that Durham has condos, mostly concentrated in Clarington, of course, but in Scugog as well. These range from downtown Port Perry to suburban Bowmanville and Courtice and along the lake in Newcastle.

Residents of these condos are very engaged in their communities and have often taken the time to tell me so. They tend to experience the condo life more acutely, as you have to drive west for some time before living in a condo community becomes a reality. I am glad that we are bringing this legislation in to provide them with more accountability to deal with their condo boards and property managers. They need reassurance that whatever down payment they make is safe and the consumer service they receive is appropriately protected.

The proposed legislation contains strong provisions to protect Ontarians at all stages of condo ownership by preventing developers from charging surprising cost increases and improving disclosures during a condo purchase.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Windsor–Tecumseh has two minutes.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you to all of my colleagues who have spoken on my 20-minute address this morning.

As we left the plowing match yesterday and were coming home—the small bus of the NDP caucus—as we were pulling into greater Toronto, I noticed, not for the first time, of course, all of the condominiums that are still being built.

I was thinking about the wonderful trip we had to the plowing match and my conversations with a few of the Liberals while we were there, including the ag minister, about how difficult it is to have the plowing match in a Liberal-held riding because most of the rural ridings in Ontario are obviously held by the Conservative caucus—there are a few that could be held by the Liberals and, the same, a few plowing matches could be held in NDP-held ridings.

It got me thinking about the Condominium Act and what we’re going to be talking about today, and how some of the bills that are brought in this Legislature by the Liberals—the perception is that they’re Toronto-centric; that they’re here to look after where their seats come from, as opposed to the rest of the province. You didn’t see a lot of condos between Toronto and Finch and back going down the 401; it wasn’t until we got back here.

It just drove home the fact, to me, that sometimes in the House you really do have to question the legislation that’s being put forward, because it is Toronto-centric. When you bring forth examples of what’s going on in other ridings with townhome associations—but there’s nothing in this bill, nothing in this act, this proposed bill, to address the real issues that our people in my part of the province, in Windsor–Tecumseh, are facing under a different set of rules. You’ve got one for the condos but nothing for the townhome associations. I just want to drive that point home again.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Special report, Auditor General

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a special report from the Auditor General of Ontario on community care access centres.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my great pleasure to introduce, from Windsor, Ontario, Abe Taqtaq from the Windsor duty-free store, here today representing the duty-free stores of Ontario. Make sure all the members come out to the duty-free reception in rooms 228 and 230.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I hope the House will join me in welcoming my friends Debbie and Jim MacCrury from Cape Breton Island.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Richard Linley, president of the Wine Council of Ontario. He is in the members’ east gallery. Richard and the Ontario Craft Brewers invite you to a reception this afternoon in rooms 228 and 230.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’d like to introduce, from Sault Ste. Marie, Ralph Caria; his partner, Dr. Michael Morsillo; and his daughter, Dr. Kristin Caria, who are here today for Ontario’s duty-free luncheon. It will be taking place in rooms 228 and 230 right after question period. Everyone’s invited.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to introduce, in the members’ gallery this morning, my son Alex McGarry, recently returned from Timmins as a fire ranger.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Fahim Ali from Scugog, parent of our wonderful page Nuh. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: On behalf of my colleague from Scarborough Centre, the Honourable Brad Duguid, it gives me great pleasure to introduce, in the House, page captain Laura Page and her mother, Sandra Page; her father, Rob; her sister Carly; her grandmother Josie Alfieri; and her grandfather Angelo Alfieri. They are in our members’ gallery, and we welcome you today.

On behalf of my colleague Mike Colle, it gives me great pleasure to introduce page captain Anna Farley, whose mother, Manjusha Pawagi, is here today; and her father, Simon Farley, and her grandmother Asha Pawagi are also here in our gallery. Welcome.

Mr. Bob Delaney: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a very prominent member of our western Mississauga community, Mississauga’s Citizen of the Year. Please join me in welcoming Linden King.

Tragedy in Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: A point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yesterday, there was a terrible tragedy in the Madawaska Valley, and my heart goes out to the families and friends of the three victims. I believe, Speaker, that you will find we have unanimous consent that we rise and observe a moment of silence to honour the lives of the three women killed yesterday in that area.

Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence in honour of and tribute to the three women murdered. Do we agree? Agreed.

Please all rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Appointment of temporary Ombudsman

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On September 17, 2015, the member for Timmins–James Bay, Monsieur Bisson, rose on a question of privilege with respect to the government’s appointment of a temporary Ombudsman by order in council without first securing a House address requesting the appointment. The member contended that this amounted to a contempt of the House. The government House leader, Mr. Naqvi, also spoke to the matter and provided my office with a written submission that responded to the notice that the member for Timmins–James Bay had filed with my office on the previous day.

Having reviewed Hansard, both members’ written submissions, and our precedents and procedural authorities, I am now ready to rule.

By way of background on last week’s developments, let me remind members that on May 31 of this year, the then incumbent Ombudsman’s second full-term appointment had expired. As of June 1, he was serving as Ombudsman during an extension requested by the House that expired on September 14, 2015. When September 14 arrived, the Ombudsman’s incumbency ended. The government responded to this by securing the passage of an order in council appointing a temporary Ombudsman, effective on September 15. This appointment was not preceded by a House address requesting the appointment.

The member for Timmins–James Bay contends that an address should have preceded passage of that order in council and that, especially because the House was actually sitting on September 14, 2015, declining to present it with a substantive motion to debate and adopt was an intentional exercise in circumventing the role of the assembly. The government House leader contends that the government was simply adhering to

section 7 of the Ombudsman Act, which does not require an address.

Like today, this process was previously contested on one other occasion. On the cusp of the expiry of André Marin’s first term as Ombudsman in 2010, the government, by order in council, appointed Mr. Marin as temporary Ombudsman for a six-month term, citing

section 7 of the Ombudsman Act. This appointment was made without a preceding address of the House, though the House was then meeting. The then House leader of the third party, Mr. Peter Kormos, raised an objection in the House about how this circumvented the role of the assembly, using this objection as oral notice of his intent to pursue the matter in the future. In the event, this did not occur and the matter was never revisited.

The member for Timmins–James Bay asserts that there is a parliamentary practice or tradition that a House address should precede the actual appointment of a parliamentary officer. In reviewing the history of the office of the Ombudsman, I have learned that a temporary Ombudsman has been appointed, or the temporary Ombudsman’s appointment has been extended, on 15 occasions since the creation of that office in the 1970s. In some instances, the House was in session but not meeting at the time; in others, the House was meeting; and in others, the House was prorogued.

Regardless of the status of the House, though, in each of the 15 cases except one, the temporary Ombudsman was appointed by order in council and without the House having previously adopted an address requesting the appointment.

With respect to the one exception that I noted, this occurred on May 28 of this year, when the House passed an address requesting the extension of the appointment of the then incumbent Ombudsman up to September 14, 2015. This address preceded by five days the order in council that effected the extension, but the reason why this interim appointment was dealt with in this way is completely unknown to me.

It is not for the Speaker to judge the validity or legality of an order in council, or to attempt to interpret the Ombudsman Act, or to examine the validly made decisions of the House, but I can find that the process used in the current case is entirely consistent with the process used on numerous occasions and continuously since 1978.

I thank the member from Timmins–James Bay for raising this matter, but I cannot find that he has established a prima facie case of contempt.

I also thank the government House leader for speaking to this matter and for his written submissions.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Mr. Patrick Brown: A question to the Premier: A Liberal Premier once stood in this House and asked about the compensation paid to the Hydro One CEO. That Premier said, “Why is it that with all your Bay Street savvy and financial acumen,” in Ontario, we were paying more than Quebec for our CEO?

With cheaper rates than Ontario, the boss of Hydro-Québec must be doing a great job.

I would like to pose a similar question to this Liberal Premier. Mr. Speaker, with all the savviness and financial acumen in Ontario, why are we expected to pay almost 10 times the salary that Quebec does for their hydro CEO?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy will want to speak to the details, but I know that the Leader of the Opposition, who has in the past commented on the ability of the private sector to run certain operations better than government, understands that the private sector often does a better job.

What we have done is we have made a decision to broaden the ownership of Hydro One. We’ve decided to do that in a way that is prudent because we know that we need to make investments in infrastructure.

Underlying this question is an assumption, I can only assume, by the Leader of the Opposition that we don’t need to invest in infrastructure, that he doesn’t think it’s necessary to build the roads and bridges in communities like the one we were in yesterday for the plowing match, and he doesn’t think that we should invest in transit. I disagree with him on that, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The Premier is going to give the private sector a bad name if she thinks it’s responsible to pay 10 times the price of the Hydro-Québec CEO.

Let me say that the top five executives at Hydro One will make $24 million when you tally all the perks, with $4 million alone for the new CEO. After this year, the people of Ontario will never know how much higher that salary will grow year after year.

The Premier says that Ontario will continue to have control of Hydro One after the fire sale. Mr. Speaker, my question is very direct. Will the Premier disclose, year after year, the salaries of the Hydro One execs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should know that the salaries of the CEO will be disclosed. They are regulated under the Ontario Securities Commission. He knows that perfectly well—or he should know.

I just want to quote from an

article that was in the Globe and Mail yesterday, because it’s very important that we put this process in context.

“Premier Kathleen Wynne was re-elected last fall with a mandate to reinvest in the province, particularly through transit and infrastructure projects that are expected to fuel growth.... Much respect to the Premier for embracing such a difficult choice....

“The Liberals—advised by Mr. Clark, Alan Hibben and Torys LLP—are executing this beautifully. They’ve persuaded Bay Street to accept some of the lowest IPO underwriting fees imaginable,” and addressed the biggest problems that made the privatization of Highway 407—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The salary is disclosed, not the total compensation.

Everywhere I go across Ontario, from Kitchener to Cornwall, families and seniors tell me they are concerned about how to pay their hydro bills. They know it’s going to get worse. It’s expected to rise 42%. They are forced to choose between heating and eating. In the face of this hardship, this Premier is giving the new Hydro One CEO a $4-million salary.

So my question is this: Is it fair to ask this of Ontario families struggling to pay their hydro bills, and then at the same time hand out multi-million-dollar contracts for execs at Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition should know, but he may not, that Hydro One doesn’t set hydro rates. He would know that the Ontario Energy Board sets hydro rates.

But I want to go back to the—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said in my first answer, Mr. Speaker, the assumption under these questions from the opposition is that it is not necessary in Ontario to develop the roads and the bridges and the transit that we know we need for our economic well-being. The assumption is, as they did when they were in government, that can be put off for another generation. We can just fall into a deficit of infrastructure investment in this province, in the same way that they allowed that to happen between 1995 and 2003.

We’re not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. We’re not taking their example.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. It’s one thing to make a bad decision; it’s another thing to never allow anyone to fix that mistake. Last week, a clause in the Hydro One prospectus revealed that once Hydro One is sold, the government will never again be allowed to own more than 45%. The people of Ontario will never again have control of Hydro One.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier remove that clause from the updated prospectus?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, the Leader of the Opposition would know, if he had read the IPO, that the people of Ontario will retain de facto control of Hydro One. The fact is that he would know, if he read the IPO, that the compensation policy is public. It’s on page 134 of the preliminary prospectus. He would have that information.

We’ve made a difficult decision, Mr. Speaker. We’ve made a difficult decision because we know that investing in infrastructure in this province is critical to our future. It’s critical to our competitiveness. It’s critical to our productivity. We are going to make those investments. We are going to broaden the ownership of Hydro One, and we’re doing it in a prudent and cautious way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Premier. The Premier recently said she still calls Dalton McGuinty the boss when answering his emails. Well, the boss said, “Selling off [Hydro One] is a bad idea.... It’s a quick fix, and it’s a bad one.” I wonder, in Mr. McGuinty’s future emails, if he’ll continue to tell her it’s a bad deal.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier explain why she’s ignoring her boss’s suggestions and stopping future governments of any stripe from fixing her mistakes?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to the process, because I was reading a commentary on it and I didn’t get to complete it, and I’d just like to go back to that. This is a quote from yesterday’s Globe and Mail: “The Liberals—advised by Mr. Clark, Alan Hibben and Torys LLP—are executing this beautifully. They’ve persuaded Bay Street to accept some of the lowest IPO underwriting fees imaginable ... and they’ve addressed the biggest problems that made the privatization of the 407 toll highway such a boondoggle.”

This is a well-run process. That’s the commentary that we’re getting from people who actually pay attention to business and understand what this is about.

We’re going to invest in infrastructure. It’s important for the future of this province. It’s important to the quality of life of people across this province, Mr. Speaker, and that’s why we’re going to make those investments.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: At the International Plowing Match, I heard from hundreds of farmers who are opposed to the sale of Hydro One. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture noted that the fire sale will cost rural Ontario between $5 billion and $10 billion in inflated energy rates.

The Premier isn’t in it for rural Ontario. She’s not in it for farmers. My question is, why does the Premier show up for a photo op at the International Plowing Match but at the same time ignore their pleas and concerns over the fire sale of Hydro One and how it’s going to hurt farmers and how it’s going to hurt rural Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It was a great privilege for all of us to be at the International Plowing Match yesterday. It was one of those moments when really non-partisan support of a sector was very, very important because the people who were sitting in those stands, who were listening to the speeches—what they’re concerned about is their family’s farm. They’re concerned about their food processing businesses. They’re concerned about their communities; they want their communities to be strong.

What they know is that they need broadband, they need natural gas extensions, they need hookups so their businesses can thrive, they can hire more people and those farms can be sustainable or those greenhouses can be sustainable. That’s the future of farming. Those are the investments we’re making. That’s part of the infrastructure that needs investment in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I might have to stay on the same path.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The government released the Hydro One prospectus and it confirms what Ontarians have been so worried about.

The Premier is saying one thing to investors and the opposite to Ontarians. The Premier has told Ontarians that the government will maintain de facto control. In fact, she just said it a few minutes ago. The prospectus confirms in black and white that “the province will engage in the business and affairs of Hydro One as an investor and not as a manager.”

So why is this Premier handing control of Hydro One to wealthy investors and a small group of her friends instead of taking care and protecting the interests of Ontarians, the people who actually own Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the ability to remove the board, the ability to remove the CEO, the necessity of a board that has 40% ownership by the people of Ontario, to have two thirds of that board agree to major decisions—I think that’s a fairly high degree of control. Those are the protections that we have put in place. Those are the protections that were not in place when the 407 was sold off in a fire sale.

We’ve learned the lessons from the past. We’ve learned the lessons from what the Conservative government did, but we’ve also learned other lessons, and those lessons are that you can’t spend a generation not investing in infrastructure and still expect to be competitive on the global scene. You just can’t do that. That’s what was done by governments before us.

We’re not going to do that. We’re going to invest in roads and bridges and broadband and gas hookups. That’s the—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Hydro One prospectus announces a “new approach to executive compensation.” This new approach, it seems, is to give Hydro One executives a big fat raise. The former CEO of Hydro One will continue to collect half a million dollars just to stay on as an adviser and the new CEO stands to make up to $4 million per year. That’s a fivefold raise. The new CFO of Hydro One stands to make about $1.5 million a year.

While Ontarians are struggling to pay their bills, why is this Premier handing away millions upon millions of dollars to fatten Hydro One executives’ paycheques?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party knows that Hydro One will be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act and the Ontario Energy Board. She knows those regulations will remain in place.

She also knows that Hydro One can be a better-run company. If we want Hydro One to be a strong and professionally run company, then we need the talent there to do that work. That is part of what we are doing here, working to make Hydro One a better-run company. Some 24% of people in Ontario are served by Hydro One and we want to make sure that they are served in the best way possible.

But underlying this decision is our decision to invest in the people of Ontario, to invest in the infrastructure that is needed across the province for 2015 and beyond. We are leveraging this asset so we can invest in future infrastructure.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In addition to the Premier’s new approach to handing out huge salaries, the members of the Hydro One board will also be lavishly rewarded. Board directors will be paid $160,000 a year and the chair of the board will be paid $260,000 a year. This is over 20 times more than what the directors are paid at publicly owned Manitoba Hydro—and in Manitoba, customers pay less than half of what Ontario customers are paying.

This Premier needs to get her priorities straight and pay attention to the hard-working people of this province. Why is the Premier asking the families and businesses of Ontario to pay for lavish salaries of the Hydro One board executives?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The compensation is in line with similar privately held energy companies throughout Canada. It’s not out of line with other energy companies. I think the leader of the third party knows that.

The leader of the third party makes a reference to Manitoba. I recall that it was the NDP that actually was in negotiation with Manitoba and cancelled the deal to take advantage of some of that cheap hydro power.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the leader of the third party that we are in conversation with Quebec and with Manitoba because we think that, given their geography and given their capacity, we can find ways to come up with agreements. We’ve already done that with Quebec so that we can find the best price for the cheapest power—the best and most reliable power—for the people of Ontario. We’re going to continue to do that, but we’re also going to invest in—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. When the Premier first formed Ed Clark’s panel, she promised that any decision would be “transparent, professional and independently validated.” That is exactly what we need, Speaker, and that’s exactly what this Premier has refused to do.

The Ontario Energy Board has a mandate under the law to protect the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability and quality of electricity service. It’s hard to imagine anything that would have a greater impact on electricity service than the sell-off of Hydro One.

Will this Premier break her promise that she made to Ontarians, that this process will be transparent, professional and independently validated, or will she order an open and transparent review by the OEB?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just follow the thread here. The leader of the third party has said that she is concerned about electricity rates. We have said, as she knows, that the Ontario Energy Board sets electricity rates in Ontario. They have done so and they will continue to. So that’s the first part of the puzzle. Now the leader of the third party is saying that she wants the Ontario Energy Board—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: She wants the Ontario Energy Board to review the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that she has recognized that the Ontario Energy Board is an independent, public, non-partisan body. They will continue to be that, and they are the protection on energy rates.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this Premier is plowing ahead with the Hydro One sell-off with no public consultation, with no independent analysis and with no mandate from the people of this province.

The government has the authority to require that the OEB examine any question on energy, and the OEB can deliver exactly what this Premier has refused to do. They can deliver the kind of broad and transparent public hearings that the people of this province deserve.

It’s time to stop the secrecy of this sell-off, Speaker, open the doors on the Liberals’ backrooms and bring some transparency, some public accountability and scrutiny to this sell-off. The Premier promised that Ontarians would have a “transparent, professional and independently validated” process. The question is: Will she keep her promise and order the open and transparent review by the OEB?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member is acknowledging in her motion—she’s recognizing that the Ontario Energy Board is an independent, public, non-partisan body, and they will continue to set rates. She’s acknowledging that they are what they are, which is non-partisan and independent. So the fact is that if her concern is about energy rates, as she has said loudly across province—that’s her concern—then she should understand that the Ontario Energy Board, which sets those rates and which is non-partisan and independent—that is the protection for the people of Ontario. That’s what we’ve been saying all along and that’s what we will continue to—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, second time.

You have a one sentence wrap-up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve made my point.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier promised to actually listen to Ontarians. Well, Ontarians are sending her a very, very clear message on the sell-off of Hydro One. From the government’s own polling, we know that three out of four Ontarians want to keep Hydro One in public hands. What is most appalling is that this Premier is plowing ahead with this sale, with no public consultation, no independent analysis and no mandate from the people of Ontario, and I know that the Liberal members in the backbenches are hearing it every day from their constituents. Ontarians want the Premier to live up to her promise for an open and transparent process.

Will this Premier allow a free vote from the Liberal members on our opposition day motion this afternoon to direct the OEB to hold public hearings so that these members can actually stand up with their constituents in opposition to the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We ran on a platform last year to look at the assets of this province as part of a broader process, and that process was: How are we going to invest in the infrastructure that is needed in this province?

We ran on a platform to make—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —an historical investment in infrastructure in this province. It’s not easy for a government to make that decision. It’s not easy to make the choices, and I know that we are making a very difficult choice. The leader of the third party doesn’t need to tell me that this is a difficult choice, because we’ve had the discussions within our caucus. I know that it’s a challenge. I know that it’s a challenge, but the greater challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to make decisions now that are going to handicap us in the future, that are going to not allow us to grow as an economy in the future, to be competitive and to be productive.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Premier. Today the Premier received a letter from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce with many questions about the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. That letter was signed by a coalition of 43 local chambers of commerce, 93 employers and 13 business associations. The chamber’s latest survey shows that 44% of businesses will cut jobs or freeze hiring because of the ORPP.

The chamber, the employers and their business associations want to know how the ORPP will impact Ontario’s economy—to date, you have provided no such data. Will the Premier explain why she is ignoring the call from Ontario’s job creators for economic data to support the ORPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for her question. I have met with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and its members extensively in the past year. In fact, the president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce is one of the first individuals that I sat down with when the Premier asked me to take on this file.

I note that in the letter that was sent by the OCC they have said, “The Ontario Chamber of Commerce ... continues to support the government’s policy objective—to ensure that all Ontarians are adequately prepared for their retirement.”

The OCC gets that when people retire, they need to have a predictable stream of income so that they can continue to spend into the retirement years that are ahead of them. That’s important for business, that’s important for our communities, and I really wish the opposition would—

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: We can’t wait until the end of the year. Where is the economic analysis of the Premier’s pension now? We’ve had enough of feel-good emotional arguments and meetings around the province. We need data. We need to know how many people will lose their jobs. We need to know how many more companies will shut their doors. We need to know how many companies will not come to Ontario.

The leaked cabinet document that we have states that Ontario could lose 40,000 jobs. That’s a staggering number of people losing their jobs at the whim of the Premier.

Will the Premier stop stalling and admit that her new pension plan will cost thousands of jobs, harm the gross domestic product and scare away investment?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows better.

In fact, it was your amendment that we accepted—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Please continue.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, it was the PCs’ proposed amendment that we accepted at committee that committed the government to provide a cost-benefit analysis by the end of the year. That was your amendment. We accepted that and included that in the final legislation.

We are listening to business. In fact, we recently have announced that the government intends to ensure that we expand the definition of “comparable plan,” which would be of assistance to many capital accumulation plans. We are listening to business. They need to plan, and they need to prepare for the introduction of the ORPP. We’ve ensured that we’ve responded to them and their concerns.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this morning, the Premier dragged the media away from this House so that she could stand beside Ed Clark and talk about beer. But last Friday, when Ed Clark released a prospectus showing that our hydro bills would soon be padded with fat raises for Hydro One executives and board directors, the Premier was nowhere to be found.

I can understand why. Beer has been a great distraction from the Hydro One sell-off.

Will the Premier stop trying to use beer to distract us and instead explain to Ontarians why their hydro bills are going up in order to pad the pockets of Bay Street executives and investors?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The critic for energy—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The critic for energy from the third party has been around here for a long time. He knows what the Ontario Energy Board does, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, it’s included here in a letter that the leader of the third party sent to the Premier, basically saying that the Ontario Energy Board is legislated to protect the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability and quality of electricity service.

They will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —and they have shown over and over again that when OPG or Hydro One comes with a request for an increase, and if their salaries are too high, executive pensions are too high, they roll them back, and they don’t give them the increase that they are asking for. It is a credible, objective measure protecting the public.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, that was a classic non-answer.

Speaker, back to the Premier. Only this Premier would use her support for a privately run beer monopoly as a way to distract from her support for a privately run hydro monopoly. She has also used beer to distract from her OPP investigations, and today she used beer to distract from the Auditor General’s report on CCACs. But Ontarians refuse to be distracted. They’re deeply concerned about the Hydro One fire sale, and nearly 80% of Ontarians expect their bills to go up.

A majority of Ontarians strongly oppose the Hydro One sell-off. Will the Premier stop trying to distract Ontarians with beer and instead listen to them and stop this reckless and short-sighted sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member of that party and the leader of that party forget that they lost the last election. In the last election, we campaigned on repositioning assets, whether that’s the Beer Store or the LCBO, and it specifically mentioned the agencies that are dealing in the energy business. So we talked about it in the election campaign; we brought it forward; we debated it in the budget. We’re fulfilling the mandate that we sought from the public of Ontario. We’re fulfilling the mandate that this House approved, having the majority of votes here. It’s the right thing to do. It’s the responsible thing to do. I would refer the third party to the Globe and Mail

article of yesterday, which puts this thing in perspective.

First responders

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Over the summer, I heard several media reports about the impacts of post-traumatic stress disorder. This is an issue that I have been following closely and, like many in this House, I believe that more must be done. We need to ensure that the first responders in my riding and throughout Ontario—the brave firefighters, hard-working paramedics, dedicated police officers and numerous others who risk their lives to keep our communities and our families safe—are given all the protections and support that they need.

I know that the minister hosted a summit earlier this year to bring together front-line workers and experts in this area, and I’m hopeful that this was a first step in the right direction for positive change with respect to PTSD. Can the minister provide us with an update on what he’s doing to help front-line workers and those living with PTSD?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that very important question. We all know that post-traumatic stress disorder is a very serious condition. All members of this House will know how it disproportionately affects those front-line workers who serve us so well. In turn, I think all members of this House would also agree that we need to ensure that they have the protection and the resources that they need at the time they need it most.

That’s why, as the member previously mentioned, we did host a summit on work-related traumatic mental stress earlier this year. The goal was to generate open and frank discussions and solutions on issues surrounding PTSD, and, Speaker, it worked. We’re keeping this important exchange of ideas and best practices going. We’re now working to take those ideas to the solution stage to change how we approach workplace traumatic mental stress through both prevention and treatment, and how the WSIB handles it. We’re pushing forward on this issue; I’m hoping all members will support that push.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I thank the minister for that answer. I am pleased to hear that he is taking action on this file. We all must work together in this area. We owe it to the front-line workers in each of our communities. We must progress the conversation on PTSD so that it leads to continued change for Ontarians.

It is essential that the minister continues to take this issue seriously and that he looks to even more that can be done. Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the minister explaining what his next steps are in addressing PTSD.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks again to the member. There are people in Ontario speaking out who are asking very, very important questions about work-related traumatic mental stress. I want to particularly thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for championing this issue, for making sure that she has kept it on the minds of the people who represent Ontarians in this House, because I want Ontario to be a leader in not just responding, but in the prevention, the resiliency, the training and the supports that are needed for first responders, and in how we might improve things—for example, how we deal with them at the WSIB.

We’ve looked at best practices around the country. We’ve looked at what Alberta and British Columbia have done. We want an Ontario-grown solution. We want to be a leader in this regard. This is something we need to get right. We need to get it right the first time. I’m convinced we’re ready to move on it.

Taxation

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is to the Premier. The government recently made significant changes to the estate administration tax, including the threat of harsh fines and jail time for estate trustees. Ontario families deserve compassion when dealing with the death of a loved one, but it’s clear that when the Liberal government made these changes, their priority was the bottom line and getting their cut of the estate as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier honestly believe that it is the reasonable approach to generate $143 million of government revenue on the backs of dead people and their grieving families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do understand that the member has introduced a bill that looks to amend the estate administration tax. This is very interesting, because it was in fact implemented in 1998 by the very party that he represents today. Let’s be very, very clear: The government has not introduced a new tax on estates. The government has not changed the amount of estate administration tax. It has not changed the way the tax is calculated, Speaker.

Let’s be very clear: What the member is doing is he’s looking to reduce the taxes paid by the most wealthy people in this province. So let’s be clear about what this is. He wants to cut taxes for the most wealthy, which results in cutting services to everyone else.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: Not only is this a tax imposed on grieving families, it’s a tax levied on the charitable bequests and donations of the deceased. So if someone leaves a portion of their estate to a local charity after they’re gone, this government collects tax on the amount of that donation. The federal government has been introducing incentives to encourage giving to charity while this Liberal government is profiting from charitable donations.

My question to the Premier is this: Why does she find it necessary to nickel and dime grieving families and charities?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, again, let’s be very clear. We are not looking at increasing the amounts. We are not looking at a new tax. The member opposite wants to cut taxes on those who have the most.

On this side of the House, our focus is on making sure that those who need the most benefit the most. On that side of the House, they want to benefit those who have the most.

Home care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. My question is not about beer this morning. It is about the Auditor General.

The public accounts committee, a committee of this Legislature, asked the Auditor General to conduct an audit of our 14 community care access centres who administer home care for this province. The reason we had asked the Auditor General to do this was because we had a hard time finding out how much of the $2.4 billion spent with CCACs actually reaches the bedside, actually reaches the patient. The Auditor General delivered, and she told us that 38% of the money spent—that’s $912 million of the money spent—never reaches the patients. Did you know this? Do you agree with this?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I notice the Auditor General hasn’t yet released her report formally. She has shared it in confidence with the committee, but I look forward to her actually holding a press conference at 12 o’clock to formally release the details of her report and her recommendations.

I’ve had the opportunity in the last couple of days to speak with the Auditor General about the force of the recommendations in that report, and I’ll have an opportunity to respond. After she speaks to it publicly at noon, I’ll have an opportunity to meet with the media shortly after.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: You released the report, Speaker, and hopefully somebody can bring a copy to the minister.

This $912 million that does not reach—there are moneys that reach the patient side, but the Auditor General will make it clear that of the money that reaches the patient side, no analysis was ever done to see if the money was spent with results. The Auditor General made it clear that there are no standards that have been applied to this money to make sure we guarantee access, that we guarantee quality of care or care levels.

None of the work that is the responsibility of the government has been done, yet we see private contractor CEOs making over $1 million a year while PSWs take home about $20,000 a year.

Our home care system is broken, Premier. It is broken and it needs to be fixed. It needs you to take it seriously so that the people who depend on home care can actually get it. When will the minister take his responsibility seriously?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I was in the Legislature at 10:30. We weren’t aware that the Auditor General was going to be releasing it at that time. The report is now available online, as the member opposite mentioned.

We are doing what the member opposite is asking us to do. In fact, we were the party that increased, over the next three years, a $750-million investment in our home and community care. I released, on behalf of the government, earlier this year a 10-point plan—a Patients First road map as well—to make, I would say, highly significant reforms in our home and community care sector to make sure that we’re continuing to make patient care, the quality of care that is provided by our health care professionals across this province, of the highest standard possible.

I’ll have the opportunity to speak in detail with regard to the Auditor General’s report. I want to give her the opportunity to address formally the media and the general public at noon. I’ll be following shortly after.

International Plowing Match

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, it was a beautiful day yesterday in Finch, Ontario, host of this year’s International Plowing Match, where our caucus had a great opportunity to be part of the festivities.

In 2014, I was fortunate to be in Ivy, Ontario, not far from Barrie, when the International Plowing Match took place, and in 2012, when my region of Waterloo proudly hosted this event not far from my rural home. In my community of Cambridge and North Dumfries township, many of my neighbours are farmers. In fact, my next-door neighbour raises cattle and grows corn and soybeans.

The International Plowing Match is truly a celebration of all things agriculture. I know what a great event this is and how it showcases Ontario agriculture. Speaker, could the minister please inform the House about the history of the International Plowing Match and its impact on rural communities?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Cambridge for that excellent question this morning. It’s correct: All members of the House yesterday enjoyed a wonderful day in Finch, Ontario, in the riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. I want to thank the current member for that riding and I want to thank the former member for that riding, who was the chair. I also want to acknowledge the work yesterday by good friends opposite from Haldimand–Norfolk and Timiskaming–Cochrane, who had the opportunity to visit with many agricultural representatives there.

The International Plowing Match, of course, has a very distinguished, 102-year history. It’s run by a large, extensive network of volunteers, and I want to take this opportunity to thank every one of those volunteers, who did a superb job at the International Plowing Match yesterday.

The International Plowing Match generates $15 million in economic activity—

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: —and we were expecting 75,000 people to visit Finch, Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I stand, you sit.

Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you, Minister. The agricultural community is at the forefront of innovation, and continues to grow and expand. I had the chance to speak to a number of vendors and learn from them about a wide variety of equipment that’s available to farmers today.

Farmers are woven into the fabric of rural Ontario, and this event is an opportunity for members from all regions of the province to visit vibrant rural communities in Ontario. Our government knows how important rural communities are to this province, and it’s why we’re making investments like the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund or the Eastern and Southwestern Ontario Development Funds. These investments are helping to create jobs and grow local economies.

Speaker, can the minister expand on the importance of the International Plowing Match to Ontario’s agriculture community and to the fabric of rural Ontario?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for the supplementary question. You are right: The IPM is helping small towns and rural communities like Finch showcase their community. It’s an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the Premier’s challenge: 120,000 new jobs in this sector by the year 2020. We shine a spotlight on small towns and communities. I remember Mr. Davis used to say, when he was Premier of Ontario, that Ontario is still a province of small towns with big dreams. That is part of the theme at this year’s IPM: the link to the past, looking to the future.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House—and I hope my geography is correct this morning—will be at Harriston next year; I believe it’s in the riding of Perth–Wellington. I think I got the geography correct.

Air-rail link

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, to the Premier: Three months after this Premier launched the UP Express luxury ride to Pearson, ridership is going anywhere but up. After spending taxpayers’ millions on unnecessary boutique terminal facades and retro uniforms, the Premier and her transportation minister have opted for fare pricing out of reach for most to pay for their luxury access. The problem is, it’s hard to make up for that access when you’ve turned off your customers with high prices, leading to trains at 10% ridership capacity and less than half of what the government is projecting.

The luxury access has been bought and paid for. The train has left the station on that. Will the Premier now clean up her minister’s mess and lower fares so passengers can afford the ride on what’s becoming a white elephant on rails?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member opposite for that question. Obviously, he is correct in that he says that the UP Express service launched back on June 6. The goal that Metrolinx and our government had was that by the end of year 1, ridership would be at around the 5,000 mark. I know that the team at Metrolinx and the team at UP Express are working very hard on a very ambitious plan to go forward to encourage more take-up or usage of this particular service.

Of course, this is the first time that we’ve had a dedicated air-rail link here in this region from Pearson to Union. It’s also important to recognize these are trains that run in 15-minute intervals for 19 and a half hours a day. The trip itself takes approximately 25 minutes, and I will say anecdotally that every single individual I’ve had the chance to speak with in this region, and even some members in this House who have taken this, understand that it’s a wonderful experience.

It’s a great way to get to the airport. We’ll continue to work on this file.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Premier: When you’re swimming in debt, you don’t go out and buy a Mercedes. But that’s what they did, even contracting for $4.5 million with a prestigious design firm for just the right extravagant touches.

Riders just want to get from A to B, and yet every shiny new bell and whistle the Premier forced them to pay for drove the price to ride up and actual ridership down. That’s why we have 14 riders on a 173-seat train. Even Metrolinx admits the ridership is well short of their targets.

Both Vancouver and Chicago offer similar airport links for under $10. In Ontario, it’s $27.50. Will the Premier put the brakes on unaffordable luxury fares before her retro ride becomes the Pearson ghost express?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I know that the member opposite would want to make sure that the record here in this Legislature clearly reflected the reality of the fare itself. With a Presto card—and I know that as transportation critic for that caucus, he would support fare and service integration across the GTHA—the fare for the entire trip is $19, not the number that he referenced.

As well, it’s important to recognize that in locations around the world, when you’re comparing apples to apples—for example in Norway and in London with the Heathrow Express, and the Narita Express in Tokyo—the fare that’s set in those communities, in those jurisdictions, for their dedicated air-rail links is actually more expensive than that $19 fare I referenced a second ago.

I also have to say that there are members of this Legislature on all three sides of the House who have had the chance to take the UP Express, and they recognized it is a success. It was delivered on time, it was delivered on budget, and again, for the first time between two of our busiest hubs in Ontario—

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

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Here we are, another day and another missed opportunity because the Premier refuses to negotiate with teachers. In fact, it’s the first Wynne Wednesday.

While I know the Liberal government is used to being able to impose contracts on teachers, it’s high time the Premier tells her minister to get back to the table and get a fair deal with public elementary teachers. The longer labour unrest persists, the more responsibility the Premier holds for putting student learning conditions at risk—as if a $500-million cut from education wasn’t bad enough.

Will the Premier commit to getting the Minister of Education back to the table today, yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m actually very pleased to update the House on the progress that we’ve made since I was here to last give you an update. Last Wednesday, we reached a tentative agreement with the francophone teachers. They have suspended their proposed job action while we await ratification.

This deal is notable because it’s the first tentative agreement at a multiple-employer table. It involved both the French public and the French Catholic trustee associations. That bodes well for organizations like CUPE and the OSSTF education workers, which are also multiple-employer tables, so I’m very pleased about that.

Obviously, I’m very happy that we got ratification of our deals with OSSTF and OECTA on Friday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: If the minister was at the bargaining table, she just might get an agreement with ETFO as well.

Back to the Premier: The cookie-cutter our-way-or-the-highway approach to contract negotiations isn’t working. Teachers’ working conditions and student learning conditions must be protected. Our schools are in chaos due to more than a decade of chronic underfunding.

My question is simple: Is the Premier too busy selling off Hydro One to get back to the table and meaningfully negotiate with teachers?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m not sure I see the connection.

Let’s just review what has happened. We have reached tentative agreements, or actually ratified agreements now, with three out of four of our teacher unions. We have put on the table an agreement which reflects the fiscal parameters that we have settled with the other three teachers’ unions. ETFO said they wanted no change to class size; we did not change the class size in our offer to them. They said no change to prep time; we did not change our prep time in the offer that is on the table.

We have made an offer which is similar to the agreements with the other three, and we await a response from ETFO. What is wrong with the deal that everybody else has agreed to?

Affordable housing

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, this summer your ministry launched a consultation to support a renewed Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy. Every Ontarian deserves to have a stable, affordable home, and I know that addressing the demand for affordable housing is a key priority for the government and your ministry.

The first affordable housing strategy, released in 2010, set a strong foundation for a more efficient, accessible system for affordable housing. But the reality is that much has changed in the past five years.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain to this House why the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy is being updated?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I sure can, and I want to thank the member from Scarborough–Rouge River for his question.

In my ongoing consultation with municipal leaders, the need to build more affordable housing has emerged as one of their pre-eminent concerns. Concerns about affordable housing were raised in more than half of the delegations that I received at this year’s AMO conference, and that’s up from about 10% in previous years, so it’s obviously a growing articulation of a need.

The new Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy—

Interjections.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The party that downloaded social housing without any supports might be interested in this—needs to reflect this growing need for housing in our province and put forward creative and innovative solutions to better respond.

Affordable housing is, in my view, a critical part of social infrastructure, so I continue to be focused on working with municipalities, the private sector, housing advocates and, of course, my caucus colleagues about the need to move forward in this area, because it’s important—

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Our government knows that in order for Ontarians to realize their full potential, they need to be provided with the right supports for success.

As you say, Minister, throughout the summer, you received feedback from our municipal partners, at AMO and through visits to municipal councils. You also sought ideas from the public, from the private sector and from municipalities and other housing partners.

Securing a home that will allow us to live productive, fulfilling lives is a fundamental need that affects all of us and can generate varied responses from those with a range of varied experiences when it comes to talking about how to increase affordable housing options.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the members of this House on the input he has received to date from all these stakeholders?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Speaker, I’d be pleased to do that as well.

We wanted to hear Ontarians’ views on how we can make the province’s range of housing work better for them and their families. We want to provide municipalities with the right tools to locally respond to the housing needs of their most vulnerable members. We also want to incent