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

May 1, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-May-01 (PDF)

L034 - Wed 1 May 2013 / Mer 1er mai 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 1 May 2013 Mercredi 1 er mai 2013

WEARING OF UNIFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

PUBLIC GALLERY

MEMBER FOR ALGOMA–MANITOULIN

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

TAXATION

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

DOCTORS

POWER PLANTS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

CONSUMER PROTECTION

POWER PLANTS

ELGIN-MIDDLESEX

DETENTION CENTRE

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

POWER PLANTS

FERRY SERVICE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DAIRY FARMERS OF ONTARIO

CLIMATE CHANGE

DOCTORS’ DAY

BLACKBERRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

JEWISH HERITAGE MONTH

ALGONQUIN REGIMENT

SENIORS’ CLUBS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MARSH & CO. HOSPITALITY

REALTY INC. ACT, 2013

DEFENDING EMPLOYEES’

RIGHTS ACT (CERTIFICATION

OF TRADE UNIONS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA DÉFENSE

DES DROITS DES EMPLOYÉS

(ACCRÉDITATION DES SYNDICATS)

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT (ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(COMMISSION DES RELATIONS

DE TRAVAIL DE L’ONTARIO)

DEFENDING EMPLOYEES’ RIGHTS ACT

(COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

BY TRADE UNIONS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA DÉFENSE

DES DROITS DES EMPLOYÉS

(NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

ET DIVULGATION

DES RENSEIGNEMENTS FINANCIERS

PAR LES SYNDICATS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

AND FOOD /

MINISTÈRE DE L’AGRICULTURE

ET DE L’ALIMENTATION

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH /

MOIS DE LA PRÉVENTION

DE L’AGRESSION SEXUELLE

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

AND FOOD

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

AND FOOD /

MINISTÈRE DE L’AGRICULTURE

ET DE L’ALIMENTATION

PETITIONS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

MINING INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CASINOS

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

TIRE DISPOSAL

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ALGONQUIN MEMORIAL BEACH

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

WEARING OF UNIFORM

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I rise to seek unanimous consent to allow me to wear my Algonquin Regiment dress uniform for a one-hour period this afternoon for a member’s statement and a petition.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing has asked for unanimous consent to wear his uniform during members’ statements and petitions. Do we agree? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 25, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

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

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

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I rise to speak to Bill 14, the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act. I want to again acknowledge all the members of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada who are, indeed, here today. We did have a chance to speak beforehand, as we have on other occasions, and I am pleased to speak to their bill. We did have occasion to go to Burlington with the member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Burlington and visit with Harvey and the gang—I hope you don’t mind my casual nature, Harvey—and saw the important work that is being done by the Co-operative Housing Federation.

A little later in my speech, I’ll be talking about the housing co-op in North Bay, specifically, in my riding of Nipissing.

This legislation would amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and the Co-operative Corporations Act to move most co-op tenure dispute cases from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board. It also aims to streamline the internal dispute resolution process in non-profit co-ops, to clarify that hearings before the LTB—the Landlord and Tenant Board—and courts will be determined based on the merits of the case.

It should be noted that our party and our caucus supported this bill when it was introduced last year by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, now the Premier. However, it fell victim to Dalton McGuinty’s prorogation, and it should, quite frankly, already have become law. The delay created by the Liberals’ own doing has potentially cost co-op members hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary court costs, as the rules the bill was intended to fix still remain in place.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Contrary to the Premier’s stated desire to work with the opposition, this new bill contains an unnecessary amendment that will open the floodgates to nuisance applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board, causing turmoil in a system that is already horrendously backlogged. This amendment will harm both landlords and tenants, as it will further hamper the LTB’s ability to hear cases in a timely manner.

Let me first discuss how this bill would move tenure disputes from the court system to the Landlord and Tenant Board, where all other housing disputes are actually settled. While not without its own problems, clearly the LTB is the appropriate venue for housing disputes. These disputes include rent arrears, late payment of rent, willful damage, and illegal activity by tenants or interfering with other tenants’ enjoyment of their property.

The ministry estimated the cost of resolving these co-op disputes in the courts at $3,000 to $5,000 each, and pegged the annual legal cost to co-op members of the approximately 300 cases heard in the courts every year at about $1 million.

Some disputes not provided for under the Residential Tenancies Act would still be resolved between residents and co-ops through the courts, including violation of no-pet provisions or failure of a co-op member to perform duties such as clearing snow or cutting the lawn. The act would affect 125,000 Ontarians who live in the province’s 550 non-profit housing co-ops.

The new bill also contains an amendment to allow the Landlord and Tenant Board to waive the $45 fee for low-income tenants. In a briefing, ministry staff could not say who would qualify as a low-income tenant, as this would be a determination made by the Landlord and Tenant Board on a case-by-case basis as now happens in the provincial courts.

Obviously, Speaker, it’s disturbing that a one-sided amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Board would be considered without widespread consultation. Landlords are certain to cry foul, and justifiably so. From their perspective, this will open the door for every minor dispute disgruntled tenants may have to the LTB. The dispute resolution system could very quickly become overwhelmed, which serves no one’s interests.

These hearings would only cause further delays in the already backlogged LTB system. Speaker, this is bad news for landlords and tenants who have legitimate cases before the board that they need resolved in a timely manner. Further, the fee is a cost recovery for the board’s operation, which means that Ontario taxpayers, or higher fees for landlords, will be called on to subsidize revenue shortfalls.

Speaker, I’d like to take a few moments now to discuss the rental housing situation in my riding of Nipissing, and how Bill 14 could potentially impact landlords and tenants in the communities I represent. For years, Nipissing—specifically the city of North Bay—had no housing constructed. When I ran for mayor back in 2003, the summer before there were only seven houses built. During the heyday in my term we had 107 houses built.

During those years of seven houses a summer being built, we found ourselves with a tremendous shortage of housing, not only single-family housing but all types of housing. From there, we found in our social service board studies that we had a need for 1,000 affordable housing units. That was an alarming statistic, a very scary number to be told as a sitting mayor.

One of the problems is the fact that we had no rental housing—virtually none. It was less than 1%, as it still is today. Because the economy turned around back in the early 2000s in the city of North Bay, that housing, those few houses that were built, was taken up quickly. Housing prices soared. Very, very few rental units ever came available, because the prices were rising, and we had less than 1%—it was a fraction of 1%—of rental housing available on the market and very, very little turnover.

One solution we saw was our co-op housing. I want to speak to the good work of Mr. David Lee, the director of the co-op housing organization in North Bay. Back when I decided to run as an MPP, I campaigned. I was invited to and was the only candidate to show up at the co-op housing forum. My wife, Patty, and I spent the better part of the day with them. We had a lovely time learning about the co-op housing work that is done. I found it to be very enlightening.

I as mayor had an understanding of our co-op housing situation in Nipissing, but this put it on a personal level, to sit and barbecue with the families, to play ring toss and the balloon games we had with the kids, and to understand the pride they took in their housing. To go with the member from Burlington and the member from Leeds–Grenville into Burlington, to the housing co-op, and talk one on one and share lunch, a beautiful luncheon, with the members of the co-op housing organization there was a real experience.

I encourage all members of the Legislature to get out of the Legislature and into the co-op housing throughout Ontario and learn for themselves the importance of this housing.

In closing, this bill merits support on second reading, because province-wide hearings are needed on the amendments contained this bill. I expect landlords and tenants will have plenty to say surrounding Bill 14’s recommendations surrounding the LTB. At the end of the day, we want a system that is fair and works for all involved. Thank you, Speaker.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: We New Democrats want to see this go to committee quickly. We would like to see the debate ended. All that should have been said has been said. Quite frankly, right now our friends to the right of us, the Progressive Conservatives, threaten this bill from even getting through the session, because if we don’t pass it quickly it might get stalled by the whole budget process, and who knows what happens after that? We really need to move on this. That’s why we’re not going to take our whole time in the New Democratic Party. We want to see it go to committee today.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I want to recognize some of the people that are in the gallery this morning from the Ontario region of the Co-op Housing Federation of Canada: Harvey Cooper, manager of government relations; Diane Miles, manager of co-op services; Judy Shaw, program manager of co-op services; Simone Swail, program manager, special initiatives; Keith Moyer, program manager of communications. They have been here relentlessly. They want to see this bill passed. It will help a lot of people, a lot of vulnerable people. We’ve debated this bill for 13½ hours. Let’s send it to committee today.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I really want to pay some respect to the member from Nipissing for his thoughtful and sincere remarks with respect to the importance of social housing in Ontario. In a climate of a housing shortage—at least affordable housing—it’s an important component of that supply mix.

Both the NDP and the Liberal Party are making the point that they want to rush this to committee. I should say that the reason it’s stalled here, I think the members from the co-op community should be aware—this is the third bill that has been debated here. The reason it wasn’t already in committee and out is because of the previous action by Premier McGuinty to prorogue the House, where all the business of the House failed. Now, I know that they know that, but I know the people of Ontario don’t know that.

The reason is that this is a very important and timely bill. I would put this to you: There’s a very good chance that it may not get to the statute level again. This government is disingenuous in many respects to the energy file that we were dealing with yesterday, so I have little confidence that this indeed will get to committee.

The committees themselves are basically dysfunctional now. The ones dealing with Ornge as well as the gas plants are perfect examples of a government that cannot manage its legislative agenda.

The member from Nipissing and we ourselves want to do the right thing and want to put a voice to this legislation. That’s why we’re using our time to make sure that the people of Ontario understand who’s really holding it up. They’re the government. They have the rules, Mr. Speaker, to make the changes, to time-allocate this bill and put it into a committee. If they really want to do that, they could do it. So don’t blame it all on Tim Hudak and the Conservatives for actually speaking to the content of the bill, as the member from Nipissing did. I think it’s an important bill.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I also want to welcome the co-op folks here once again. It’s always great seeing their smiling faces. I know that, once we get this bill to committee, I will miss those faces being around this House. But again, welcome. We hope we can get this through. We know it’s important legislation. There’s no sense in blaming the co-op folks for everything the Liberals are doing. Let’s get it moving.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I want to thank the additional speakers for their thoughts.

When I spoke about the co-op in North Bay and Mr. David Lee, I basically suggested to all members that they get out of the Legislature once in a while and get into the real heart of Ontario. I would highly encourage each and every member to visit a co-op; get a better understanding. Many communities don’t have co-ops. I would suggest to them that they find a riding that does have a co-op and go and visit with them. Go and visit with the families and have a better understanding.

I found, the day when I went with my wife, Patty, that we really learned a lot about the need for co-op housing. I would never have imagined that that was part of the mix. But after seeing it face to face, you have a better understanding of the importance and the role that co-op housing plays in Ontario.

We have, as I mentioned, a wide variety of housing in my particular riding, but a severe shortage of housing, which caused housing prices to spike in the city of North Bay, which then caused housing prices to spike in the surrounding areas—Callander, East Ferris, Mattawa; all the communities in my riding. We have, as I mentioned, a need for 1,000 affordable housing units in the city of North Bay.

Nestled right in between is this beautiful housing co-op with wonderful families who take unbelievable pride in the housing. It is a spectacular site. I would hope that each member would indeed follow up on that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Chatham—

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much, Speaker. You were close.

It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to offer my thoughts on Bill 14, the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act. The act amends the Residential Tenancies Act and the Co-operative Corporations Act to move most co-op tenure dispute cases from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board. The act also streamlines the internal dispute resolution process in non-profit co-ops to clarify that hearings before the Landlord and Tenant Board and courts are determined based on the merits of the case.

Speaker, as an aside, I would like to point out that I feel like this House is duplicating efforts on a daily basis. Over and over, we are seeing bills being recycled and put through the same legislative process as they were prior to the prorogation last fall. If the government wanted to debate the same legislation, then there really was no need to prorogue this House, chain the doors closed and keep MPPs from doing what we were elected to do. If the government wanted to keep debating the same bills, it just proves that their decision to prorogue was another short-sighted, politically motivated decision.

Take, for example, Bill 65. This was legislation that was very similar to this bill, Bill 14, that we’re debating here this morning. Consequently, Bill 65 died with the government’s decision to prorogue Queen’s Park last fall. If the government had not prorogued this House, then Bill 65 may already have been enacted into law.

If this Liberal government had not prorogued the Legislature last fall, we could be putting this time to better use, such as getting to the bottom of the politically motivated gas plant scandal or passing legislation that will help create jobs and grow our economy. Instead, we are repeating what has already been done in the past. I think the people of Ontario would be shocked and dismayed if they learned that the work we’re doing now, the bills we’re debating and the legislation we are passing, as in many cases, are the exact same or very similar to legislation and work we already did back in the fall.

I know that folks at home will be sure to send their heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the current member from Ottawa South, the mentor to our current Premier, and by that I’m of course referring to MPP Dalton McGuinty. Speaker, I think you can understand my frustration and my colleagues’ frustration with the repetition of work as a result of the politically motivated and totally unnecessary prorogation that took place last fall.

Nonetheless, I’m happy to discuss this piece of legislation in the House as it is an important issue that needs to be addressed in the province of Ontario. The PC caucus is generally supportive of this piece of legislation. I am supportive of a more efficient system, and this legislation will help create that.

This bill will move tenure disputes from the court system to the Landlord and Tenant Board, where all other housing disputes are settled. Now, no structure is perfect, but clearly the Landlord and Tenant Board is a much more appropriate place for housing disputes to be resolved than through our court system.

Late rent payments, rent arrears, willful damage by the tenants, even interfering with other tenants, are all issues of concern that landlords face on a daily basis. It is important that there be an efficient mechanism in place to resolve these issues in a timely and effective manner.

As I am sure everyone is this House is aware, going to court can be a very costly endeavour. Seeking resolutions has cost co-op members thousands and thousands of dollars. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing estimated the cost of resolving co-op disputes in court ranges from $3,000 to $5,000 per case. We are looking at approximately 300 cases per year, so the annual legal cost to co-op members of the approximately 300 cases heard every year in the courts is about $1 million annually. This act will help to reduce these costs and allow the money to be spent more wisely on behalf of the co-op.

It is also important to note that the act would directly affect the 125,000 men, women and families who live in the province’s 550 non-profit housing co-ops. Speaker, you can see that instead of wasting money and resources that are better used elsewhere, referring disputes to the Landlord and Tenant Board is a more affordable and potentially more efficient option.

I’m not in agreement with everything that is contained in this bill. One thing that is a bit concerning and may result in a less efficient system is that the bill also contains an amendment to allow the Landlord and Tenant Board to waive the $45 filing fee for some tenants. This is an aspect of Bill 14 that was not included in the original Bill 65.

It is important to note that there was no consultation and no advocacy on behalf of stakeholders or associations for this change. This was just added to the bill. It looks like it was merely an arbitrary Liberal idea. We know how these types of ideas have panned out in the past, ideas that have been dreamt up at the last minute—no real thought and, again, no consultation. Too often that is how this Liberal government chooses to govern and chooses to make decisions: last minute, on the back of a napkin, with no consultations and absolutely no planning.

Something that is even more concerning is that we don’t know the cost of this decision. In a briefing, the ministry could not reveal who will qualify for the waived fee. The concern is that it will allow for disgruntled tenants to take every minor dispute to the Landlord and Tenant Board, causing further delay in a system that is already extremely backlogged.

Speaker, you will also know that in the past, this fee was used as a cost recovery mechanism for the board’s operations. This means that Ontario taxpayers and landlords will be on the hook yet again to subsidize the shortfall in revenue. This is something that will cost both landlords and tenants in the long run. It is like the Liberal government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It doesn’t work; someone always gets stuck paying the bill.

After the gas plant scandal that has cost Ontario taxpayers close to a billion dollars for a politically motivated decision to save a few Liberal seats, you would think that this government would stop dumping their debt on the people of Ontario. It is time that the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals actually solve some problems, rather than just appearing to solve problems.

Another concern that I have with the waiving of the filing fee is that it’s certainly going to result in a backlog. Both landlords and tenants with legitimate concerns that need to be resolved sooner than later will be subject to long, drawn-out delays. The $45 filing fee is completely unrelated and an unnecessary amendment to this legislation that almost defeats the purpose of the bill itself. In essence, we would be moving the cases from one backlogged court system and creating another backlogged system.

Obviously, it’s disturbing that a one-sided amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Board would be considered without any consultation. It makes you wonder what the rationale behind the decision was. Landlords are certain to be upset, justifiably fearing that the door will be open for disgruntled tenants to take every minor dispute to the Landlord and Tenant Board. The $45 fee acted as a bit of a deterrent and tended to keep disgruntled tenants from taking every issue to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

While I would like to think that the Landlord and Tenant Board is a better option for these disputes—they have the potential to be less costly and more efficient—there are some serious concerns that I have with this piece of legislation.

I will be supporting it, though, and look forward to getting to it in the committee so that we can work on some of the concerns that we’ve raised in this House. Since the Premier opened the debate on this bill for now the second time, I would like to urge her and her caucus to begin province-wide hearings on reform of the Landlord and Tenant Board so we can best determine, in a fair, transparent and open way for all involved, what is working and what is not.

So I will conclude that we’re seeing a track record by the current government—we’ve seen it over the last 10 years—that there’s just a real lack of consultation. Whatever the bill is, whatever decision, they make these decisions from Queen’s Park without determining what effect they’re going to have on the people in the province of Ontario.

With that, I’ll be happy to continue the debate. Thank you very much.

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I listened intently to some of the comments that were made by the member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, and I have to say that I respectfully disagree with what you were saying, especially with regard to the $45 fee. I don’t think that, by waiving a $45 fee, the floodgates are going to open and every single person living in co-op housing is going to just have this huge onslaught on to the Landlord and Tenant Board, and say, “Ah, we’ve got all these problems!” I don’t think that’s going to happen.

I think it’s a matter of respect for all people living in Ontario. I just wanted to say that. I really only wanted to stand up and say that we should move it on to committee, but it needed to be said.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I say again to you: Stay here, because this party doesn’t want the bill to go to committee, and when it will go to committee, they will change it. So stay here. Come at committee. The two parties, the NDP and us, we want this bill to go to committee as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a privilege to support my colleague from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex with his stand with regard to Bill 14. Again, we’re going to support this bill, but we do have some legitimate concerns with regard to this bill.

I disagree with the colleague from Rainy River—

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Kenora–Rainy River.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: —Kenora–Rainy River; forgive me; I’m sorry—because in fact, this provision of waiving the $45 fee opens up the opportunity whereby minimal disputes will perhaps backlog more important issues. That’s all we’re concerned about. There is that potential for that, okay? It’s not as though they’re going to come running and screaming with all little things, but there is a potential for that, all right?

Again, we do in fact like the fact that the disputes will include such things as rent arrears, late payments of rent, willful damage and illegal activity by tenants, or interfering with other tenants’ enjoyment of their real property.

Again, it has been estimated that in the past, when these disputes would have to go to the courts, the cost was anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000. Let’s get that out of the courts. Let’s get it to where it can be handled more quickly and more readily, although we do know there are some disputes that are not provided under the Residential Tenancies Act, that will still have to be resolved in the courts, such things as violation of pet provisions and so on.

I see my time is almost up. Again, on behalf of the four co-ops in the wonderful riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, we’re here to support that as well.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m pleased to join the debate. I’ll keep it brief. Obviously, we support this bill. I’ll remind people that it’s May 1, which means that your rent is due. Rent in this province is way too expensive, which is why we need more co-operative housing and more affordable housing. It’s also International Workers’ Day. Happy May 1, everyone.

We’re sitting in a House where these people want chain gangs and workfare, and these folks bring in Bill 115. We’ve got a lot of work to do. Keep up the struggle, everyone.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex has two minutes.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much, Speaker, and thanks to the MPP from Kenora–Rainy River, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, my colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex, and the member from Davenport.

Speaker, the Ontario PCs supported this bill when it was introduced last year by then-Minister Wynne. However, as I said in my remarks, it fell victim to the Dalton McGuinty Liberal prorogation. The delay has actually cost co-op members potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary court costs, as the rules the bill was intended to fix remained in place during that time.

Contrary to the Premier’s stated desire to work with the opposition, this new bill contains an unnecessary amendment that will open the floodgates to nuisance applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board, causing turmoil in a system that’s already horrendously backlogged.

As I said in my closing remarks, the government just has to do a better job of consulting. For years, we’ve seen many decisions that have been made, and they just don’t consult with the people of Ontario. I think that sometimes they forget where they came from. They’ve been in power for 10 years, and we’re seeing them become more and more out of touch, whether it was the politically motivated decision to cancel a couple of power plants, one in Mississauga and one in Oakville. The people of Ontario, I know, were concerned when they opened the newspaper this morning and saw that the bill is going to be upwards of a billion dollars, just to save a few Liberal seats in the last election.

Interjection: It’s shameful.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It really is shameful. So again, when it comes to this bill, I just urge the government to reach out, to consult and quit wasting taxpayers’ money. The people of Ontario are tired of the waste, scandal and mismanagement of the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals.

Mr. John O’Toole: Point of privilege.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of privilege, the member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Davenport accused, without any motive, the Conservative Party of being in favour of chain gangs. This is labour day. I think that’s completely inappropriate and I would ask him to accept and withdraw what he said.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, I can’t have him withdraw what I didn’t hear. It’s not really a point of order or a point of privilege, so I will rule that out of order.

Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 14, the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act. I too want to welcome the members in the gallery from the co-op housing authority who are here to hear the debate this morning.

Currently, in order to deal with disputes, tenants and the boards of co-operative housing need to go through the courts, which is a time-consuming and expensive process. This bill will allow them instead to go through the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Mr. Speaker, for those who aren’t aware, I want to provide a little history on this bill. It was first introduced as a private member’s bill. Then the Legislature was prorogued and it died. It was reintroduced as a government bill, to die again when the Premier prorogued the Legislature last fall. Instead of spending four months waiting for the Liberals to choose a new leader, we could have been debating bills like this one. We could have been in the Legislature working for the people of Ontario, dealing with this type of bill.

It’s not just the time lost in the Legislature; the Premier prorogued the Legislature in the evening, with very little planning. He didn’t bother to bring forward a motion to carry over bills like this, which means they had to start right over from the beginning, and that’s why we’re here today—just like my private member’s bill, which has now passed second reading three times, but through proroguing we have to start over each time.

Mr. Speaker, our job as members of the opposition is to look at legislation and point out where the government is missing the mark, where this bill doesn’t reach its intended goal, as in the case with the Local Food Act, or where it will have consequences that they haven’t addressed in this bill.

We support the idea of moving the disputes at co-op housing from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board, but there is nothing in this bill that ensures these complaints will be put through the Landlord and Tenant Board in an expedient way. I often hear from constituents about concerns with the Landlord and Tenant Board. I hear that it takes too long and that they can’t get disputes heard. If we add more to it and send more disputes there to be resolved, then obviously we’ll have to make sure that the capabilities of the board are increased so we don’t see this slowing everything down in the province.

In fact, we want to make the system work better, not drag it down to not get anybody’s job done. We hope that will be done, and that the government will see fit to do that to make sure we don’t have the backlog that we presently have.

I’ve heard from numerous landlords that when they go to the Landlord and Tenant Board to evict the tenant, they have to resign themselves to the fact that it will take at least three months. During that time, the tenants are living in the apartment rent-free. In fact, it has gotten so bad that I ran into a landlord who said he was taking matters into his own hands and was just going to change the locks because he was so frustrated with the system. I don’t believe he did that, but his frustration sure was strong.

In February 2011, the Federation of Rental Housing Providers report, called Justice Denied: Ontario’s Broken Rent Dispute Process, talked about the challenges with the Landlord and Tenant Board. The report said, “Ontario’s rent dispute process is broken.... The rent dispute process in Ontario is excessively long, and is unjust to landlords.” This is from that organization: “It typically takes 90 days in Ontario for a dispute to be finally resolved, and costs the landlord about $5,200, not including administrative costs, lost time and productivity.” The report also says, “That’s only the typical process.

If a ‘professional tenant’ is involved, he or she uses requests for internal board reviews and appeals to the Superior Court to add even more delays; these tenants easily use Ontario’s system to bilk landlords of up to one year’s rent, suffer no consequences, and cause severe financial and emotional distress for landlords.” This is quoted from that report.

Mr. Speaker, we need to look at ways to make the system work better for landlords and tenants. I received an email from one landlord who said, “Landlords are only allowed to collect one month’s rent deposit. But the eviction process will usually take several months for total vacancy. If the tenant opposes the eviction, asks for new hearing dates, knows how to delay the system with fraudulent claims and then simply refuses to move (forcing a sheriff to be hired at the landlord’s expense), the process can take many months....”

If the landlord is losing three months’ rent whenever he goes to the board, all the other tenants—the good tenants—end up with higher rents because the landlord has to cover their costs. That’s on top of all the other increased costs that result from this government’s policies, like green energy, that have caused massive increases in hydro costs. This is going to be especially true in co-ops, where the tenants are landlords and will all end up contributing to the cost of delays and rents that are not paid.

This version of the bill also allows the board to waive the $45 fee for low-income tenants. I have two concerns with that: first, that there seems to be very little detail around it, such as who would qualify as low-income; and secondly, that it may lead to nuisance complaints, which could result in further delays and increased costs for tenants and co-op members. If the tenant is successful at the board, the fee is often returned to them anyway.

We need to ensure that we’re providing protection for those who cannot afford the $45, but at the same time, ensuring that people who do not fall into that category do not take advantage of the system. Both of these changes will likely lead to an increased volume of disputes coming before a Landlord and Tenant Board that is already overburdened.

If the government is increasing the volume going to the board, the responsible thing to do would be to also make changes to the board to streamline the system to add capacity. Otherwise, we can all see that this legislation is going to lead to longer delays and is going to make the situation worse for everyone. We need the protection for both landlords and tenants. Co-op members, as owners, are both, and so I believe that ensuring they have the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Board—I believe they should have that protection to reduce the court costs.

Government members often seem to take time in this Legislature to stand up and tell members of the opposition to stop debating bills, to stop bringing forward our concerns, to stop trying to make legislation better. In the debate on the Local Food Act, government members started saying that we should shut down the debate less than a week after the opposition had their first opportunity to speak. First, I wanted to say that we will never stop trying to do our job to improve legislation to ensure that it works for the people of Ontario.

Secondly, as I was reading the debates on this bill, it struck me that the reason this bill is being debated today and is not in committee is not that it has had excessive debate; it is that the government has chosen not to make it a priority in the debate. From March 20 to April 15—almost a month—this bill was not called for debate once.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill has been introduced previously by our now Premier. It was introduced on April 16, 2012, and was not brought forward to debate until October 2, 2012, almost six months later. It was debated for three days and then the Legislature was prorogued.

We heard that going through the courts instead of the Landlord and Tenant Board costs co-op members $1 million a year. That means that they have wasted $1 million because the government just didn’t call this bill for debate last spring. To a government that can spend $1 billion cancelling two power plants, $1 million may not seem like much. But I can assure you that to the people in my riding who live in co-ops like Trillium Place in Woodstock and Adam Oliver in Ingersoll, $1 million is a lot of money.

I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I hope that the government will address the challenges with the Landlord and Tenant Board so that we will be able to handle the extra volume of co-op disputes and get rid of the backlog so it will work for tenants, for landlords and for all co-op housing members. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to put these few comments on—

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s my honour to stand and talk to this bill. I don’t want to delay it any further from it moving ahead.

I do always respect the views of everybody in this House. I’ll sit here every opportunity that I have and I will listen to both the government and to the Conservatives, because I think that’s my job. Not only do I have to debate bills, I have to actually listen to the message. However, in order to move this forward, I would encourage my friends in the Conservative Party—we all have our speaking notes; we all have those. Can we not skip through those notes and just get to your local issues so I can hear exactly how this is affecting your constituents back home and I can understand that? I would appreciate that.

We’re all in agreement that this is a good initiative, and we should look at moving it forward. Having said that, again I will sit in my seat, I will participate in this debate and I will do more listening than talking.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: My constituents in Ottawa Centre, especially those who live in co-op housing, want this bill to go to the committee. Let’s get this to committee.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: The words of our member from Oxford defined very clearly what the problems are, what this bill does and the solutions. I support his words completely and thank him for his thoughts on this problem.

Co-op housing provides a valuable service in the province of Ontario. We all appreciate that. There are 125,000 people who live in the 550 co-ops across Ontario. There are many co-op housing units in my riding of Carleton–Mississippi Mills.

We had a downturn in our economy about 12 years ago, when the high-tech sector took a major hit. Nortel crashed; 45,000 people across the world, and the centre of it was in my riding, lost their jobs as the company failed, not to mention the spin-off companies and spin-off jobs. Sometimes it’s not very far from the top to the bottom, so some of the people who had good jobs with good incomes went to having no income, and there were no other jobs to be had. I have had people come into my office with PhDs in engineering, who worked for Nortel and other high-tech companies, looking for a job and who can’t find one.

These people, unfortunately, sometimes after a period of time run out of money and need the services offered by co-op housing.

This is a good bill. We support it. It makes changes to streamline the process of solving disputes and some of the other minor wrinkles that are out there in co-op non-profit housing. It’s unfortunate that this government chose to prorogue last fall and derailed the whole process. This could have been done six months ago. This party will do everything we can to speed this process along. We are here to support this bill. It’s a great idea. We look forward to going to committee and making the necessary changes. We’re here to do the right thing.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: We have 17 House sitting days left—that’s assuming we don’t immediately move to an election in some way, shape, or form—in which to get this bill to a committee and back here for third reading. That’s why we’re not speaking to it. That’s why I would appeal to my friends to the right that just blaming them for proroguing is not enough at this point; they now are stalling the bill.

Let’s get on with it. Let’s pass it. They’re costing co-ops money. We don’t want co-ops to have to pay any more money. Let’s get on with it.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you very much. I want to thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, the Minister of Labour, the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills and the member from Parkdale–High Park for their comments. I agree with them that we need to get this bill into committee and get the changes made that need to be made to make it a better bill and to get it back in.

As I mentioned in my remarks, the amount of money that’s being spent by co-op housing today to deal with these disputes is just unacceptable. It’s great for government and for us here to spend a lot of time talking about it, but the longer it takes to get it into play, the more money they will be spending.

Having said that, I think there’s a very important issue that needs to be dealt with. If this bill goes through and the changes I spoke about at the landlord and tenant protection board are not dealt with—and that’s not in the bill. That’s something the government needs to do before this actually starts going through that process. If that’s not done, it will bog the whole system down. Not only will the co-op housing movement have the same costly process to go through that they have now, but they will not be able to go through it because they will have to wait first in line for the landlord and tenant protection board to deal with the issue.

So I think it’s very important that we make sure that the government is listening to this debate and look at the process that they are putting the people through to make sure that it has the capacity to deal with the complaints and the challenges as they are coming forward—not to have a waiting line and in fact the whole system draws to a halt. I think that’s very important, that the government is listening to this debate and that this debate is being had, and to get on with it so they can use the system that they are entitled to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? I believe the member has spoken to this.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I don’t think so.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 14, the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act, is a good bill and I will be supporting it.

As a caring society, we have a moral obligation to help those who need help, whether it is long-term help for people who have disabilities or short term for people who are down on their luck. Surely in Canada, which is a compassionate society, which is a land of plenty, we can help people to get the basic necessities of food and shelter so they can live with dignity. Non-profit housing co-operatives do just that. They help people who need help. They provide affordable housing at a rental rate that matches the ability to pay.

There are many co-operative housing developments in my riding. I find them to be very attractive. They are creatively designed, well built, well maintained and well kept by residents who take pride in their homes. They fit in well with the rest of the community and are a welcome part of the community.

I suspect there is a need for even more co-operative housing as a consequence of the economic downturn of 2008 from which Ontario has never really recovered. There is high unemployment—600,000 people have no jobs; pay freezes or lack of pay increases because of the slow economy and scarce or reduced company profits; manufacturing job losses because of many plant closures; increasing cost of living caused by rapidly rising electricity costs; rising gasoline and home heating costs; rapidly rising property taxes; rising user fees and charges on services and products that consumers use every day.

The government is taxing people more and more. They are desperate for money, and they are desperately looking for more money. Where are they getting it? From the taxpayer—the taxpayer who is tapped out. They keep going back to that same well again and again and again. The government is making people poorer.

Let me give you a couple of examples of this government’s desperate acts in their desperation to find more money and where they are going to get this money from—from the taxpayer, of course. In the spring of 2012, Agricorp sent letters to 4,500 farmers telling the farmers to repay the money given to them by the government in 2003—that was 10 years ago—to help them survive the mad cow disease disaster. After 10 years, they think it is okay to send a letter and say it is time to give the money back. I don’t think so. Imagine the gall and indifference, the disrespect and the insensitivity. That is a sign of a truly desperate, uncaring government. This is wrong.

This spring, the government is thinking about amending the Highway Traffic Act to collect unpaid traffic fines going back up to 40 years. Can you believe it? They’re once again extracting scarce dollars from the same tapped-out Ontarians—another desperate act by a desperate government. Again, it is wrong. This is morally wrong, this is morally corrupt, and, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing so disrespectful and immoral as a corrupt government. In that context, Mr. Speaker, this wonderful and historic place of governance, Queen’s Park, could sadly be referred to as a den of iniquity.

The intent of the changes offered by this bill is good. The bill will move co-op tenure disputes from the court system to the Landlord and Tenant Board, where all other housing disputes are settled. The Landlord and Tenant Board is the appropriate place to resolve housing disputes. These disputes will include rent arrears, late payment of rent, willful damage and illegal activity by tenants, or interfering with other tenants’ enjoyment of their property.

The ministry has estimated the cost of resolving these co-op disputes in the courts at $3,000 to $5,000 each, and pegged the annual legal costs to co-op members of the approximately 300 cases heard every year in the courts at about $1 million. Some disputes not provided for under the Residential Tenancies Act would still be resolved between residents and co-ops through the courts, including violation of no-pets provisions or failure of a co-op member to perform such duties as clearing snow or cutting the lawn. This act will help the 125,000 people who live in the province’s 550 non-profit housing co-ops.

There are a few shortcomings in the act, and these should be addressed at committee after the bill passes second reading.

(1) It would seem reasonable to me that simple problems like no-pets violations and failure to shovel snow or cut the lawn could be more appropriately resolved at the Landlord and Tenant Board rather than go to court. Surely that common sense change could be made.

(2) I think it is unreasonable to charge a filing fee of $45, or any amount, to a person who lives in co-op housing. People live in co-op housing because they have low income. People that have low income need all their scarce dollars for other necessities, such as groceries. It is therefore not reasonable to charge them a fee. The fee should be done away with for these tenants.

(3) Landlords’ rights must be considered. Protection against nuisance complaints should be provided. Nuisance complaints could increase what is already a backlog or waiting list, to get to the Landlord and Tenant Board for resolution of disputes. Waiting a long time for a resolution of a dispute is a problem for tenants and landlords. It is important that disputes be resolved in a timely manner.

(4) Bill 14 changes the way a co-op’s board of directors relates to its members, most notably how the board of directors revokes membership and occupancy rights of its members. At the moment, membership and occupancy rights may be terminated only by a majority of the board of directors of the co-operative at a meeting of that board. Bill 14 changes this provision by reducing the complexity of the process.

Under Bill 14, a member of a co-op could have their membership or occupancy rights terminated by only a resolution of the board, and this resolution could be passed outside of a meeting of the board of directors. Further, as proposed, there is no appeal to this decision of the board of directors unless the board of directors has a specific bylaw that allows for appeal. This means a member of a co-op could be kicked out by a minority of board members voting by email, with no appeal of that decision.

This is certainly a change, and a change that could mean that a member of a co-op who faces eviction may not have due process or a chance to defend himself or herself.

These problems can be discussed at committee. Hearings should be held—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Rural Affairs is having a little chitchat with the gallery. We know that’s unacceptable. And I notice the three members in that area are becoming very loud, so you might want to cut it back a little bit. Thank you.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thanks for your co-operation.

Go ahead.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: These problems can be discussed at committee. Hearings should be held so both tenants and landlords can make presentations to committee, with their concerns and recommendations. I am sure these small problems can easily and quickly be resolved.

It is ironic that it is the prorogation by this government that stopped this bill last year, when all three parties supported it and wanted to pass it six or eight months ago. This government has prevented much of the needed changes included in this bill from being delivered to the people who have been waiting for it, who need these changes, the people who live in co-op housing. What a waste of time by this government. It is pure selfish political opportunism at its worst. What a shame. It is time to end the shame. Let’s get the job done. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I can’t help stating what I think is the obvious. I think it’s a bit rich for the Conservative Party to say that this bill could have been passed already if it weren’t for prorogation—something I agree with—but then to only continually stand up and delay, delay, delay. I think it’s a bit of a contradiction. I think it goes to show—the member is talking about the Agricorp program. As important as that program is, I fail to see the relevance when we are talking about co-op amendments.

So I would encourage the Conservative caucus to maybe stick to the relevant parts of the debate and then to pass this along, because it sounds like all members of this House want to see this passed on. There is an opportunity for us to provide all sorts of amendments and input, and by no means does this mean that the bill in its current form will necessarily become law. I wanted to remind the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus of that. I hope that they will wrap up soon so we can pass it along.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I think the member from Kenora–Rainy River has made some very excellent points that the PC Party should take into consideration.

I also want to thank Harvey for all the good work they do. Thank you for coming out to my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East and heightening the importance of the discussion around Bill 14.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I think it’s an important discussion this morning. We have stood four speakers this morning, and I think the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills has made a very passionate plea, some that was on topic.

If I look at the legislative calendar ahead of us—Mr. Speaker, it’s important to put this in context—Bill 14 is a bill, but there is Bill 6, which is on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin, introduced in February, and it has never really been debated to any extent; Bill 14, of course; Bill 21, which is

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act by the Minister of Labour—a very important bill that should be debated here, and it has not been called. Bill 30 was talked about yesterday; that’s the one regulating the tanning parlours. I think that bill is also one that the member from Nickel Belt has done such a marvellous job on, and the government has just copied it—plagiarism, really.

Bill 34, the Highway Traffic Act amendment, collecting for past offences—I think the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills mentioned that. Bill 36, the Local Food Act, is basically nothing. But Bill 51 is the Public Works Protection Act amending the Police Services Act. That bill is another bill by—the minister is here this morning. I think that should be called. Bill 55, the collection agencies consumer protection bill—there has been some talk about that, but really, again, if I look at the legislative calendar here, what this government should be talking about is the truth.

We’ll see that tomorrow in the budget, and we’ll see the NDP joining them at the hip. There’s no question about it. There’s a consolidated unity amongst the left wing here, and they’re—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Excuse me. Have a seat. Thank you very much.

Mr. John O’Toole: You’re using my time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Yes, I’m using your time, because you’re off-topic. You have exactly—oh, sorry, your time is up.

We’ll now go on to another comment: the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. John O’Toole: I should have that time given back.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You might want to have a seat.

Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I think of my earlier message I was sending to my friends over at the Conservative caucus. We really need to focus on the issue. This is a good thing. We can talk our talking notes and look at them, and we can say, “There’s an old barn,” or “The barn is old,” or we can dress it up and say, “That barn in the field in the sunset is old.” We’re still talking about the same barn. This is a good bill. Let’s just move it forward, and let’s just get to it.

I really do appreciate the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills. I did like your constructive comments as they relate to your riding. Thank you for sharing that with us. That was really effective and good. However, I’m kind of figuring where—the points you brought up about the traffic act and what the Liberals have done and what they have not done in regard to how it relates to this bill. I appreciate the points you’re trying to make, but let’s try and keep it focused, and let’s get this barn built so we can get the bill to the committee stage.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills has two minutes—and a little order would be nice.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I would like to thank the following members for their comments: the member from Kenora–Rainy River, the member from Pickering–Scarborough East, the member from Durham, who is always so eloquent, and the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

We all agree this is a very worthwhile bill. It should pass. It will pass second reading; it will go to committee. We’ll discuss the various little problems, which are very minor, and we’ll fine-tune this and make this bill as good as we possibly can.

We need to have input from tenants and landlords about a few points, like nuisance complaints. A little thing like that could become a very big issue for certain people, so we need to address that. That’s very important. We will do that at committee. We will invite landlords to come in and speak to us. We’ll invite tenants’ representatives or associations to come and speak to us. Harvey Cooper will always continue to advise us, I’m sure, on what the right thing to do is, and we will get there.

But one of the problems is, this government prorogued and stopped this process from happening. That’s terrible. Yesterday, we were watching in committee about—we heard about this gas plant scandal, where they’re wasting a billion dollars of money. It’s terrible. There are people in need out there. We need more co-op housing. This government is wasting time and they’re wasting money, and they are out of money. They’re cutting nurses in hospitals across Ontario. They’re cutting physiotherapy from seniors so that seniors won’t have—this is going to fill the hospitals up with even more people.

My daughter is here today. She’s a nurse in a hospital. She knows there are sick people out there. She knows there are cutbacks. It’s terrible. There are cuts to Community Living. The CUPE union was in to speak to me the other day, complaining about what you’re doing over there. You’re cutting money out of Community Living, and it’s terrible.

Interjections.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s just a shame we’ve had to go through this lengthy, unneeded process, and we’ll support this bill—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. I guess we’re going to further debate. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It is a beautiful morning in the greater Toronto area. The sun is shining, and I just had a fresh bottle of milk from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. It was served in a glass bottle, if you can believe that. It was like stepping back in time—kind of like this bill is. It’s like stepping back in time. It’s like we’ve done this before. As a matter of fact, it was probably in late fall last year that we were debating this bill. I think it was known as Bill 65 at that time.

It’s great to stand here in the House today and speak to Bill 14. This, of course, is a rehash of Bill 65 from the last session of the House. It was one of the many bills that were wiped from the order paper. As my colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills has mentioned many times, it was wiped out when the government decided to put the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of people who are interested in settling disputes like there are in the co-op housing industry right now.

The decision to prorogue the House and wipe the slate clean has set us back to where we were back in the fall of last year, and it was all to put the Liberal Party priorities first and to cover up gas plant scandals that continue here in the Legislature today.

So we’re living through this again to make up for the fact that we have a government so mired in scandal that most of the time we spend in the House is to try and make sense of the convoluted web that the Liberals have weaved. As a result—

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

Mr. Todd Smith: What word was it? I’m curious.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, I’m curious too. Maybe the member would like to stick to the agenda of the bill and not go through all the myriad of errors by the government. Thank you.

Mr. Todd Smith: So tempting, Mr. Speaker, but thank you very much.

As a result, most of the government bills that have been introduced this session, including Bill 14, are retreads. They’re bills that have come to us before, and we’re just recycling the ideas that the McGuinty government had. That’s because nothing really has actually changed on the other side of the House. It takes more than a new coat of paint to make a car new, and it takes more than a new voice to make a government new.

I actually can’t believe that we’re here debating this again, but we will talk about Bill 14 because that’s what we’re here for.

There are some good measures in this bill, as the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills indicated in his 10 minutes. Moving disputes for co-op tenants to the Landlord and Tenant Board is undeniably the right move to make. That’s where tenant housing disputes are supposed to be settled, at the LTB.

Now, as many of us know, there is already a logjam of cases before the Landlord and Tenant Board. What we need is a more comprehensive dispute resolution process, but that’s for another bill apparently, not this one. It could have easily been included in this bill as well—a comprehensive dispute resolution process.

While we’re talking about the Landlord and Tenant Board, this bill does waive the $45 filing fee for low-income tenants. The problem is that it also lacks definition of who qualifies as a low-income tenant. That, however, should be a change that’s easy to make at the committee stage, when we get there.

The last thing we want to do is add further backlog to a system that’s already backlogged. Tenant disputes need to actually be resolved, and the more complicated we make that system, the less it actually helps tenants or landlords.

The simple fact is, as we mentioned earlier, that this bill should actually already be the law. If not for the four-month prorogation in the Legislature, this bill would have already been to committee, and it already would have come back for third reading, and it would have come back for royal assent, but I digress again.

In the intervening year, while the government tried to run out the clock on the gas plant scandal and played a bit of musical chairs around the cabinet table, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted by co-operative tenants trying to resolve these disputes through the court system. The more we lean on the courts to do this kind of work, the more expensive it ends up being for everybody involved. That’s why we need to go to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The member from Nipissing actually stated earlier, and many other colleagues have stated in the House when debating this bill, that the average cost of resolving these disputes in the courts is between $3,000 and $5,000. When we consider that around 300 co-op cases are heard every year, that’s a lot of wasted economic activity being flushed down that legal sinkhole here in Ontario.

There are co-operatives all over the city of Toronto; there are a few in my riding, in the Belleville area. It’s increasingly becoming a preferred tenancy option in urban Ontario. For many, the sense of community that they get from co-operative housing is an incredible benefit that’s gained from a simple rental agreement, though there are many tenants who would say there’s no such thing as a simple rental agreement these days. As co-operative housing increasingly becomes that preferred option, we’re sure to have more need of this bill because the number of co-operative tenant disputes that go to the courts will only increase. The amount of money wasted in that system will also be increasing.

But as I stated earlier, this bill should already be law. We supported it in the last session here, and it’s the intention of the PC Party to support it again at second reading in this session of this House. For any member of the Liberal Party to suggest that we’re the ones who are hanging up this bill, or even for the members of the third party to indicate that we’re the ones who are hanging up this bill, is rather disingenuous because of what I said earlier. This was making its way through the stages here in the Legislature.

It was obviously headed toward committee, and it was obviously headed for royal assent because all three parties in the Legislature were supportive of this bill. I just can’t believe that the government continues to put the blame on the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario for a decision that they made purely out of self-interest, to prorogue the Legislature last October 15 to try and make a couple of scandals disappear.

That’s the thing, Mr. Speaker: A lot of the committees that are currently operating here in the Legislature today and this week are operating in dealing with Liberal scandals. We saw it yesterday at the justice committee—hours and hours tied up dealing with a Liberal scandal; public accounts committee, same deal. It’s dealing with a Liberal scandal there. We have gas plant scandals; we have the Ornge scandal; we have—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member will sit down. Thank you.

It being 10:15, this debate will resume when the order is called again for another day.

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.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, who are here today to update us on their industry. In the galleries are Ron Versteeg, Steve Runnalls, Henry Oosterhof, Patrick Hop-Hing, Murray Sherk, Ralph Dietrich, Wes Lane, David Murray, Norma Winters and George MacNaughton.

I hope that the members will take time to meet with them today and to come to them this evening in the legislative dining room, where they will have a reception.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome my former colleagues from Dairy Farmers of Ontario to the Legislature today. They’re here lobbying for milk. In particular, I’d like to welcome Steve Runnalls from the great riding of Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d also like to welcome the dairy farmers, the board members: Ron Versteeg, Steve Runnalls, Henry Oosterhof, Patrick Hop-Hing, Murray Sherk, Ralph Dietrich, Wes Lane, David Murray, Norma Winters and George MacNaughton. Welcome, all, to the Legislature.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I’d like to welcome my daughter, Alexis MacLaren, who’s in the members’ gallery. She’s a registered nurse at Queensway Carleton Hospital.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to introduce my constituent Mr. Michael Addario, visiting us today. Welcome, Michael.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I want to say hello to one of my constituents, Ralph Dietrich. He farms with his wife, Jayne, a Holstein operation near Mildmay, the gateway to the Bruce.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Norma Winters, who I met with this morning, from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario—doing a great job; a strong industry, employing a lot of people in this province.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It is my pleasure this morning to in fact introduce to the Legislature Josh Varghese. He’s a portfolio manager and investment analyst at CI Investments right here in Toronto. I had the pleasure of meeting not only he but also his father at a 100th birthday celebration in Chatham on the weekend, and it’s my pleasure to welcome him to the House this morning.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome Sin Barrett to the Legislature. She’s here from Ottawa, and she’s the parent of one of the hardest-working legislative assistants, the talented Jennifer Barrett.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome the dairy farmers here today, but particularly this afternoon, I will be meeting with them. Will Vanderhorst, of course, is a dairy farmer and a director from my riding of Peterborough. He has a wonderful operation just south of the beautiful community of Norwood, Ontario.

Mr. Steve Clark: I know he has been introduced a couple of times this morning, but I just met with my good friend and constituent Henry Oosterhof, who’s here with the dairy farmers. I just wanted to welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I also would like to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and a constituent of mine, Dave Murray. He farms near the town of Mitchell, which happens to be the host of the 100th anniversary of the International Plowing Match this year.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I would be remiss if I didn’t introduce my constituent Ian Harrop, who is here with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario—a good friend of mine, and it’s great to have him here today at Queen’s Park as well.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I’d like to welcome, on behalf of my honourable colleague Bas Balkissoon, the Islamic Foundation School from Scarborough. I believe he’s busy trying to find them.

M me France Gélinas: We have some visitors from Sudbury and Nickel Belt this morning. I would like to introduce Rick Bertrand, who is the president of USW Local 6500, Mr. Mike Bond, Mr. Roger Lafontaine, Mr. Nick Larochelle and Derek Teolis.

We also have, formerly from Sudbury but now working in Toronto, Mr. Myles Sullivan, John Stevens, Al Hedd, Mrs. Sylvia Boyce and Gerry Leblanc. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

Interjection.

PUBLIC GALLERY

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On a point of order: We have in our gallery today members from the Steelworkers who are wearing essentially what is their logo on their clothing, which is USW Local 6500. They’re not being allowed to wear those particular jerseys. It would be no different than my walking into the galleries as a guest wearing something that says Easter Seals or Toronto Sick Kids or whatever it might be. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you allow the members of the Steelworkers to wear their clothing and not for us to turn them back and not allow them to wear what anybody else is allowed to wear in this place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If I could have everyone’s attention, please, so that I can bring clarity to this particular issue. I point out to the member on his point of order that, first, there is a standing protocol that no identification of any sort is supposed to be used in the House, and security takes it upon themselves to make that judgment.

The second thing that I think I might be hearing from the member is seeking unanimous consent for that to happen, but I would rule in favour of security’s decision because that is a standing practice that they use. I will allow the member to engage in a follow-up.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ll be there with a camera taking pictures of T-shirts that say all kinds of other things, but I would ask for unanimous consent to allow the Steelworkers to wear their T-shirts in the members’ lobby.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay has asked for unanimous consent in this particular case to allow the Steelworkers to wear their shirts. Agreed? Agreed.

Further introductions?

MEMBER FOR ALGOMA–MANITOULIN

Ms. Cindy Forster: I would raise a point of order as well.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: Last night there was a reception here in the dining room and one of the participants was choking. Our member from—

M me France Gélinas: Algoma–Manitoulin.

Ms. Cindy Forster: —Algoma–Manitoulin actually performed the Heimlich and saved a man’s life.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for that point of order. I offer my personal congratulations and thanks, and take the moment to remind all of us that all staff are trained—most people in this place who have been elected have gone through some training of some sort throughout their life or their career—and to bring attention to the fact that you have a button that goes off in your head that says “fight” or “flight.” In this case, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin’s switch went off the right way. Congratulations to the member. I thank all of our staff for being attentive to health and safety in this building.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is directed to the Premier. Premier, your testimony yesterday at the gas plant committee was highly evasive. It strained the bounds of credibility and was obviously deeply disappointing to all of us. In fact, Premier, you’ve lost the moral authority to govern when you conduct that kind of performance on such an important issue.

One of the many items that was far from clear in your answers—I want to make sure you have a chance to answer it today: When did you first ask for a briefing from Colin Andersen of the OPA to get a full cost of the cancellations of Oakville and Mississauga, and who ordered the cover-up of information around those costs? When did you ask, Premier, for that meeting?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I did—I spent an hour and a half with the committee yesterday. I answered all the questions that were directed toward me. That was and has been part of my commitment to be open and transparent. I told the committee exactly what I knew and when I knew it. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will check Hansard because my answers are recorded there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, I want to give—I know the Premier has been highly evasive on her answers with respect to the cancellation of the gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga. So I do want to give her another opportunity—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order.

Interjection.

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

Leader?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Unfortunately, true to recent form, you avoided my very simple question just now, Premier. So I’ll give you another opportunity, please, to be direct with us. I would like to know exactly when you asked for a full briefing from Colin Andersen of the Ontario Power Authority, in your capacity as Premier of the province of Ontario, on one of the biggest scandals in our province. Surely, one of the first meetings you called for was a full briefing, a thorough disclosure of the costs and who ordered the cover-up. Premier, exactly when did that meeting take place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I disagree with the language that the Leader of the Opposition is using. I don’t accept the premise of his question. I said I was at the committee yesterday. I answered the question. I tabled the documents that I had received from the OPA. From the time I was in this office, I was in conversation—from the time we were sworn in—with the Minister of Energy. The information that we were receiving through the OPA, I tabled yesterday. The reason that the Leader of the Opposition is asking these questions is because I tabled those documents yesterday. I brought them to the committee; I made them available.

The OPA estimates were different from what we had previously been told. In fact, yesterday there was another number. The information was different again. That’s why it was very important that the Auditor General write his report. That’s why I asked the Auditor General to write his report, and I believe that it’s important we wait for that report.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, your leader wants to put the supplementary question. Thank you.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, Premier, respectfully, you’re not answering a very simple question. It seems to me that the very basic first meeting you’d ask for, as a new Premier, would be to sit down immediately with Colin Andersen of the Ontario Power Authority and ask him for the full costing of the cancellation of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants, and ask him who ordered the cover-up. This seems to me fundamental.

Yesterday, in committee, you did say you didn’t know—“We didn’t know.” But respectfully, Premier, it’s your job to actually know—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s your job to know the facts.

Premier, you wanted the job. You campaigned for the job. You asked for the job. I ask you, respectfully, why aren’t you doing the job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very much—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very much looking forward to the opposition leader’s testimony about his costing. I’d like to know what his thoughts are about what they expected the costs to be. I look forward to that. I don’t know exactly when he’s going to appear before committee, but I’ve been there. I told the committee what I knew. The reality is that the numbers kept changing and keep changing. That is the reality. That’s why we need to wait for the Auditor General’s report.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Unfortunately, I did not get an answer on if the Premier did have a briefing from Colin Andersen, and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Social Services, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —why she was woefully negligent—to the Premier, Speaker—in not addressing that as one of your first meetings. I would think that would be the basics of the job. Yesterday, you were supposed to clear the air; you left a lot more questions unanswered.

Speaker, I didn’t get an answer to my first question of why the Premier was woefully neglectful in her duties as Premier to get to the bottom of that. Respectfully, it is your duty, Premier, to know those answers, not try to cover them up.

There was another important distinction there at committee. Colin Andersen basically said yesterday, in the morning, that everybody knew the cost of the gas plant. You say that’s not true. A very basic question: Who is telling the truth—you or Colin Andersen? Who is telling the truth, Premier?

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

The leader is—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Energy, come to order, please.

The leader is using language that is tightrope-walking in terms of some of the things he said, so I’m just going to give him a caution now, that if it’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I need everyone’s attention.

I would ask the leader to be cautious of that type of language.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that the complexity of calculating the costs of the relocation of these plants has meant that the costs keep changing in terms of the information that I received from the OPA. I had briefings with energy officials. From the time I came into this office, I was dedicated to making sure that we had a process that was going to open up the opportunity for the members of the opposition and the third party to ask the questions that they needed to ask. I made it very clear that I was going to appear before committee. I have done everything that I could since I came into this office to make sure that the process was opened up.

The reality is that the calculation of the numbers has changed. The information that we have gotten has changed, and it changed as recently as yesterday morning. I tabled documents that made it clear that at one point there was one number and there was a different number yesterday. That’s why we need to wait for the Auditor General’s report, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker, and I appreciate it. I am trying to walk that line. It is a difficult balance, but I think you understand the seriousness of this issue and that the credibility of the Premier of the province of Ontario is at stake.

Premier, now you say that the numbers kept changing. I think you’re basically saying that you never asked for a briefing to get finality on those numbers. You decided to look the other way or you knew and you refused to tell us. Either way, that undermines our ability to put confidence in you to lead this province of Ontario.

You stood here in the Legislature and publicly said the costs were $40 million, and all the while you knew the costs were far in excess of that $40 million. If you’re willing to say something that you know was not in keeping with the facts, why should we have any faith in you to be honest to the taxpayers of Ontario when you, yourself, were involved in covering up this scandal over the cancellation—

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

Interjections.

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

Now I will ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the contention, the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition, is simply not true. I appeared at committee yesterday. I talked about the cabinet meetings that I had attended. I talked about the information that I was given. I made it clear that the information that I was given changed, Mr. Speaker. The numbers changed. The OPA appeared at committee yesterday and made it very clear that the numbers had changed, and the information they had—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The OPA made it clear that the numbers that had been given to us were not the same numbers that they were bringing forward yesterday. There is nobody in this Legislature who wants the information clearly on the table—nobody wants that more than I do, which is why I’ve done what I’ve done for the last number of weeks. I will continue to do that work no matter what the Leader of the Opposition says.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Willful blindness.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Respectfully, Premier, ignorance is no excuse; willful blindness is no excuse. You are the Premier of the province of Ontario. You have the ability and you have the responsibility to compel an answer. It should have been one of your first meetings. Quite frankly, you say the numbers changed—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —your answers changed—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think, quite frankly, Speaker, that means it’s time for a change in the province of Ontario to get us down an entirely different path.

Premier, your answers today, and your answers at committee yesterday, were highly evasive. They strain the bounds of credibility. Quite frankly, you’ve lost the moral authority to govern.

I will ask you respectfully to put before the Legislature a confidence vote when it comes to the Liberals continuing to put their interests ahead of taxpayers’. Will you call that confidence measure for a vote today?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I answered the questions yesterday. Now I’m looking forward to a very large confidence issue coming before this House, and that would be the budget. We are focused on youth unemployment. We’re focused on investing in roads and bridges—infrastructure around the province. We’re focusing on a fairer and more prosperous Ontario. We’re focusing on investing in the music industry. Those are the issues that will come before us. That will be the confidence issue that we discuss.

I sincerely hope that the opposition members read the budget, that they determine whether they want to support that budget based on the merits of the budget, because I believe that those issues touch the people of Ontario every single day. That’s what we’re going to focus on.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Would the Premier agree that our job here as elected members is to put the public interest—the needs of the people who elected us—ahead of the interests of well-connected insiders or the political interests of our parties?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Absolutely, and I would suggest that everything I’ve done as an elected official—and certainly everything that I’ve done in this office as Premier—has been directed at making sure that we do act in the best interests of the people of Ontario. That’s what government exists to do. That is why we have government: to act in the collective interest, the best interests, of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Jeez, even spending $10 billion on gas plants to save Liberal seats? That doesn’t sound like the public interest to me. That sounds like the Liberal interest, Speaker.

Yesterday in the committee hearings, the Premier admitted that as a cabinet minister she herself signed off on the cabinet decisions scrapping the private power deal in Oakville without asking any questions at all about the cost. As co-chair of the Liberal campaign, the Premier didn’t even ask any questions about the cost of cancelling the private power deal in Mississauga.

Why didn’t the Premier ask a single question on behalf of the people who would be stuck paying the massive bills for those decisions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I answered these questions yesterday at committee. The reality is that the relocation of these plants was the subject of a negotiation. I was a member of a cabinet that was implementing that decision that the third party and the opposition had agreed needed to happen. We were implementing that; there was a negotiation. The reality is that those numbers were not available. We did not discuss the specifics of the negotiation that was happening at the table.

I would expect that the leader of the third party would understand how negotiation works, and that it actually needs to be a confidential process. Not every member of the cabinet had access to those specific numbers.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What I understand is, regardless of what happens in a negotiation, people have an estimate—a ballpark idea—of what they’re going to have to spend when something like this gets decided. During the election campaign, I was asked whether I would commit to scrapping those plants, and I wanted to. I wanted to, since the Liberal government’s decision to sign that private power deal in the first place was the wrong decision. But I would not make that commitment because the government refused to make the documents public.

They refused to make the contracts public, and we have been asking for those contracts time and time again. I didn’t know the cost, and the Premier had the same opportunity as I did to ask for the costs. She decided not to ask any questions at all, but to simply do whatever her party said she should do.

Why can’t she admit this was the wrong decision?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party is intent on having it both ways. She suggests that she would not have cancelled the gas plant contingent on the costs, but we heard in committee yesterday that her candidates were out saying that they would cancel the gas plant. So I’m sorry; that high ground has been ceded a long time ago. She cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is all parties said that they were going to cancel the gas plants. That was the position that everyone took. We implemented that decision, and I was quite clear that I regret that there were public dollars that had to be spent in the way that they had to be spent. But the reality is we made that commitment, we listened to the people of Mississauga and to the people of Oakville, and we made good on the decision that was agreed to by all parties in this House.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I find it quite disconcerting that the Premier of this province doesn’t know the difference between a candidate and a leader. I don’t know how they run their campaigns, but in our campaigns, it’s what the leader says that everybody else follows.

My next question is to the Premier as well, Speaker. In tough economic times, these issues—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. Order, please. Okay, so let’s start mentioning individual ridings.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You really aren’t helping. Please. Thank you.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The question is for the Premier. In tough economic times, it’s these very issues that matter and they matter a great deal. People are worried in these times as well about falling further and further behind. Now, the Premier tells everybody in this province that the cupboard is bare, and she’s telling families that they’re going to have to be paying more—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I apologize for the interruption. Please stop the clock. The Minister of Community and Social Services will come to order, and the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve got the seats memorized, thank you very much—Deputy Speaker. Thank you.

Leader.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yet the government is moving ahead with a new corporate tax loophole worth $1.3 billion a year while public sector CEOs’ salaries are climbing everywhere from the OLG to hospitals. When is the Premier going to see that this is the wrong direction, and it’s people that should be coming first?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m just going to draw a line between a comment that the leader made before she asked that question to say that I’m part of a team. That’s how I work. The difference between candidates and leaders, for me: Leadership is about working with candidates, working with all of the members of the team, and being on the same page and understanding exactly what it is we stand for as a collectivity. We are part of a team.

So I believe that when the candidates who thought they were part of the NDP team were talking about cancelling the gas plant, they thought that that was the position, Mr. Speaker. We know that the people of Oakville and the people of Mississauga understood that that was the position of the NDP. We made good on that promise.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don’t believe it’s my final.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, sorry; I apologize. I was quite excited, so I forgot to check it off.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I guess the people will decide what kind of leadership they want in this province. I think the people want leadership that takes responsibility for their team and actually provides the lead, which is what we do in the New Democratic Party.

But you know what? The Premier had a chance to ask questions about the gas plant costs, and she didn’t ask a single question about something that was going to cost the public over a billion dollars, or almost a billion dollars. I don’t know what she has to say to the people of this province, because she certainly didn’t say it yesterday in committee.

People are struggling right now. They’re worried about their jobs; they’re worried about health care; they’re worried about the cost of everyday life—and today they see in the paper that their government once again gave away more than half a billion dollars to make a political problem disappear for them. Now they are planning to ask them, those very people, for more and more money when they’re already having a strained budget.

Does the Premier think it’s fair that a government spends billions of dollars on CEO salaries increasing, on corporate tax loopholes and on cancelled gas plants while asking people to pay more?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just make that connection I said I was going to make about being a team and we’re all in this together. The reality is that the budget that we will table tomorrow speaks to the needs of the people of the province. It speaks to the needs of making sure that we have a fiscally responsible budget in place, and at the same time that we invest in the things that we know are going to make people’s lives better.

That means making sure that home care is in place, making those investments; making sure that the infrastructure that’s necessary for economic growth in small and rural communities, the roads and the bridges, are dealt with, because I know that municipalities struggle with that; making sure that young people have access to placements, to co-ops, so that they can find their way into the workforce.

Those are the concerns. I understand that. I know that the leader of the third party agrees that those are issues we should be focused on. That’s what will be in our budget.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats have been very clear: Now is not the time to be opening up a brand new, $1.3-billion tax loophole so that corporations don’t have to pay their HST. We’ve been clear as well: These are tough times, and we shouldn’t be making it tougher for families by asking them to pay more while corporations pay less.

My question to the Premier is: Will Thursday’s budget close the brand new $1.3-billion corporate tax loophole or will we see the same old status quo that leaves people falling further and further behind?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Finance has answered that question many times, in the sense that he’s working with the federal government, there is a federal government component and responsibility to this, and we are working to close some of the loopholes. What the leader of the third party is talking about is not exactly a loophole; it’s a constraint of the tax regime. But the reality is that he’s working on that.

Underneath her question is an issue around building transit for people in the GTHA. The reality is, we believe that it’s very important that we have a plan to build that transit going forward. We don’t have another 40 years to wait, and the single moms who are trying to get their kids to school and trying to get to work don’t have time to wait either. We need to get on that, and I would expect that the third party would be right with us, and the member for Trinity–Spadina leading that—

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

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: This morning my question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday at the justice committee we had sworn testimony from the Ontario Power Authority’s CEO, Colin Andersen, that “everybody” in the government knew that the cost of the Oakville gas plant cancellation was more than $40 million. Despite you and your entire government clinging to the $40-million number all these months, you finally admitted to the justice committee that you knew the cancellation indeed was much more. What you didn’t tell the committee is when you knew.

Is the reason because you and others have stood there in this Legislature time and time again telling us one thing when you knew something else to be true? Is that why, Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I have in my hand a memorandum of understanding dated September 24, 2012. The same day that this memorandum was dated, it was posted on the website of the Ontario Power Authority. I find it absolutely appalling that that critic did not read this document. Not only that; he did not read the 261-page contract that sets out the arrangement between TransCanada and the province on this particular issue.

It’s very, very clear from this document that there are sunk costs. That number is identified. There’s a range of other items, savings as well as additional costs, that are included in this document. So the whole world knew, including him, if he had read this document, that there were other costs and savings that had to be calculated in the Oakville plant. Disgraceful.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton—oops, I mean the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. Perhaps a page could send a glass of water over to the minister. His face is almost as red today as the Premier’s was all day yesterday during the testimony.

Premier, we’ve now seen that your government will say anything to stay in power. You continue to say one thing when the opposite is true. Mississauga cancellation is $180 million? Nope, it’s $275 million. Oakville is $40 million? Nope—oops, it’s $310 million. You said you didn’t know anything, but it’s your signature, Premier, on the cabinet documents that started this whole process. You’re all over this, Premier, and by not telling us when you knew what you knew, you’ve shown us you’re part of this scandal. Why should we ever trust anything you say again?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I think the official name for the Tories is Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Simcoe–Grey, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: He’s tilting at windmills because he refused to read the document. He refused to read the document that identifies that there will be future costs and savings at the Oakville plant. He continues to say that Colin Andersen said that everybody knew. I agree with Colin Andersen. Everybody knew. The only reason he doesn’t know is that he did not read the document that says there will be additional costs, additional savings, that need to be calculated.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Member from Durham, come to order. I believe that’s the second time.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: As a result of this document, they’ve been trying to calculate the cost. Yesterday Mr. Andersen went before the committee, and he came with two different costs. Four weeks ago, he had a different cost. That’s why we need—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Sit down, please.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, people want to look to Queen’s Park and see some leadership. Instead, this is what they see: They see a Premier who says that she never even spoke with Dalton McGuinty about gas plants. They see a Liberal government writing blank cheques to cancel private power deals because you ripped up contracts without any idea of how much it would cost.

They see a Premier who has known for months that the cost of cancelling gas plants was not $40 million and not $180 million but who knew full well that there were more costs coming and didn’t bother to tell the families who are going to pay the bill. These are more examples of the new government being exactly the same as the old government. Premier, is this the sort of leadership Ontarians should be expecting from this new government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m still reeling a little bit by the admission by the leader of the New Democratic Party that even though her candidates said they would cancel, they didn’t really mean it. I wonder if the member can tell us what he’s going to tell Frank Clegg, the chairman for Citizens for Clean Air, who told the committee, “Well, we met with all the parties and all the candidates and were given commitments by every candidate in the Oakville area that they would support cancelling the plant.”

We have Greg Rohn of the Coalition of Homeowners for Intelligent Power. He said yes, “The NDP were against the plant....” He went on to say, “The NDP came in and attended our rally.” The mayor of Oakville, Rob Burton: “Our citizens organized their own effort to ask the province to re-think the proposed power plant.... They won promises from all parties to stop the proposed power plant.”

I could go on with the candidates, with the commitments from the New Democratic Party to cancel both plants. Perhaps the honourable member could explain.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Back to the Premier: Leadership means making tough decisions, and it also means being honest, not continuing to keep Ontarians in the dark despite having months to correct the record. It means taking responsibility, not trying to blame the other guy when you’ve done exactly the same thing.

I know the Premier keeps saying her government is new, so why does this Premier’s leadership look exactly the same as the last Premier’s leadership?

Hon. John Milloy: You know, I can go on here. I think the member’s question about leadership proves the point here. Hazel McCallion came before the committee, and you know what she said? She said, “The impression that was certainly given beyond a doubt ... I think all parties would have cancelled it; there’s no question about it.” So I think she’ll be quite surprised to learn of the leader’s statement today.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, you can go right to the source here. Etobicoke–Lakeshore, according to Torstar News Service, September 16, 2011: “Etobicoke–Lakeshore NDP candidate Dionne Coley also pledged to fight the plant.”

In the National Post, September 29, 2011: “... local NDP candidate, Anju Sikka, soon issued statements concurring with the new Liberal cancellation.”

Even the member from Toronto–Danforth told InsideToronto.com, “We wouldn’t build it.”

Mr. Speaker, we saw today all of them right under the bus.

DOCTORS

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. It was 182 years ago today, on May 1, that Emily Stowe was born in Norwich, Ontario. Dr. Stowe went on to become the first female physician in Canada. To mark this date and to acknowledge the extraordinary service our doctors provide, we recognize May 1 as Doctors’ Day.

Doctors play a vital role in keeping everyone healthy. My constituents in Ajax–Pickering want to be assured that they have access to a family doctor when they need one. Can the minister tell us what the government is doing to increase our doctors in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thanks to the member from Ajax–Pickering for this very important question. I’d also like to acknowledge the member from Richmond Hill. He successfully introduced the motion to recognize May 1 as Doctors’ Day back in 2011. But most importantly, I want to say thank you to all of Ontario’s doctors. They work so hard every day for Ontario patients.

We have made significant progress in recruiting new doctors right across the province. Today, we have 4,000 more doctors practising in Ontario than we did in 2003. In Ajax and Pickering, it’s a 40% increase: 190 new doctors practising in Ajax–Pickering. We’re training more doctors, we’ve increased the number of residency spots for international medical graduates, and more doctors are going to underserviced areas. Health Care Connect is working to connect patients who need doctors to doctors and, thankfully, 93% of us now have a family doctor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you, Minister. Speaker, this is not only good news for my constituents but for all Ontarians. Having access to a family physician is important to everyone, but that’s just one part of ensuring equitable access to primary health care. Not all of my constituents are easily available to visit a doctor’s office, or might have to see a specialist who practises in a location that might not be very close to their home.

Can the minister please let us know what we are doing to ensure that each and every Ontarian has access to a doctor despite any challenges that they might face?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member raises a very important point, and we’re working hard to make sure that every Ontarian has access to primary care.

We made a commitment to Ontario diabetics. We said, “If you want a doctor or a nurse practitioner, you’re going to get one.” We’ve kept that commitment. Now we’re saying to Ontario seniors, “We’re going to make sure you get attached to primary care.”

Back in December of last year, we worked with the Ontario Medical Association with a new agreement. That includes 30,000 more house calls for doctors. It includes after-hours care so people can get access to the care they need when they need it. Our agreement was all about improving quality of care for patients, and I’m very pleased that it received overwhelming support from Ontario’s doctors.

We’ve increased the number of telemedicine visits and virtual visits more than tenfold since 2003, and we’re going to continue to work with Ontario doctors to make sure patients get the right care, the right place, the right time.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Premier, it’s obvious that disclosing all you knew about your gas plant scandals is not part of your plan. In spite of the fact that seven witnesses, including OPA CEO Colin Andersen, have said that you and all of your cabinet knew all along that the cost of Oakville would be more than $40 million, you still refuse to reveal when you knew that.

You claim that as a member of cabinet, you didn’t know. You claim that as a meeting chair when the Oakville MOU was discussed, you didn’t know. You claim that as Liberal campaign vice-chair, you didn’t know—and then, as Premier, that you never knew that the cost far exceeded $40 million.

Premier, your claim is hard to accept. It’s time for the Legislature to decide. Will you call our want of confidence motion—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: —or will you continue to refuse because you know your record—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: What’s hard to accept is the double standard that exists here. The Premier of the province appeared in front of the committee yesterday and answered all the questions that were directed to her. She appeared, Mr. Speaker, as soon as she was invited.

Let me tell you about the Progressive Conservative Party, which has yet to release any of its costing for the plants before the election, despite the YouTube videos, tweets and press conferences. We asked the Leader of the Opposition to be there yesterday. He refused, and now he’s looking at his schedule—maybe the 7th, maybe the 14th.

But you know what? We have asked three Progressive Conservative candidates to appear in front of the committee. One has outright refused, one was coming to the committee and then suddenly decided she couldn’t, and another one is still thinking about it.

I ask the honourable member in his supplementary to explain to us when Progressive Conservative Party candidates will be coming forward and talking about their costing of these plants in the last election.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: When might you be inviting those candidates to your cabinet meeting?

Premier, you just aren’t getting it. The Ontario Power Authority has given their best guess of what the Oakville plant cancellation and relocation will cost, and it is 775% higher than the number you and your colleagues have repeatedly claimed.

Yesterday, you had the opportunity to make a statement and to testify for 90 minutes about your version of the events. Premier, you failed to make your case. Your government’s record has been laid bare. The members of this assembly are not buying what you’re selling and I am certain that the people of Ontario aren’t buying it either.

If you actually believe that you’ve done nothing wrong and deserve the confidence of this House, then call our want of confidence motion for debate and let this House decide.

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member’s question and I failed to hear any indication of what the Progressive Conservative numbers were or about the presence of the candidates or the testimony of the Leader of the Opposition.

These are not political games, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition made this a cornerstone—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Both sides are not being helpful.

Finish, please.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, this was a cornerstone of their campaign. They had tweets. They had news releases. They had media interviews, and the Leader of the Opposition appeared—he starred—in a YouTube video. They sent out thousands of robocalls. I do not think it’s unreasonable that we would like to hear from the candidate who made those robocalls. I do not think it’s unreasonable that we’d want to hear from the candidate who put out this pamphlet saying, “The only party that will stop the Sherway power plant is the Ontario PC Party.” Yet they evade the questions about their costing. They evade the presence of their candidates.

When will they come forward to the committee—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Nearly two years ago, Jordan Fram and Jason Chenier were buried in a run-of-muck accident at the Sudbury Stobie mine. Their families are still waiting for answers about why they died in a preventable accident.

When will the Premier do the right thing and call a public inquiry into this tragedy so that no more lives are lost on the job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the leader of the third party for the question on a very important issue. It’s always very tragic when we hear about the loss of a worker. In the case of the tragedy that took place two years ago, it was tragic as well. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines and I had a chance to meet just last week with Wendy Fram, the mother of the person who passed away in that accident.

Of course, we need to continue to do more to ensure that we make our workplaces, especially mines, safe. I’ve committed, along with Minister Gravelle, to Wendy Fram that we will work with her to ensure that we are taking steps that no other son or daughter is lost in a mining accident in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, last weekend I stood with Sudbury workers and their families to mark the Day of Mourning here in Ontario. Many of those Steelworkers are here with us today in the spectators’ gallery.

The miners who earn their living underground in this province deserve peace of mind, and their families deserve peace of mind. The families of Jordan Fram and Jason Chenier deserve answers, as do the families of the other nine miners who have lost their lives over the last five years, and in fact the person who was killed yesterday in a mining accident about 50 kilometres outside of Wawa.

Will the Premier give these people what they need and call a public inquiry into the deaths at the Stobie mine and the safety of the mining industry altogether, an industry which has changed rapidly over the last number of years and yet has not been reviewed for upgrades to its health and safety legislation for over 30 years?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Sympathies to the family of the worker who passed away just outside Wawa as well. I had the chance to speak with the member from Algoma–Manitoulin about that incident as well and assured him that I will work along with him and my ministry to ensure that we get all the answers.

In the case of the Stobie mine, a criminal trial date has been announced in October. There’s also going to be a mandatory coroner’s inquest in that instance. The Ministry of Labour is also involved in about four different health and safety blitzes dealing with the mining sector on very specific issues. One just finished, and there will be three more coming up through the summer and early next year.

We’re also working through the Mining Legislative Review Committee, which is part of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We are looking at options as to how we can work with the co-chairs of that committee and find ways to make our mining even safer.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. Today in Ontario, more than 80% of our citizens use some form of mobile device, and most of them have entered into some kind of contract with a provider.

In my own riding of York South–Weston, we are experiencing many issues with regard to cellphones. I would say that the most concerning is probably that of students being robbed of cellphones. But the other major source of complaints is about contracts. People are very confused about the language in contracts, about additional charges and massive cancellation fees. I think we’ve all experienced that.

Minister, I’m happy to learn that you introduced legislation to address this very issue. Speaker, through you to the minister: I would like to ask the minister to share with us why she has chosen to take action now instead of waiting for the CRTC to develop the code of conduct.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for York South–Weston for a very important question. I’m very pleased to rise to talk about the new Wireless Services Agreement Act. I also want to thank the Minister of Natural Resources, the MPP for Sault Ste. Marie, for showing strong leadership on this issue from the very beginning.

We all know that there has been an explosion in the use of wireless communication devices in this province. Unfortunately, there has also been an explosion of complaints and issues around that. In fact, a recent CRTC hearing commissioner for complaints noted that there has been a 250% increase in complaints over the past four years—a very significant number.

My ministry, the Ministry of Consumer Services, has received 740 calls and complaints in just the last year. So there is need for clear action, and the bill will give Ontarians the protection they’re looking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Minister, I’m astonished to hear the number of complaints. I’m not entirely surprised, because cellphones are one of the most widely used consumer products, with a large, complicated contract attached to them. It’s not entirely surprising to hear the number of complaints. Most consumers realize that they already have the Consumer Protection Act in place to protect them from unethical practices. But with the complex web of problems that consumers encounter with their wireless services, there needs to be dedicated legislation to specifically address this issue.

Speaker, through you to the minister, can she please explain to this House how the proposed act will be providing more transparency and fairness to consumers?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very pleased to talk about the strong action our government’s taking to help consumers in Ontario. This legislation has five major components.

First, it provides clarity. Contracts will have to be disclosed in plain, easy-to-understand language.

Second, it will require consumers to provide consent prior to any changes being made to current contracts.

Third, it will include a maximum cap of $50 on cancellation fees.

Fourth, the bill will require service providers to include all-inclusive pricing predominantly on their ads.

Fifth, if you are improperly billed and the provider refuses to pay, consumers will have the right for triple recovery of the amount owed.

Additionally, Speaker, the bill will require service providers to stop billing immediately once the device is reported lost or stolen.

These measures are very strong and protect and empower consumers in Ontario.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. Four years ago, the then Attorney General and the most recent Minister of Energy tabled in this House a very prophetic bill. It was passed by this House, and the Premier voted for it. It was Bill 108, entitled

An Act respecting apologies. “Apology” is defined in this act as “an expression of sympathy or regret, a statement that a person is sorry or any other words or actions indicating contrition or commiseration....”

I’d like to ask the Premier, after an hour and a half of admitting her responsibility for signing documents for spending some $858 million of taxpayers’ money on a deal to save Liberal seats, will the Premier stand up and issue an apology to the people—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the member for Newmarket–Aurora checks Hansard from yesterday and from this House, he will see that I have many times said