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

March 20, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Mar-20 (PDF)

L014 - Wed 20 Mar 2013 / Mer 20 mar 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 March 2013 Mercredi 20 mars 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

CASINOS

POWER PLANTS

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

POWER PLANTS

CASINOS

IMMIGRANTS’ SKILLS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

LONG-TERM CARE

WORKPLACE SAFETY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

DEFERRED VOTES

INTERIM SUPPLY

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

NORTHERN ONTARIANS

CHILDREN’S TREATMENT CENTRES

ALGONQUIN LAND CLAIM

TRINITY-ST. PAUL’S UNITED CHURCH

CYRIL SAHADATH

GREAT AMAZING DUCK RACE

ROD JERRED

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

REGISTERED HUMAN RESOURCES

PROFESSIONALS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES PROFESSIONNELS

EN RESSOURCES HUMAINES INSCRITS

SUPPLY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2013

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LA FRANCOPHONIE

ROAD SAFETY

LA FRANCOPHONIE

ROAD SAFETY

ROAD SAFETY

LA FRANCOPHONIE

PETITIONS

ALGONQUIN LAND CLAIM

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AIR QUALITY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

The House met at 0900.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Let us pray.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 6, 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 Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member for Pembroke–Nipissing—do I have it right?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Good enough for me. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

That’s quite a load my colleague is bringing in here—she must be signing a lot of letters on my behalf.

Speaker, before the break the other day, I finished up the debate here. So if I try to remember where I left off, that would be impossible. But I want to welcome folks from the co-operative housing association—Harvey Cooper and others. They’re faithful people. You know, I was looking out there while the prayer was going on and I thought, “Oh, you know, they’re not going to come to see the last eight minutes of my speech.” I cannot tell you how overjoyed I was when I saw them coming up there and taking their seats in the gallery. I thought, “They have not abandoned me.”

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They have not abandoned me. And, let me tell you, the folks here in the Legislature have not abandoned you either.

Again, I want to talk about what a great job my colleague from the great riding of Leeds–Grenville—it’s not the greatest riding. It’s up there. It’s not near as good as Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, but it is a good riding. I want to thank him for the great work he’s done on this.

Basically what the bill amounts to is it gives the opportunity to take these disputes between landlords and tenants to the Landlord and Tenant Board, as opposed to running them through the courts. Anybody who has ever been in the court system, in a litigative situation—my goodness gracious, let me tell you, it’s not cheap. And many times it’s not productive. I’m not here to castigate lawyers by any means, Mr. Speaker, but if the way you earn your money is by the amount of time you spend in a courtroom, there’s a great incentive to spend a lot of time in a courtroom and have those billing hours go up.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I’ve been on the paying side of that, too, so I do—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: You’ve got some experience there with that?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, yes, I have. A thank you to the member from Halton.

Again, when I was in this chamber last and we were talking about this bill, there was a whole lot less talk about the actual bill, the co-operative housing issue, which is very specific to a narrow sector, and that is co-operatively owned housing, which is not the same as affordable housing, not the same as regular rental housing where you have an agreement with the landlord or a large corporation that owns an amount of properties. These are co-operative corporations, so it’s a unique niche in the market, and this bill was specifically designed to help that sector deal with disputes between the two parties.

If you’re in the rental business, you’ve got landlords and you’ve got tenants; and we’ve got a better way, we believe, of dealing with that.

Is the bill perfect? By no means. I mean, right off the bat you know it was introduced by a Liberal government; there’s got to be problems. It’s impossible for them not to have something in a bill that will by design, I believe, create problems, because this is the way they operate.

The other thing I found, Mr. Speaker, was that there was a tremendous amount of latitude given to the speakers the other day about what they were actually speaking about, and my colleague the Attorney General—he was here, I believe—I’m sure couldn’t believe that people were actually talking about this bill because that really wasn’t part of the conversation.

Interestingly enough, one of the topics of the day is, of course, scandals. What people were talking about most when they were going through the debate—the new transportation minister talked mostly about affordable housing, and the members from the New Democrats talked almost exclusively about affordable housing. So they weren’t talking about the bill at all, I’m sure much to the chagrin of the folks in the gallery. But the bill itself is something that I think we’re all pretty much in agreement on.

But I want to talk about affordable housing for a moment, Mr. Speaker.

Miss Monique Taylor: Oh, really? Tell us all about it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I say to the member from Hamilton Mountain, only from the point of view that there always seems to be the position by many members of this Legislature that we don’t put enough money into affordable housing, both at the provincial and the federal levels.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much more money could we have put into affordable housing if we didn’t have the eHealth scandal? A billion—one billion. Okay, somebody keep that clock ticking here.

How much more could we have put into affordable housing without this hydro plant scandal that is getting bigger, broader and deeper by the day? We found out yesterday at committee that folks from the OPA are completely contradicting the government. Even the secretary of cabinet is contradicting what the government has been saying, what ministers have said in this House—and they have refused to withdraw their statements in this House.

So I believe this is only going to get deeper and deeper and deeper, until some member of the government, preferably the Premier, takes the responsibility and says, “Enough is enough. We’re going to have to accept that we are to blame.” The Liberal government, the Liberal Party, the Liberal ministers, the Liberal members, the Liberal members whose seats were saved—those are the ones that are going to have to accept the blame for costing the people of Ontario—now we know—not $40 million, not $230 million, but hundreds and hundreds of millions. Oakville alone is in the $600-million-and-some range.

JoAnne Butler, vice-president of the OPA, basically just said that what the minister has been saying is absolutely wrong: He has not been disclosing the facts; he has not been accurate in what he has been saying. So affordable housing: I say to the Attorney General, how much could we have put into affordable housing without these scandals? And I haven’t touched on some of the other scandals that have been—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Which ones would those be?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, give me some help here, I say to the member of Halton. There are so many that I haven’t got them tracked properly. Should we file them alphabetically, or should we file them on the basis of how many hundreds of millions of dollars they have cost? On a declining scale or rising? Highest to lowest or lowest to highest? How should we file them? Because at this point, it’s in the billions and billions and billions of dollars. Do you remember Carl Sagan? You know, billions and billions of stars. Well, in Ontario, it’s billions and billions of dollars that have been wasted, to the chagrin of the taxpayer, who has to continue to pay for this, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, I’m done? Oh my goodness. Thank you very much.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker? Unanimous consent for 10 more minutes for the member from—

Hon. John Gerretsen: No. Never.

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

The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To get back to the bill for a second, the non-profit co-op housing bill before us—which, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, should have been passed months ago, if not years ago. Unfortunately, but for prorogation, it would have been, so we’re dealing with it again.

All I can say is, let’s speedily get this done. We have a housing crisis. We have 70,000-odd families waiting 10 to 12 years in the GTA, and over 150,000 in Ontario waiting for affordable housing. The housing co-op movement is one of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that. We need to do everything possible—and a lot more than this bill, might I say—to make it possible to get co-ops up, running and then running well in this province.

We have unfortunately gotten out of the housing business in this province a long time ago. We have the worst record in Canada for investment in affordable housing per capita. This is a small thing, but it’s a necessary thing. It’s something that our friends here, who keep coming back again and again and again—their attendance record is probably better than some of our colleagues in the House. Surely to goodness we can do this simple, simple move, and that is to pass this bill as smoothly as possible. I mean, my goodness, they’re not asking for much. They’re just asking for what should almost be a regulatory change so that their poor housing co-ops can get on with it.

By the way, I hope this is the first start to a housing program coming from across the aisle, because we haven’t seen, really, such a thing. A housing strategy would be nice, Mr. Speaker. Building affordable housing: even better. But at least let’s have a template; let’s have a plan. Thank you.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker, and let me just say that, obviously, we totally support this initiative, and it probably should have happened about eight years ago, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Harvey Cooper and the co-op movement talked to me about this. But at that point in time, I think there was one party in the House that couldn’t quite agree to have this passed quickly at that time. They’re the party sitting opposite me at this point in time. So at least they’re on the right track in supporting this initiative.

You know, I listened to the member from Renfrew talk about waste in government. When I first got here in 1995, I can remember two things very vividly. One of them was the fact that Mike Harris cut social services to the people of this province by 22% at that point in time. The other thing he did—that kind of went unnoticed, because the 22% cut in welfare was a lot bigger of a story—is that he cut down every housing project that was on the books at that point in time and that was ready to go.

I know in my own community, there were at least three or four non-profit housing projects, including one co-op project, that were basically just scrapped, and the millions of dollars that were wasted at that point in time because plans had been done, property had been purchased—some of these projects were well under way etc., but the Conservative government of the day felt, “No, we do not need affordable housing.” That is a fact, and that is a reality.

So I am very pleased that, through the initiatives of the member from Leeds–Grenville—for whom I’ve got a lot of respect. We were both mayors at the same time back in the 1980s; I was old already at that point in time, and he the youngest mayor in Canada at the time. I think he was 22 years old, was an unemployed cartoonist at the time when he won in Brockville etc. I’m glad, through his initiative, that at least the Conservative Party is starting to go back a little bit to the party of Bill Davis and believes in affordable housing. I would like to see that same kind of positive attitude continue with respect to other housing programs that will be coming forward.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s always my pleasure to stand and rise to this discussion and to see Harvey Cooper and his group here once again. I know that they’ve been working on this for quite some time. I believe they’ve been working on this initiative for 10 years. As my colleague said previous to me, we could have had this taken care of and already lessened the load on these kind folks from having to attend here and spend more of their time, if we hadn’t prorogued. We would already be past this and on to other business of the province. But to say the least, we are still here. You know, it’s something that we should just be moving on.

We know that all sides of the House are supporting this; we should be getting it through. We should be making sure that co-ops are sustainable in our ridings, in our hometowns, because they provide an excellent service. They make sure that we have a good community base and that those communities are working together. You see the pride in their neighbourhoods, you see the pride in their households as they work together to make sure that they are providing a safe environment for their children and families.

You know, all they’re asking for is to be allowed the same venue as all other landlords and tenants are through this province, and that’s to not be in the court system but to be able to be in front of the Landlord and Tenant Board. It’s cost-efficient, it’s time-efficient, and it’s a fairer process that we’re all in favour of here.

So I would like to see this bill get on. Not that I wouldn’t like to see Harvey and his group here all the time, because they’re always a great face to see in the House, but I’m sure they have bigger and better things to do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for his presentation. As he mentioned in his presentation, he had started this some time back. I don’t recall exactly what he said then, so I was listening to the part that he spoke to today and very eloquently pointing out that the purpose of the bill is very productive. I think we would all recognize that in co-op housing it’s very important that we find a way to deal with the challenges they face within the housing unit, being that the people who are living in the housing unit are also the owners of the housing unit.

So it’s not only appropriate to do it in front of the landlord and tenant protection board, but to not put it in court. To be fighting oneself in court has never been very productive, and it sure isn’t for that, either. So I think the purpose of this bill has great merit: to make sure that we can make the issues that they have more expediently.

I do want to point out—and it isn’t in the bill—that we need the ability to put these through the landlord and tenant protection board in an expedient way. Because the things I hear from all the people who use that board—I hear that it takes too long, that we can’t get things through that. So if we add more to it, then obviously we have to make sure that the capabilities of the board are increased so we don’t see it slowing everything else down in the province, that in fact we can make the system work better, not drag it down to not getting anybody’s job done. We hope that will be done, that the government will see fit to do that.

I want to thank, again, our member from Nipissing–Pembroke for explaining what is in it and what needs to be done. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to thank my colleagues from Parkdale–High Park, the Attorney General, the member from Hamilton Mountain and the member from Oxford for their comments.

One of the things I didn’t get a chance to talk about, and one of the things we have some concern about, is waiving the fee for the application. The member from Oxford talked specifically about if we make this more accessible, the likelihood is that you’re going to have more people looking for access to it. Waiving the fee will actually encourage people to apply, and because they don’t have to put any money up front, perhaps they might apply based on a case they know they can’t win.

The current situation, where if you win, if you’re successful, then you recoup your fees makes more sense, because it will discourage frivolous cases from being brought forward to the board. And the board is going to be challenged, because it is going to have more cases coming to it as a result of the changes.

But again I do want to say, and I want to comment to the Attorney General, who wanted to go back to the 1990s: I’ll tell you, folks, people remember the 1990s. They remember the government before Mike Rae that set the table for the mess—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Bob Rae.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —Bob Rae—the David Peterson government that set the table for the mess. That was the worst government in the history of Canada—the David Peterson government. It made such a mess of it that the Rae government was faced with a terrible mess and they made it greater. But I’ll tell you, in 1995 there came along a person, Mike Harris, who said, “This has to be fixed. Ontario cannot continue on this trail, cannot continue on this path.” He had the guts and the intestinal fortitude to make the tough decisions. This government over there does not have any guts.

They will sidle up to anybody who’s going to keep them in power. That is what is going to be the downfall of this province financially—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: —the failure of this government to stand up and take tough decisions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to remind the member from Renfrew that when I say “thank you” he’s done, and he also sits down when I stand up. Thank you. That won’t happen again. Thank you.

Further debate? The member from Davenport.

Mr. Jonah Schein: As always, it’s an honour to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Davenport. I would like to extend to everybody a happy first day of spring, and remember that it’s the equinox, which is a day of perfection—half darkness, half light—full balance, which I think we perhaps don’t see enough of here in this Parliament. Certainly in recent years, you know, the forces of darkness have been too strong, and we’ve seen those forces cutting taxes, cutting our programs and so forth, and I think we need to restore some balance here.

For viewers at home, I’m here to speak to Bill 14, the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act. For members in the gallery today, I’ll tell you a little bit about that act so you know what we’re discussing here today.

Bill 14 will make the co-op housing sector dispute process a little bit fairer and a little bit more affordable for co-ops and tenants. Bill 14 amends the Residential Tenancies Act and the Co-operative Corporations Act to move certain co-op tenant disputes like arrears, late rent payments and wilful damage away from the courts and to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Disputes that are not provided for under the Residential Tenancies Act—for example, violations of no-pet provisions, failure to fulfill co-op duties or member disputes with the provider over charges or maintenance—will continue to go through the courts, and there would be no appeal of decisions made by co-op boards unless expressly permitted in co-op bylaws.

Bill 14, which, as my colleague has pointed out was originally introduced as Bill 65 in the last Legislature, includes one substantive addition: an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act that would authorize the Landlord and Tenant Board to waive or defer fees it charges to low-income Ontarians, as is currently allowed in other courts and tribunals.

Speaker, New Democrats continue to welcome this bill and this new amendment that will provide tenants with more affordable access to the Landlord and Tenant Board. But we also want to be clear that a lot more needs to be done to protect tenants’ rights and their access to justice, and a lot more needs to be done to actually address the housing crisis in our province.

This bill hits close to home for me for many reasons. In the past I’ve had the good fortune to live in co-operative housing, and I feel extraordinarily lucky that I have a parent who, after many years on the waiting list, is in co-operative housing.

I was having a conversation in the lobby with the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex. He asked me how it actually works in co-operative housing; are they well managed? I said my experience has been incredible. Tenants in co-operative housing take responsibility for their shared living experience. I certainly paid market rent when I was there, as my mom does as well. But that living arrangement provides them vibrant living and a place where people, in my experience, are very, very fortunate to live.

Speaker, this bill is also close to my heart, though, because it’s part of a larger discussion that’s long overdue. It has been mentioned here, but unfortunately, we have not seen enough action. That is the issue of increased cost of living in Ontario and the lack of affordable housing options for too many Ontario families. As we know, this lack of affordable housing connects to and compounds other stresses and inequalities that too many families face every day in Ontario.

Before I had this job, I worked for many years in some of the most difficult shelters, I would say, in this city. I remember, as I was doing social work school, going to see tent city down by the waterfront. I remember meeting Cathy Crowe, who’s a street nurse, and listening to her words about what she called, in 2001, a national disaster on homelessness. Speaker, it strikes me that that crisis has not gone away. Unfortunately, it’s something that we’ve gotten all too used to in this city, but it’s something that must be addressed, and it has to be addressed here in this Legislature.

In our city of Toronto, we have shelters that are running at full capacity. People are again choosing to sleep outside because they would rather be outside than be in shelters, which don’t feel safe to people, which are struggling to deal with bedbug issues and a lot of other issues. At the end of the day shelters are not a replacement for affordable housing.

I’ve seen the housing crisis up front in the most crude and upsetting ways for very, very low-income people. But I’ve also seen it for many of my constituents who might not appear to be struggling. They are seniors. They are students. They are everyday working folks. For those folks, life is becoming more uncertain, more expensive, more stressful and more precarious.

The recent report card from Ontario’s Campaign 2000 stated that, on average, Ontario’s highest-income earners make 12½ times more than the lowest-income earners in Ontario. This points to a fact that we know, which is that income inequality has grown worse for this generation. For low-income children and families, the hope and stability that their parents experienced they will not experience.

Housing in Ontario is becoming less and less affordable for low- and modest-income Ontarians. A recent report called Falling Behind found that Ontario has the highest cost of housing in any province. In 2009, Ontario spent $64 per capita on affordable housing, which is only half of the average of other Canadian provinces. Meanwhile, taking the necessary steps to build secure affordable housing, to make sure people can put food on the table, to reduce poverty—these issues unfortunately have taken a back seat in Ontario to other political dramas right here in this building. Meanwhile, life continues to grow more difficult for the majority of people in Ontario.

In this province, waiting lists for social housing have swelled to over 157,000 households. This is a 26% increase since 2007. One in five renters pay more than 50% of their income on rent in Ontario, which we know puts them at risk of homelessness. With a growing number of jobs that are contract jobs, that are part-time, that are short-term or casual, with a minimum wage that has not kept up with inflation, that is not livable, there are few certainties that rent money will be there for renters the following month.

Just last month, I was at the release of the United Way report on precarious employment and household well-being, and I had a chance to speak to folks there. The findings from that report are absolutely shocking. Barely half of the people in the greater Toronto area are in permanent full-time jobs. Let me say that again: Half of the people in the GTA have secure jobs. They don’t have jobs that are full-time, that provide benefits or have any degree of employment security. Precarious employment has increased by nearly 50% in the last 20 years, and it continues to do so.

Maybe some of our colleagues in this Legislature think that’s a good idea, but I believe that this lack of stability and security is taking a toll on people’s mental health. It’s taking a toll on our families, on our communities, on our social cohesion, on our productivity and on the well-being of our province. Speaker, I would argue that this is very real and that the effects are well documented. Clearly, the cost of shelter in Ontario is increasing this instability. This instability is decreasing people’s ability to pay the rent and to feed their kids.

Early in the month, the United Nations put out a report on the right to food. It noted that the increased cost of housing is impeding the ability of people on social assistance to access a well-balanced, healthy diet. I think it should be obvious that food is vital for children and for adults. It’s vital for children to learn and grow, and for people to lead healthy, productive lives. Yet in this province of Ontario, food bank use has increased by 31% between 2008 and 2012. I think it’s long overdue that we start to talk about food security and about the growing food bank numbers in Ontario.

I think that the numbers don’t actually do it justice. I would encourage members of this Legislature to actually go down to a food bank and see what is going on there. If you’ve ever volunteered in a food bank or worked in a low-income community and you’ve seen what it’s like to line up at a food bank and to wait in line and to have your neighbours in your community see you asking for a food handout in this wealthy city, you would know that the experience of getting food at a food bank is not empowering. In fact, it’s dehumanizing in many ways.

Yet this is the only way that people in this province who care are able to give back, it seems, because we’ve had a government that has abandoned the social contract to actually care for people who are struggling.

I really wish that people could put a face to this issue, because I think the numbers don’t do it justice. Food banks have become an institution in this city and in this province, and they make absolutely no sense.

I would much rather, instead of taking the produce that our grocery stores don’t want to sell or can’t sell and then having the thousands and thousands of volunteer hours to pick up that food and bring it to a food bank and then distribute it, and all the fundraising money that goes to that—heck, I’d rather just give that money out to people and let them make a choice about what they wanted to eat instead of having to go through cans to check expiry dates and check for dents. But in fact, Speaker, that’s the job of this province, the job of all of us: to make sure that we have enough to pay the bills.

I think that the state of food insecurity and the growing food bank use in this province is a shame. In fact, it has let this government off the hook.

We have not seen this government make affordability or affordable housing a priority. This bill is fine. It will pass. It will go to committee. New Democrats will work there to ensure that it’s fair and it’s as strong as possible, given the limited scope that this government has provided to address affordable housing.

But this government does need to show more. It needs to show a real commitment to Ontario families, and it needs to start taking responsibility for its failure to act over the past decade, its failure to make life more secure and more affordable for Ontarians.

Like the Attorney General, I remember what that meant when the government previous to the Liberal government cut social assistance benefits by 22%. But it has been 15 years since then, and there has been plenty of time to make sure that people can keep food on the table. This bill is another example of how slowly this government has been moving on some of the most critical issues that we face.

Speaker, for the last nine years, since 2004, the co-operative housing sector has been lobbying the provincial government to move co-op evictions out of the courts and to use the existing infrastructure of the tribunal system used by other non-profit housing providers and private landlords. A decade later, it’s time to move this forward. Let’s not forget that in 2009 this government signed an all-party commitment, through the Poverty Reduction Act, to reduce poverty in Ontario, because this act has stalled, this plan has stalled and it’s time to get it moving.

There are 600,000 people without work in this province, and it’s time that this government do something to support those folks. It has taken 10 years just to produce a report on social assistance reform, but unfortunately a shelved report will not pay the rent or feed the kids in Ontario. It’s time for this government to move forward with social assistance reform. Time is wasting. People’s lives are deteriorating while they wait. We need action today to implement the best recommendations of the social assistance review.

We all know that the mess of complicated rules for social assistance recipients is well documented now, and it’s time for the Premier to make these changes to allow Ontarians to put food on the table. We’ve put forward a piece of that, which is to start by allowing social assistance recipients who are working to keep $200 of their earnings; don’t claw that back. It’s a proposal that all parties have agreed to, yet it’s disappointing to see the government sit on their hands. Why can’t we push that forward today? My understanding is that it’s a regulation change.

It could happen; it could have happened weeks ago, months ago; it could have happened 10 years ago. I hope that the Premier will take our lead, will work with us on the budget to deliver relief to Ontario families.

But to be honest, Speaker, the record of this government has been disappointing at best. In Toronto, this Premier signed off on an agreement to sell 65 housing units of public housing, and while some said this was prudent, this is not a long-term solution. Selling off capital assets to pay for repairs is not a long-term solution, and it speaks to the real crisis in this province.

Speaker, we’ve put forward many proposals, as New Democrats, that we would like to see, proposals that would protect low-income tenants. We proposed ways to make it easier for tenants to have their concerns heard at the Landlord and Tenant Board; for example, increasing the time limit for tenant complaints to the Landlord and Tenant Board to two years after the alleged conduct. That would match the time limitation for landlords. There needs to be a discussion of other ways to better protect tenants through strengthening rent control.

Our party advocates for an inclusionary housing policy in this province that would require developers to ensure a small percentage of affordable housing units in new developments. My colleague from Parkdale–High Park has been a tireless advocate on this issue, pushing this issue to the forefront of our discussions in this Legislature. This government, however, has failed to act. It has failed to put in place inclusionary zoning policies that would allow municipalities to require developers to include a minimum number of affordable housing units in new developments.

For those who remain reluctant to spend a dime to build affordable housing, this is a cost-free way to build housing that would support thousands of people in this province. Speaker, there are a growing number of municipalities that see inclusionary zoning housing as a key planning tool to generate more affordable housing and more affordable neighbourhoods.

New Democrats have also proposed a simple amendment to the Planning Act that would ensure that

section 37 money would actually support affordable housing growth. This would also lead to the creation of more new housing co-ops, in addition to other forms of more affordable housing. We know that inclusionary housing won’t replace direct housing investment from the province, but it will be an important new tool to help Ontarians find more affordable homes and to keep them. We do, however, need direct housing investment, because affordable housing remains the biggest challenge for many people in this province. The long affordable housing wait-lists and the long lines at food banks are the most crude evidence of this big affordability gap.

Speaker, we also proposed a housing benefit that, properly designed, would help stabilize precariously housed renters and households and would be an effective homeless prevention strategy. The government talked about exploring this benefit—it was something that we prioritized in our 2011 election platform—but this government has taken no visible action to move this forward. Now is the time for the government to step up to the plate and deliver on this benefit.

Finally, we need a strong guiding document to bring all of these achievable ideas together. Ontario needs a housing plan, and needs a housing plan with targets, with timelines and funding for programs. This government promised such a plan three years ago when it launched its long-term affordable housing plan consultations. While the government has put forward a long-term housing plan, it has not set any targets for the creation of affordable housing or any long-term commitment of dollars. Speaker, we need targets, we need timelines and we need a funding commitment to effectively tackle the housing crisis that our province is facing.

I think that the issue of responsibility is important. I think that this building is too far away, even though it’s just blocks, from people who are struggling to pay the rent. It’s just blocks from people who are living on the streets. Somehow, members of this Legislature fail to take responsibility to actually secure the right to housing in this city and in this province.

It’s sad to say, but there’s a lack of leadership on housing issues from this government. In 2009, the Ontario Auditor General highlighted the lack of access to social housing in this province. He noted the lack of ministry staff resources to deliver housing programs, and he noted the lack of proper asset management. He also noted the lack of a provincial strategy to ensure the long-term sustainability of sufficient numbers of well-maintained social housing units.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There are a few sidebars going on. In fact, there are some people who are talking from five or 10 seats away to each other. If you want to have discussions, I’d appreciate it if you’d take it outside. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Speaker, as recently as 2012, the Drummond commission raised the issue and said the province needs to both accept its responsibility to work with municipal housing service managers and affordable housing providers to stabilize funding, and the province also needs to aggressively negotiate to get the federal government back to the table.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to stop here and listen to the rest of the debate.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me just, first of all, say that I admire anyone who is involved in the social work field. My own daughter has been a social worker with the children’s aid society for some 10 years, and now she works in palliative and complex continuing care in the Kingston area. I think social workers do a tremendous amount of good work in this province, and some of them do great work within this Legislature as well.

Now, the member has talked about everything under the sun as far as housing is concerned, and I think he put his finger right on it right at the very end. All successful social housing projects over the last 50 years in this country have been as a result of the co-operation and working together of all three orders of government: local, federal and provincial.

As a matter of fact, the last major housing initiative that we had in this province was some five or six years ago, when about $600 million was put together between both the federal government and the provincial government—all of our tax dollars; we all contributed to it in one way or another—and we did build a significant number of new affordable housing units.

One of the problems with affordable housing is the fact that it means so many different things to so many different people. At the one end, we get money for shelters, we get money for non-profits, we get money for co-ops. At the other end, we get money that helps young couples, for example, buy their first house. To many different people, some of this is regarded as affordable housing, and to some people it isn’t regarded as affordable housing. That’s one issue that we have out there. There’s no question about it that people have a right to decent and affordable housing.

I would just urge the party opposite who have great contact with the federal government to get the federal government re-engaged in the whole issue of affordable housing. If the feds are willing to put up our tax dollars through the federal initiative, we will do so from the provincial side, because we realize it’s absolutely necessary that people live in safe, good, clean housing. Everybody should have the right to that in this great country of ours and this great province of ours. All we can do is work together to make this a reality, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I’m proud today to speak in favour of this bill. It’s a very worthwhile cause. People who need not-for-profit housing—there are unfortunately so many of them in our community, and we have an obligation as a moral society to help these people.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to remind the official opposition that your member is up talking, and five of you are talking in front of him. I’m having trouble hearing, especially the member from Halton. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, again, I support this bill. We, as a party, support this bill. We look forward to working with the Liberals and the NDP to do what’s right in this case and help people in Ontario who have a need.

Harvey Cooper, who is here with us today, has been in to my office and spoken to me and explained the problems in more detail than I understood before. So I thank him for that. I understand, I accept and I’m more aware of the breadth and depth of the problem.

We need to be doing more for people who are poor, who are having a difficult time. We need to have more of our assets, our monies, in this province to help these people. We’re wasting too much money on things like scandals, other non-priority items—well, a scandal’s hardly a priority item—and need to focus on what’s important.

The change for this to go to the Landlord and Tenant Board is a very good and worthwhile thing. We are concerned that it might create a very big backlog, which will be bad for tenants and landlords, so we look forward, in committee, to discussing what needs to be done to amend this bill to do the job more effectively. It’s not right for tenants or landlords to face big backlogs of time when they deserve timely and just decisions.

We will be supporting it. We look forward to discussing it in committee and making it even better.

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I’m happy to stand up and respond to some of the comments that were raised by the member from Davenport.

But first I’d like to address some of the comments that were made by the former Attorney General—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Former?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: No, current Attorney General—I’m sorry—current Attorney General, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for.

But one thing that I cannot stand, when we are sitting in this chamber, when we are engaging in discussion, is jurisdictional politics. I cannot stand it; I have no tolerance for it. I think the people of my riding have no tolerance for governments that try to pass the buck. The fact is that we have a responsibility here in this Legislature, and there is a lot that is within our control, there is a lot that we can do. I don’t even like to hear about the federal government, and how we need to lobby the federal government. We need to focus on what we can do right here right now.

So I wanted to speak about some of the issues that were raised by my colleague the member from Davenport and some of the points that I agree with. We’ve seen it before. We were debating this act or this bill or one that was very close to it, very similar to it, before we prorogued, and all that work was lost. That is a shame. So is the fact that this bill doesn’t do anything to help the people in my riding, where we don’t have any co-ops.

This bill does not go far enough and it does not address the underlying issues that we see. Underlying issues like: affordable housing; we need to have supports for our municipalities to create more affordable housing, to maintain the existing affordable housing units that they have; we need to have a housing plan with targets and timelines; and in the north, we need affordable hydro; it is not right that people can live in subsidized housing units where they pay $85 a month but have a $1,000 hydro bill; and we need affordable food.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Davenport for his comments.

I think that our friends from the co-op sector who are here today are probably encouraged to hear there’s going to be support from all three parties for this particular piece of legislation, and I’m sure they’re encouraged by that.

Speaker, earlier, in his response to the member from Nipissing—sorry, not Nipissing; Pembroke, I believe—our Attorney General was speaking, and he referenced some decisions that had been made some time ago. I worked in the social housing field for 15 years in Thunder Bay, both the north side of the city and the south side of the city. My geography encompassed—going up to the northeast: Geraldton, Nakina and Aroland and Longlac—quite a wide bit geography.

I remember very clearly as well—and all governments make decisions, but I think the decisions that were made in 1995 were particularly egregious insofar as they disproportionately affected, I think, people who could least afford to be affected in the way that they were as a result of those decisions.

As the AG has said earlier in his remarks, there were projects on the books: contracts had been signed; documents had been prepared; drawings had been prepared. I had a number of non-profit projects in my jurisdiction that would have been coming online that were just simply put to the side, and they didn’t go forward. A lot of money was wasted, and a large vacuum, to be fair, was created. We fell behind in a significant way.

Other members don’t want to reference the need for support from the federal government, but I can tell you, it is much more difficult, when you’re responsible for the money side of things, to get everything done that you want to get done without support from the feds. We saw it four or five years ago when they walked away on the child care money. We’ve been supporting that with an extra $63 million a year for four years now; that’s $250 million.

We’re concerned with whether or not they’re going to stay connected on the social housing field at the end of this agreement. I think 2014 is when it ends. Without their support, it is obviously much more difficult for us, as a government in Ontario, to do as much as we would like to do.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Davenport has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Jonah Schein: It is good to hear the support for this bill. It is an important bill, as we know, and it’s good to hear that support from across the House. But we’ve also heard from most members that we have a crisis of affordable housing that far exceeds the limits of this bill.

I would ask this government, which has had 10 years to do this, to actually introduce some more substantial legislation that would make life more affordable for people, that would deal with some of the concerns experienced by folks in northern communities, as my friend from Kenora–Rainy River was saying, and would make sure that people in this city can afford to live here.

Speaker, I’m thrilled to hear the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills speak in support of this. We need Conservative support in this House for affordable housing. We need Liberal support. We can count on NDP support for affordability issues.

But I think the language of “the needy,” “the others”—we need an understanding in this Legislature that all of us, at some point in our lives, will need support, need help, and that the kind of province that we need to build is one where we can count on each other to help each other out when we are vulnerable. It’s not about those other people. It’s about our sisters and brothers. It’s about our mothers and fathers and our children.

It’s mostly a matter of luck whether we’re going to be able to make it in this world. But what we do have control of is, in this Legislature, we can introduce policies that will protect people. We can create affordable housing in Ontario. It would be nice to have the support of the federal government, but this provincial government can and should take the lead. We want to work with this government to make sure that people can afford to live in Ontario.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on a very important bill, Bill 14, that deals with non-profit housing co-operatives and makes some very important changes.

I will say at the outset that it’s about time that we’re debating this particular bill. I think we’ve heard from all three parties how important this particular issue is. We’ve been hearing from our friends from the co-operative housing sector, who have highlighted to all us members how important this particular—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, it appears that what I just said over there is happening over here. Your speaker is up, we have two lovely discussions going on in front, and I can’t hear him. I would suggest we take it outside if you want to have some giggles and things. Thanks.

Go ahead, Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. As I was stating earlier, the co-operative housing sector has done a very good job of highlighting some of the challenges that exist in the current system as it relates to dispute resolution mechanisms within the co-op housing sector. These changes that are being put forward through Bill 14 will ensure that we have a far more workable dispute resolution mechanism by which co-ops will be able to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board as opposed to going to the courts to resolve certain kinds of disputes within their mandate.

As we know, tribunals like the Landlord and Tenant Board, which are specialized tribunals which have been given very specific mandates and have the expertise in dealing with these types of issues, are far better suited to deal with these matters than the courts, not to mention the fact that the Landlord and Tenant Board, or LTB, is far more specialized in nature. They have the expertise to look at these issues. The proceedings are far cheaper than going to the courts, and they are, from a timeline point of view, perhaps far more expedited as well.

We know the challenges with the courts. Courts are busy. They deal with all kinds of issues. For co-ops to be able to go to the courts, not only is there that added expense of going to the court system, but then there’s also the issue around the time, as to how long it takes to resolve these disputes, in terms of getting them heard and getting a decision from a judge.

And there may be issues around expertise—not to undermine judges; they are very knowledgeable, but because they deal with so many different types of issues, they would not have very specific expertise like the Landlord and Tenant Board, which is a more specialized tribunal created under law through the Residential Tenancies Act. So this point that the co-op housing sector has been advocating for some time, that we move most co-op tenure disputes from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board, is a very reasonable thing to do.

I think it will result in a better system in place that will help resolve disputes much faster, in a manner that is cheaper and hopefully will result in decisions that are better decisions as well, both for the co-ops and those who live within co-ops. I think this is the right move.

I’m really happy that this bill is tabled so early on in the session so that it gives us the opportunity to have proper debate here, at the committee and, of course, third reading, so that we can pass this into law as quickly as possible.

The timing for this bill is quite appropriate as well. As we probably all know, 2012 was the International Year of Cooperatives, declared by the United Nations, around the world, and I can tell you that at least in my community of Ottawa Centre, in my city of Ottawa, we had some incredible celebrations that took place during that year of co-ops. I think I learned far more about the co-op movement, what co-ops stand for and the manner in which they help people in all sectors, not just in housing. It was really incredible to have that year. I think it was really fitting to shine the light on co-operatives in our communities and highlight the good work that they do day in and day out.

What really amazed me is how little the general public knows about co-ops. They are very much part and parcel of our lives. We see them all the time, from credit unions to, obviously, housing co-ops. But I find in my conversations in my community that it’s something people have very little appreciation of, in the sense that they don’t know much about them. That’s interesting, given the history of co-ops and how long they have existed in our society, in our community.

I think that the United Nations declaring 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives really helped move the yardstick in making people aware—at least, obviously, I can speak for Ontario—in our province of what co-ops are, what they do, what their mandate is and how they are really helping to foster a more just and fair society.

Speaker, I think I’ve mentioned this in the House before: I belong to a renewable energy co-op in my community. It’s the first of its kind in eastern Ontario, where a co-operative has been created to promote more renewable energy. They’ve got a few projects on the go. I’m very proud to be a member. I just marvel at the way the decisions are made in that co-op, how everybody’s views are taken into account and how that co-op is really taking the necessary steps in promoting renewable energy, and obviously they are doing that through the Green Energy Act, through the FIT and microFIT programs.

It’s amazing how many people are interested, how many people are contributing—people like myself who are not able to take advantage of the microFIT program because of the way my roof is designed or facing.

But here’s a co-op which is giving an opportunity for people to put in smaller amounts of money and be able to take

part in a very large movement in greening our environment and making sure that we’re generating electricity in a renewable fashion. It’s just one very specific example of how co-operatives are making a difference in all different sectors in our communities, and mine in particular is definitely a shining example of that.

Coming back to co-op housing, I wanted to talk about the work that the Co-operative Housing Association of Eastern Ontario, CHASEO, does in my community. It’s a co-operation of co-ops, an extremely vibrant organization which does some really good work in my community and across eastern Ontario.

CHASEO represents about 43 housing co-ops, plus five associate co-ops, providing units for 4,345 households in eastern Ontario. That translates into affordable housing for 12,100 people. That’s a very significant number of people that they provide affordable housing to. There are five French-speaking and seven bilingual co-ops in eastern Ontario that are represented by CHASEO. There are 360 accessible units available in eastern Ontario housing co-ops, making sure, of course, that people of all abilities have access to good, affordable housing. Also, very importantly, I think, there are five seniors’ co-ops in eastern Ontario that are represented through CHASEO.

CHASEO is a marvellous organization. I’ve had great opportunities to work with them on many issues. This particular issue, Bill 14, is one key issue that they have raised with me on numerous occasions. On a regular basis, I attend their spring congress and AGM and their fall education day, and I have had the opportunity to speak at both those events on an annual basis.

The issue around a better dispute settlement mechanism, the one that is sort of encapsulated in Bill 14, comes up often. I’m really happy to see that this bill is moving forward and has the support of all three parties, because I look forward to going back again to the meetings coming up and being able to deliver that good news to them, saying, “Look, your legislators listened to you, and by working together, they were able to deliver on something that is extremely important to you.” I think that really highlights our work, which is to help people. It really translates into those who live in co-op housing and will be able to assist them in a very meaningful way.

I want to mention the names of the board members who are part of CHASEO, because it’s such an engaged organization in my community. It does so much in promoting co-op housing and providing necessary services to co-op housing. A big thank-you to the president, Angie Blais; the secretary, Helen Friel; staff liaison Catherine Lee; and Vice-President Daniel Monoogian. Their interim director is Sharon Virtue, their treasurer is Michelle Bainbridge, and their director is Flo Bernier. Of course, their executive director is Céline Carrière, who works very, very hard.

The board of directors and the CHASEO staff work extremely hard in making sure that they’re providing services to all the housing co-ops.

In my riding, in Ottawa Centre alone—very fortunately, I think—I have 12 housing co-ops. I’ve had the chance to visit every single one of them. They are great places for people to live. A lot of good work, a lot of good initiatives come out of all those housing co-ops. Most of them are concentrated in the downtown part of my community, but then, if you really look at the map, you will see them on the south end of my riding, close to where I live, and to the west end and east end as well.

It’s incredible, the diversity of these co-ops and the kinds of different projects that they take on. So let me go through the list, because I think it’s instructive, and I’ll speak to a few of them because I’ve had the chance to work with some of them.

There’s the Abiwin Housing Co-operative, which is located right downtown, actually not that far from my community office. A very vibrant community.

Alex Laidlaw Housing Co-operative is located on Booth Street.

Cartier Square Housing Co-operative is on Cooper.

The Catalpa Housing Co-operative is on Queen Elizabeth Drive—beautiful. It’s right on the Rideau Canal. It is a series of row houses which have been turned into a co-operative. I was there last summer talking to some of the neighbours. Just absolutely gorgeous architecture, almost turn of the century, and the fact that they have this beautiful view of the Rideau Canal, which is a UNESCO world heritage site, as we all know, is remarkable.

Then there is the Coopérative d’habitation d’app. Desjardins, on Empress Avenue, which is a French senior co-op located in my community. A fantastic group of people—I’ve done some work with them. They had some challenges, actually, which could have been far better resolved had Bill 14 existed than resorting to court systems, so I know they will be particularly happy with Bill 14. Now, I think things are far better and smoother at the Desjardins co-op, but a direct example that I think they would have been far better served if we had on the books something like Bill 14 already passed.

Dalhousie Housing Co-op is, again, on Somerset Street.

Located in the community of Glebe—many of you know where Glebe is located in my riding—we have the Glebe Housing Co-operative.

Then there is the Shefford Heritage Housing Co-operative on 300 Cooper. Just last summer they celebrated their 100th anniversary—the 100th anniversary of this beautiful architecture. This building is to be marveled at. If you come to Ottawa, if you’re in my riding, I will encourage you to please go to Cooper Street and just stand outside the Shefford Heritage Housing Co-op and have a look at this building. It is absolutely gorgeous architecture, and inside the building is beautiful.

The story is incredible. It was in the 1990s that the building was owned by a landlord. It was just falling apart; it was not being maintained. A group of people got together and said, “You know what? We want to take this building, we want to turn this into a co-op, and we want to fix this building and make it into a quality place to live.” They did so, and the provincial government at that time came to their aid in making that happen. They have restored the building, outside and inside.

I had the chance this summer, when they were celebrating the 100th anniversary of the building, to see some of the units, to see the beautiful staircase, the banisters, the artwork that’s hanging in the hallways and, like I said, the architecture outside. It is probably one of my favourite buildings in my riding, and again, hats off to the members of the co-op at Shefford for the work they do day in and day out in maintaining this building and the incredible work they’re doing in building a vibrant community.

Again, just last summer we had a great celebration outdoors. It was kind of a rainy day—rainy, sunny, it was one of those weird days, but you know, people were out. There was music and there was poetry. There was a bit of storytelling, a bit of recalling the history. I think some of our friends who are visiting right now in the gallery were there for that opening. So that was fantastic.

Then there’s the Tompkins Housing Co-operative, which is located on Preston Street in Little Italy, another very vibrant part of my riding.

The Carillon Co-op is literally probably 10 doors down from where I live on Prince of Wales Drive in my riding, another very nice community.

On the west end of my community there’s the Dovercourt Co-op and the Westboro Housing Co-operative.

All this to say, Speaker, that I have the great privilege of representing a community where co-op housing is very important, and this issue that we’re debating in Bill 14 is extremely important in all of these co-operatives. I’ve visited them all. I’ve had the chance to speak to people. I’ve been working closely with CHASEO, the Co-operative Housing Association of Eastern Ontario, and again and again and again the issue that has come up is, let’s make the dispute resolution process a simpler one. The way it is structured right now makes it extremely difficult for co-ops to conduct their affairs.

Courts are costly. The dispute resolution process that takes place in courts is far lengthier in time, and decisions may not be that of a specialist body like the Landlord and Tenant Board.

I think the change that we’re making, I can tell you, will see a very direct impact in my community, in all the 12 co-ops—co-op housing—that are located in the riding of Ottawa Centre. In every single one of them, I know these changes are very much appreciated because it is going to allow the members of the co-operative to manage their affairs in a far more reasonable manner than what we have in place.

So I’m very appreciative that this bill has come forward. I know it has been a few times that it has been here, but I feel fairly confident this time around that this will pass this Legislature and will be law, hopefully as soon as we all can do.

I think the most important message that we’re sending out is that as the members of this Legislature, as duly elected representatives, regardless of which part of the province we come from, regardless of the political ideology or value sets that we belong to, we are listening as a collective. We are paying attention to issues that are important in our communities. We are taking very direct steps that will help ensure that lives are being improved in places like co-op housing.

I think this bill may be simpler in many regards or may not deal with the big heavy policy issues that we all engage in and debate at all times. I would argue, Speaker, that it’s still as valid, as important, for those whose lives it’s going to impact. I think that is our job, as members of this Legislature: to listen to our communities, to be there at that street level, be able to go door to door, talk to folks and see what those issues are, and be able to then translate that in work that is going to improve their lives.

I have heard many times from folks who have talked about this issue, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation so that I can go back to them and say, “We listened. All three parties listened. We worked together, and we got it done in a co-operative fashion.”

Speaker, I look forward to hearing the views of other members, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to assert my support for this bill and, of course, talk about some of the great co-operative housing in my community and how it’s going to impact their lives and improve them.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m delighted that we have with us today members from the Ontario Principals’ Council in the gallery here and, I suspect, in other places. I’d like to introduce Ken Arnott from the York Region District School Board, who is the president of OPC.

Other board members are Bob Pratt, from Delta Secondary School in Hamilton, in the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board; Sharon Bowes, from Kerns Public School in Thornloe, in the Ontario northeast district school board; John Hamilton, from the Sutherland Public School in Sunderland, in the Durham board; Susan Ferguson, from the North Lambton Secondary School in Forest, in the Lambton Kent board; Mary Linton Brady, from the Milliken Public School in Toronto, in the Toronto DSB, obviously; Lisa Vincent, from Hastings-Prince Edward DSB; Naeem Siddiq, from North Albion Collegiate in Toronto, again the Toronto DSB; Sandra Stewart, from Avalon Public School in Orléans, in the Ottawa-Carleton DSB; and finally, Ian McFarlane, who is the executive director of OPC.

We’re very pleased to the principals with us here today.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m proud to introduce Bernard Tangelder, from the great riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. Bernard is with TD Research, and he’s here to spend the day at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to introduce Dmitri Logounov, who is a small business owner from Don Valley West joining us today.

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to introduce Helen Musclow, a resident of Cambridge and a distinguished volunteer for Victim Services of Waterloo Region, who is here in the gallery today. She has an extensive biography; I know I can’t read it all into the record. I appreciate her being here.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to introduce two constituents of mine from Orillia: Deb Wagner and Dawson Pasiecznik. They’re here today.

I’d also like to welcome the Ontario Principals’ Council as well. We had a great meeting this morning.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome a constituent and hard-working student placement in my office, Noah Adams, to the Legislature.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’m delighted today to introduce Julie Rosenberg. She’s the mother of a page in this session, Emily Kostiuk—I hope I got that name right. Of course, Julie and Emily are from the great riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville. Please welcome them.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce the hardest-working city councillor from the city of North Bay, Mr. Mac Bain.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I’d like to welcome visiting members of the Ontario Principals’ Council: Naeem Siddiq, Sandra Stewart, Sharon Bowes, Lisa Vincent, Peggy Sweeney, Laura Hyde; Ian McFarlane, the executive director; and of course, Ken Arnott, president. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to welcome Marilyn Savage, from London, who is here on behalf of her 93-year-old parents, Everett and Simone Price, who have separated by the long-term-care system after 67 years of marriage and are seeking reunification from the government.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I too would like to welcome Helen Musclow this morning. Helen is not only a dedicated volunteer with Victim Services of Waterloo Region, but she has also volunteered with Relay for Life and the MS Society. Volunteerism is her life. It’s a pleasure to welcome her to Queen’s Park today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): In the Speaker’s gallery, please welcome Mr. Alvin Curling, former Speaker in the 38th Parliament and member of provincial Parliament for Scarborough North and Scarborough–Rouge River.

We’d also like to welcome the students with Mr. Curling, who are from Seneca College.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. Good morning, Premier. My question is for the Premier. There was so much damning evidence at the justice committee yesterday that I barely know where to begin. We heard from cabinet secretary Peter Wallace. He testified that on July 27, 2011, cabinet was made aware of Project Vapour, the code name for the Oakville gas plant cancellation.

Premier, you were part of that cabinet and there at the time of those mini briefings. A year later you stood in this Legislature and said all the documents were released, yet you knew full well at that time that we had no Project Vapour documents. So what’s your answer today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just before I answer—and I’m happy to answer the question—I just want to remind everyone that the UN has said that this is International Day of Happiness. So we’re just going to have a happy day in here.

Peter Wallace also said yesterday, “I’m satisfied that the Ministry of Energy responded to the request in good faith and worked appropriately to provide the documents requested by the committee.” So my contention is that all that has been asked for has been provided.

What we’ve done is we’ve expanded the mandate of the committee. We’ve allowed for a much broader range of questioning, and that will allow all of the questions of the opposition to be answered. So I’m very pleased that this process is under way.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, on September 25, you stood in this House and said, “The total cost of the Oakville relocation is $40 million.” Now your energy minister says the OPA gave you that number and it could be wrong. He told us to call OPA officials to testify and “give us their calculations.” Well, yesterday we did exactly that and they said to us that on September 24, “…a memorandum of understanding stated there would be other costs to the relocation in addition to the $40 million.”

Premier, you told us the total cost was $40 million when you knew, one full day before, that was not correct. I’m sensing a pattern here, Premier, so today, what’s your answer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: In a news release on September 24, 2012, the OPA stated that the sunk costs for relocating the plant were $40 million and that they took on gas management and turbine costs in exchange for a lower price for power. This was confirmed in committee yesterday as well.

The memorandum of understanding the opposition is referring to has been public and available to the opposition since September. Also, the Oakville plant contract has been online, 500 pages, since December.

We have been open and transparent throughout the entire process. That’s why we asked the Auditor General to look into the costs of the Oakville relocation. The costs that the OPA spoke of yesterday have been public since September. This is not new. So let’s allow the Auditor General to do his job.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, we’ve now heard, first from the province’s top bureaucrat, that you knew one thing to be true, but the legislative record shows you said something completely opposite here. Then we heard from the Ontario Power Authority that you knew one thing to be true, but your legislative record shows again you said something completely different in this House. In your media interview yesterday, you said, “... to the best of our ability at every ... juncture we have given the information that we had.”

Premier, sworn testimony at the justice committee yesterday has now proven that is not the case.

Yesterday, you also said, “There may be differences with what we have said in the past.”

So what’s your answer today?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The OPA stated in their press release on September 24, 2012, that as part of the renegotiated contract, the OPA took on gas management and turbine costs in exchange for a lower price paid for power.

Yesterday, this was confirmed at committee when OPA vice-president JoAnne Butler said, “In the negotiation, because we were taking on some of the gas ... management fees, because we were” taking on the gas turbines and sunk costs, “we did get a lowering of what we call the net revenue requirement or the monthly payment ... you’ve heard about....” This quote means that we are paying a significantly lower monthly price for power.

Mr. Speaker, again, we have asked the auditor to look into these costs. We have expanded the mandate of the committee, and the Premier has committed to going before the committee, if asked.

Let’s allow the committee to do their work.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is also to the Premier. Premier, to date, your response to questions regarding the cancellation of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants has been all too familiar. You’ve simply picked up where your predecessor left off. When faced with the consequences of your government’s political interference, it’s the same old McGuinty-Wynne story: You deflect, deny, defend.

As we heard from not one but two witnesses in committee yesterday, you sat at the cabinet table and were briefed on the memorandum of understanding to move the Oakville plant. Both you and your Minister of Energy were briefed that the cost of relocating the Oakville gas plant would be significantly higher than the $40 million you’ve continually claimed.

Will you come clean with the people of Ontario about what you knew and when you knew it? Or do we have to wait until you’re questioned under oath to finally get at the truth?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really agree with the Minister of Energy that we should let the committee do its work. The whole reason, Mr. Speaker, that we wanted to expand the mandate of the justice committee was to allow them to look at all of the issues involved in this.

From the moment I took on this job and before I took on the job, I have said that I believed that we needed to get all the questions answered, that we needed to make sure that all the documents were available. That’s what this exercise is about.

I have said I will appear before the committee. I have asked the Auditor General to look at both situations. We have expanded the mandate of the committee. Far from denying, I have said there are questions that need to be answered and we want to provide the information. They’re not simple questions. The answers are not simple. That’s why we need all these processes in order to get the answers in place.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock. I would say to the member for Northumberland–Quinte West and the member for Huron–Bruce, I can hear you loudly, but I cannot hear the answer that’s coming across. I would expect the party that asked the question would be the one that would be quiet to listen to the answer.

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Premier: Your latest strategy is very transparent. Your Minister of Energy has tried to pin your political decisions on the Ontario Power Authority. Yesterday, he claimed that, “The Ontario Power Authority did all the negotiation; they did the calculation of costs. They provided the cost to us.”

Premier, we know that is not correct. As we heard in committee yesterday, political staff even interfered in the negotiations with TransCanada, by directing the OPA on what counter-offers to make to TransCanada.

I’ll quote directly from OPA vice-president JoAnne Butler’s written statement: “The government was a party to the negotiations ... in the relocation of both power plants. In the case of the Oakville plant, it was represented by the Ministry of Energy and by Infrastructure Ontario.”

Will you instruct the Minister of Energy to correct his record and apologize for misleading this House?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. Sit down, please.

I would ask the member to withdraw that statement.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, we’re used to hearing them listen.

I have a quote from Peter Wallace, secretary of cabinet, in his testimony, referring to whether or not there were any directions given with respect to the documents: “They had not been able to find”—his investigation by the Attorney General’s office—“any concrete evidence to substantiate the allegation, that the witness, the individual involved, appeared to be truthful, that she appeared not to have, in her own mind, offered specific and highly inappropriate direction to the power authority.”

We provided the information and the documentation that were available to us. Colin Andersen, when he exposed himself to the media here several weeks ago, answered this question: “At any point during these searches—we are talking about all of them, not just this one—did you feel that you were under a great deal of political pressure to either produce or not produce records?” Colin Andersen’s answer was, “No.”

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Premier: I’ll point out to the Premier that that memorandum of understanding was available in September. They knew about it, and withheld that until October 15, when the then Premier could scamper off and prorogue this Legislature.

Attempts to claim that the OPA is an arm’s-length agency after years of political interference are ridiculous. Your government has used ministerial directives to inject politics into everything the OPA does. It’s rich to claim that it’s an arm’s-length agency after you were caught red-handed directing it to cancel the plants. You’ve blamed them for the withholding of documents. You’ve blamed them for the siting of the Oakville and Mississauga plants. We found out in committee yesterday that it was the sole decision of your government where to site those plants.

Will you admit that you only consider the OPA an arm’s-length agency when you’re using it to hide behind one of your scandals?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. Stop the clock. Please sit down.

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have said from the beginning that there were three parties who wanted the relocation of the gas plants. We decided it. We won the election. We moved the gas plants—relocated the gas plants. The Ontario Power Authority negotiated; they provided the information to us. The Ontario Power Authority—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke: You asked the question, and I would expect you to be the most behaved person to get the answer.

And the rest, also, that are following him: I’d ask you to give up on it. Calm down a little.

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, we had a number of witnesses yesterday. One of them was the mayor of Oakville, and he had this to say: “Anyone who wishes to criticize the cost of cancelling it would do everybody a favour if they would explain how they would have done it differently.”

Can the opposition do us a favour and table the cost analysis they performed to relocate the gas plant when they promised to move it?

The OPA had on their website all of the necessary information. They had a press release, the sunk costs, they referred to the power cost deal, they had the contract online—500 pages worth—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. The leader of the third party.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Energy stood up in the House and said, “Every single time the question of cost has come up ... we relied on the information that was provided to us by the Ontario Power Authority.” Does the Premier stand by that assertion?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, we are very eager—I am personally eager, our government is eager—that we make sure that every piece of information is available, that all of the questions about cost, the questions about the relocation, the questions about documents, that they are available.

That is why we have opened up the process. That’s why we’ve expanded the mandate of the committee; that’s why we proposed that. That’s why I’ve asked the Auditor General to look at both situations, and that’s why the committee is doing its work. I really believe that we should let the committee do its work, and it should report back to the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, a senior VP at the OPA—the Ontario Power Authority—told the justice committee that the Oakville cancellation would cost the public somewhere between $319 million and $467 million—and that’s before you get to new transmission costs.

For months, the government has claimed that costs were $40 million. For example, Premier McGuinty said in question period, “On the matter of cost, Speaker, it’s $40 million ... we’ve nailed that down.”

Why was the government claiming costs were $40 million when their own bureaucrats were telling them all along that their costs were much, much higher than that?

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, again, I have the quote—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Member for Northumberland–Quinte West, you are warned.

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, again, I have the quote from the vice-president of the OPA in testimony yesterday: “In the negotiation, because we were taking on some of the gas ... management fees, because we were” taking on the gas turbines and sunk costs, “we did get a lowering of what we call the net revenue requirement or the monthly payment ... you’ve heard about....”

Mr. Speaker, those costs—and the witness did not take off or subtract the price-beneficial arrangements with respect to the power price. When you take that into account, the cost is brought down very, very significantly.

The Auditor General is looking into it. There will be other witnesses who will look at the figures and work certain assumptions—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Answer?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —in terms of the prices.

Let the committee do its job. The opposition should be patient instead of having a kangaroo court.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the very same VP told Ontarians yesterday that the government should have known that the cancellation cost a lot more than $40 million because the government participated in negotiations and signed the very memorandum of understanding that set costs that much higher.

How can the government negotiate a deal, sign off on it, and then get the facts wrong?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, there’s something really strange here. Number one, the memorandum of understanding they’re referring to—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. Stop the clock. I will have peace in here, at least quiet so we can have the answer.

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The memorandum of understanding that the opposition parties are referring to was online September 24. As well, the 500-page contract with the Oakville plant was online—500 pages of it. The memorandum of understanding, the press release, all the information they’re referring to and which was used by the witness from OPA yesterday, was made public months ago. They had all of that information. They never asked any questions on it previously. All of a sudden, it’s very relevant.

Why did you not read those documents that were made public? Why were you doing your job negligibly? Pay attention to what you’re provided with.

Mr. Speaker, all the documents were made available, including the memorandum of understanding that was referred to—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. New question.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier—but I have to say the Minister of Energy must have forgotten that the government prorogued the House so we couldn’t ask those questions in the fall. That’s the strange thing that’s going on around here.

Nonetheless, to the Premier: Yesterday, the secretary of cabinet, the most senior civil servant in Ontario, said with respect to the cancellation of the gas plants, “This is the government driving the bus.” Both the secretary of cabinet and a VP at the OPA told the justice committee that senior political staff from the Premier’s office were involved in the Oakville and Mississauga cancellations.

Is the Premier ready to admit that it was the Liberal government that was driving the bus on this gas plant scandal, and to stop blaming the OPA for the fact that it went in the ditch?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said, and it has been said by others, that this was a political decision, absolutely. I’ve said quite clearly it was a political decision. We’ve all in this House said that we would have made the same political decision. I really believe that this is common ground.

Let me read what was also said by Peter Wallace yesterday: “[T]hese files are inherently political. The cancellation and relocation of a gas plant is not an action undertaken autonomously by public service officials. This is an inherently political matter.”

No matter which party is in office, it is a political matter. To the question of the leader of the third party, I’ve said that this is a political decision, as it would have been had she been the Premier.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’m going to ignore the Premier’s misinformation about the position that the New Democrats took during the election campaign. Across Ontario, people are facing real challenges. They’re being told by their government that we’re facing tough times, and they’re feeling it in their hospitals, in their schools and in the growing cost of everyday lives.

In the midst of this, the government has handed millions of dollars—up to a billion dollars—to private power companies so they could win a seat or win a couple of seats in a very tight election campaign. What does the Premier say to the people across Ontario who are sick to death of this government’s misplaced priorities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thought that all parties had said that they did not agree with the placement of either of these gas plants. I understand that the—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock. The member for Nipissing, I think the same rules apply to you. When I stand, we’re supposed to be quiet. I’m trying very hard to get through question period, and I would ask for your support.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I apologize; I was looking the other way.

The consensus in this House was that all parties agreed that these gas plants should not be sited where they were. So—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Lanark, you’re warned.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The agreement among all of the parties was that these gas plants should not be placed where they were. We followed through on that decision. We made that decision.

My consistent position has been that I wish that there had been a different process up front. I wish that there had been a different community process. I wish that we had made a different decision in the beginning because there had been a better upfront process. The fact is, that didn’t happen, and so what I have said is, let’s get all the information out on the table. Let’s make sure there are processes in place to make sure that everyone, on all sides of the House, has their questions answered. That’s what the Auditor General’s investigation is about; that’s what the broadening of the committee mandate is; that’s why I’m going to go before the committee. Let’s let those processes unfold.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Once again in Ontario, what a Liberal Premier thought and reality are two quite divergent things. The money this government spent cancelling these plants was enough to eliminate the wait in home care, not just this year but for many, many years into the future in this province. That was enough money to fund a First Start initiative to get young people working and to hire 7,500 full-time nurses in communities across this province. People have been asked time and time again to make sacrifices in tough times. Why can’t the Premier offer a straight answer or a real explanation for this scandalous abuse of the people’s trust?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said, we’ve put a number of processes in place to get the questions answered.

Mayor Burton yesterday said: “Our citizens organized their own effort to ask the province to rethink the proposed power plant.…

“They won promises from all parties to stop the proposed power plant.…

“In Oakville, we certainly believed that we had those promises and that we could rely on them from all three parties.…

“So yes, we felt supported by all parties.”

These were political decisions that were made. They are political decisions that would have been made by all parties. We were in the position to follow through on those promises. We did that, and now we have opened up the process to get all the information on the table and get the questions answered that are being posed by the public and by the members of this House.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Please sit down. Order.

New question.

CASINOS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question is for the Premier. Your statement that the host fee formula for a new Toronto casino will be the same as all other municipalities has been directly and repeatedly contradicted by the OLG. For five days you told us there was no special deal. Just a few minutes ago, and after your repeated denials, the OLG has announced that they will be redoing the host fee formula to be fair to all municipalities. Premier, clearly there was a special deal, and you got caught.

My question to you today is straightforward: Who is calling the shots in this province? Is it the Premier or is it the OLG and the international casinos? Will you simply admit that your government offered a secret deal only to the city of Toronto?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Sit down, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I had asked the OLG representatives to come in today, Paul Godfrey and Rod Phillips, Mr. Speaker. I had asked for that meeting to be set up. I gave clear instruction to OLG that the formula for hosting fees has to be the same for all municipalities and that there will be no special deals. OLG has agreed to go back and review the formula based on those principles.

The principles of equal treatment and fairness will govern the formula going forward. That is my consistent position. That has always been my position, and OLG is in agreement with that. I called that meeting. I asked them to come in. I’ve given them clear direction, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: Like every other Premier under the Liberal banner, you got caught in this mess. For the past five days, you have strongly denied that there was ever a secret deal offered to the city of Toronto, but you have refused to release the formula being used to calculate the hosting fees being promised, and you have failed to answer even simple questions about how the $50 million to $100 million number ever came about.

Shockingly, despite nearly two months passing since your Liberal coronation, you are only now just getting around to meeting with the heads of the OLG to seek clarity on this important file. Today we heard that the OLG is immediately reviewing the host formula to ensure it is fair to every municipality in this province. Clearly, there was a secret deal only being offered to your hometown.

Premier, do you actually believe that a new Toronto casino will bring more profits than the entire Las Vegas strip? Will you now admit there was a secret deal to the city of Toronto?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been very clear on a number of things from long before I was the Premier. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I was very clear in my early meetings with the OLG that I expected that there would be a fair process across the province. You can have a conversation with Mr. Godfrey, and he will tell you about the first meetings I had with them. Having a fair process across the province, making sure that municipalities could decide whether or where they wanted a casino, that has been my position from the beginning.

I asked for a meeting with OLG. I’ve made it clear that it’s my understanding that there would be a fair process across the province, that the same formula would be applied evenly across the province. That has been my position. OLG is now crystal clear that that is my position. They have gone back to review that formula and make sure that it is so, Mr. Speaker.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday a senior vice-president at the Ontario Power Authority told Ontarians that the Premier’s office was negotiating around the Ontario Power Authority with regard to the Oakville gas plant. But she wasn’t sure who in the Premier’s office was responsible for negotiating with TransCanada. She said that put the OPA at a real disadvantage.

Who in the Premier’s office was going around the OPA to negotiate with TransCanada?

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, all of the information has been made available; that’s available in terms of documentation. The OPA has acknowledged that they negotiated. They did the final contract. They decided which documents were going to be released. They made all the final decisions. They provided the information on costs to us.

We now have a committee with a broadened mandate, thanks to the Premier, and we will listen to all the witnesses that come forward, and we will have a decision at the end of the day from the committee. The committee is sitting as a jury, and the Speaker will ultimately make the decision as a judge, and let the process take place.

We have the OPA accepting the responsibility of having made the decision, having accepted the responsibility for the transparency of the documents that had to be released. We’re comfortable now with the process that we have in committee, so that any doubts can be erased.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The minister needs to get an up-to-date response note. That was a previous question from a previous asker.

I’m going to go back to the Premier. Peter Wallace, the most senior civil servant in Ontario, told Ontarians yesterday that two senior Premier’s office staff were going around the Ontario Power Authority to TransCanada while the OPA was trying to limit the cost to ratepayers. Can the Premier explain why the Premier’s office was interfering in negotiations with TransCanada?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I can share the information that I have. The information I have, as the minister, is from the OPA, that they accepted the responsibility for the negotiations. There may or may not have been other input, but they made the final decision. They made the final negotiations. They provided the documents.

We have the Auditor General looking into it. The Auditor General has access to every piece of paper in every ministry in the provincial government. He will provide his report.

Mr. Speaker, we are satisfied that the issues are being discussed in committee and that we have acted professionally and ethically every step of the way with respect to this government.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. This government has made jobs a priority, and we all know that research and innovation are key drivers of this knowledge-based economy. When businesses innovate, they are able to grow and create jobs.

But one major hurdle that businesses face in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South is access to venture capital. Venture capital is very critical for the businesses that want to succeed and compete.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What is this government doing to ensure that businesses have access to venture capital so that they can invest, grow and create jobs for Ontarians?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I thank the member for that question. Small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario generally go beyond the traditional banking system. That’s why we created Ontario Venture Capital II. Ontario Venture Capital II is based on the highly successful Ontario Venture Capital I.

Yesterday, the Premier announced our $50-million investment in the creation of this venture capital fund. The federal government will be investing another $50 million, and we expect $200 million will be invested by the private sector, to create a fund in the amount of $300 million. We expect that during the 12-year lifespan of this fund, it’s going to generate $4.45 billion in economic activity to Ontario.

This is a great—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Answer.

Hon. Reza Moridi: —for the province of Ontario. Our government is committed to support research, innovation and commercialization of research to grow the economy and create jobs in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear that Ontario companies have a new source of funding that they can turn to. In challenging economic times, governments must work with the private sector so that innovators, small and medium-sized businesses, are able to grow and create jobs.

The minister mentioned that this is the second Ontario venture fund, and it is based on the success of the first one. Mr. Speaker, through you, back to the minister: Could the minister tell this House what the first fund has accomplished?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Again, I want to thank the member for that question. In 2008, we created the Ontario Venture Capital Fund by investing $90 million, and that created $150 million in investments from the private sector and from institutional sectors as well. So we created a fund in the amount of $205 million to fund research and innovation in this province.

This fund was very highly successful. Just in the year 2011, the Ontario companies that benefitted from this fund created $139 million in revenue and employed 1,000 people. This model is working, and we are very proud that we are supporting Ontario businesses and innovators to create jobs, to contribute to our economy and to create jobs for Ontarians.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is to the Minister of Energy. During testimony in the justice committee yesterday we heard from Peter Wallace, the secretary of cabinet, who spoke of allegations that a member of the Ontario public service directed the Ontario Power Authority to remove documents from the 56,000 pages that we’ve received to date. He stated, “As head of the Ontario public service, I would be … concerned” about “any allegation of inappropriate behaviour by a public servant.” An internal investigation was then launched against Jesse Kulendran.

Minister, when was the government informed of the investigation into Jesse Kulendran’s behaviour? Who was at the clandestine meeting that she attended with political operatives who gave her instructions to remove documents from the pile that we received?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: When the CEO of the Ontario Power Authority was here at Queen’s Park answering questions, he was asked the question: “How often do you talk to political staff and minister’s staff at the ministry? Are you given direction? Does it happen daily? Every week?” His answer was—this is Colin Andersen—“No. In our discussions, we are with the deputy’s side of things and the bureaucrats that were dealing with it.”

We have accepted the fact that it was a political decision to relocate those gas plants. It was as political as theirs was, and so that is the issue.

With respect to any potential interference, Peter Wallace did give some evidence. His quote yesterday was “they had not been able to find any concrete evidence to substantiate the allegation, that the witness, the individual involved, appeared to be truthful, that she appeared not to have, in her own mind, offered specific and highly inappropriate direction to the power authority.”

We have been acting ethically. We’ve been acting professionally. The right people have been doing the right things. We stand behind that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: Well, clearly the Minister of Energy should know about a leaked memo that the Ontario Power Authority provided to the Progressive Conservative caucus, where two dedicated OPA officials, Kristin Jenkins and Ziyaad Mia, were ordered to remove documents. In that document, Jenkins said, “Both Ziyaad and I have been clear that this is in fact what Jesse Kulendran told us to do”—referring to an order to remove documents.

Minister, do you take this matter seriously? If so, can you give us some answers as to why a civil servant, a known former Liberal Party staffer and a Liberal Party donor, would take it upon herself to order the removal of documents?

I have a very simple question, Minister: Who really gave that order?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Again, when the CEO of the OPA was here at Queen’s Park he was asked a question: During the search for documents was there “anyone from the Premier’s office, minister’s office, or the ministry itself who directed or were involved in the search? At the OPA?” Mr. Andersen’s response was, “At the OPA? Nobody was coming to the OPA with regards to the documents that we are talking about today.”

We have the justice committee. We have the opportunity to bring witnesses in. They’re trying to make this a court here. We have the justice committee, which they asked to have set up, to examine these issues. Let them do their work. The provincial auditor has access to every particular document. They’re seeing ghosts behind every door.

CASINOS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. The new Liberal government is ignoring the people of Ontario just like the old Liberal government did. Communities like Hamilton, Kingston and Toronto have come out in strong opposition to being host sites to casinos. Yet the OLG is moving full steam ahead with privatizing gambling while giving companies sweetheart deals to bid for contracts.

Premier, will you choose to listen to the people of Ontario or to the Donald Trumps of the world?

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: I think that we made it very clear yesterday and today that there are no special deals. The formula is the same throughout the province. We met with the members of the OLG today. We’ve asked them to review to ensure that the principles of fairness and equity are being maintained.

The Premier has been very clear for weeks and months, prior to even being Premier, that she wants this to be dealt with fairly throughout the province. We’re adhering to her wishes. OLG recognizes that. The people of Toronto and the people of all the other municipalities and the councils: They’ll make the decision because we’ve said that it’s their decision to make.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: If the process was so transparent to begin with, then why the special meeting now to clarify the entire process?

Premier, the OLG privatization is having an adverse effect on people in cities and rural Ontario. People in Toronto and across Ontario don’t want to be forced to accept a casino without being able to have a say. There’s something wrong with this picture: a government and OLG negotiating sweetheart deals in their plan to privatize gaming, despite community opposition. Will you give Ontarians the ability to have a meaningful say when it comes to casinos in their communities?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been very clear. It’s the municipalities’ decision. They’re the ones that are going to make that decision first. From there, they’ll decide what they’re going to site and how they’re going to proceed, and they’ll have another opportunity to decide. We are giving the municipalities the power. They’re the ones that will decide if they wish to proceed, and that’s how it’s going to be.

IMMIGRANTS’ SKILLS

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My riding of Ajax–Pickering is where many new Ontarians call home. These newcomers make up over 30% of our province’s workforce, and that number is expected to rise in the future. These individuals help us to meet our labour market needs and they make invaluable contributions as members of our community. We are fortunate that nearly three of every four working-aged newcomers have a post-secondary education.

Despite a wealth of skill and knowledge, many of them are unable to find work that is consistent with their education and their experience. My question to the minister is: What is the government doing to help our skilled newcomers find work in their fields?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member from Ajax–Pickering for the question. He’s a great advocate for his community and for newcomers in his community. He understands the vital role that newcomers play in the workplace here in Ontario.

Before I answer the question, I’d just like to wish everyone who celebrates Nowruz here in Ontario—I want to wish them a happy new year, and I wish them a very peaceful and prosperous year.

Our government is committed to ensuring that everyone is able to put their skills to work here in our economy. That’s why, as part of our immigration strategy here in Ontario, one of our key roles is to increase the employment rate of highly skilled immigrants. One way we’re doing this is through our Bridge Training programs. So far, we’ve had over 50,000 people go through our programs in over 100 different professions in 300 programs, and I’m very proud of that accomplishment.

Our Bridge Training programs are making a real difference, and they’re helping highly skilled newcomers get the training and experience they need to get licensed and find work in their fields.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’m sure all members agree that new Ontarians make valuable social, cultural and economic contributions to our province. When we help them find work consistent with their education and experience, we create benefits for their families and we improve our economy.

In my community of Ajax–Pickering, we are fortunate enough to be served by both the Ajax Welcome Centre Immigrant Services and the Women’s Multicultural Resource and Counselling Centre. My constituents tell me that our Bridge Training programs are making a difference. They are helping newcomers find work and they are strengthening our workforce.

As this government remains committed to helping newcomers succeed, can the minister tell the House of the results we are seeing from the Bridge Training program?

Hon. Michael Coteau: The member is correct: We’re seeing great results from our Bridge Training program here in Ontario. As I mentioned, our Bridge Training projects have helped over 50,000 people find jobs here in Ontario. They’re making a real difference. We’ve invested, Mr. Speaker, since 2003, over $240 million into that program, and I want to give you a couple of examples of some of the success stories.

An internationally educated nurse with 17 years of experience found work in her field, after five years of looking for a job, once she got into our Bridge Training programs. To me, that’s a huge success.

A senior engineer from Iraq could not find work in his field. After participating in our Bridge Training program, he’s now a engineer licensed here in the province of Ontario.

I’m very proud of our success that we find here in Ontario through our Bridge Training programs. Helping immigrants find word consistent with their education experience benefits them and their families, and supports our economy here in Ontario. When newcomers do well here in the province of Ontario, the province of Ontario does well.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. On March 6, the public accounts committee requested very specific information from Ornge through a unanimous motion. We requested all banking records and statements, all international money transfers to either personal or corporate accounts, and all domestic money transfers to either personal or corporate accounts from all 20 companies that were involved in the Ornge scheme. Today, in this letter signed by Dr. McCallum, we have a response.

The response says, “The committee has requested disclosure of various records from all the companies which were affiliated, from time to time, with the Ornge family of companies.” The letter goes on to say that much of that information is no longer available and that Ornge has no control over some of those companies. I’d like to know from the minister, will she help us get access to that information?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me assure the member opposite that Ornge is complying fully with the request. In fact, they have kept the committee up to date. They’ve provided status letters throughout the process. They’ve offered to appear before the committee; I believe Dr. McCallum is appearing this afternoon.

The committee, of course, can ask whatever questions they deem necessary, but I think the member opposite should know that there were four motions that the ministry complied with. Some 500,000 pages of documents—half a million pages of documents—have been delivered to the committee. A hundred boxes, four skid-loads of documents, have been delivered to the committee. We also have another 1.5 million pages of documents that are being provided on USB sticks, so Ornge is complying fully and the ministry is as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: This letter is dated today and signed by Dr. McCallum, telling us that the banking information for the 20 companies is not available. It’s not available because a number of those companies are supposedly in bankruptcy. For some reason, Ornge no longer has control over some of those companies.

It’s the flow of the money that we’re interested in, not the five million documents that tell us nothing. What we want to know is, will the minister use her good office to ensure that everything is done that we can possibly do so that we get access to these financial documents?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Absolutely. If there are documents that exist and the committee has requested them, we will ensure that the committee gets those documents. I think that Ornge has delivered 500,000 pages of documents—that might keep you busy for a little while—and another 1.5 million pages on USB sticks. If there’s more information that’s available, the committee will receive it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock.

You were all pretty good for about 10 minutes.

Interjection: Can you force them to answer the question, Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would say to the party that asked the question that I would expect them to be the most quiet in this room.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m done. Well, I’ll just continue, then, Speaker.

I think the member opposite might be curious to know how much it cost to print 500,000 pages. It cost, just for the printing costs, $167,000 for the requests already delivered.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. The leader of the third party.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. A 93-year-old couple in London has been separated by the long-term-care system after 67 years of marriage. The family reached out for help from this government, but so far they’ve been left hanging. One of Everett and Simone Price’s daughters, Marilyn Savage, has travelled to Queen’s Park this morning in the hopes that the Premier will finally hear of their plight.

When will this government uphold the principle of spousal reunification in long-term care and bring Marilyn’s parents back together?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to say that my heart goes out to the family in this situation. I know that the Minister of Health is doing everything that she can to make sure of unification and that couples are able to be together. In fact, we changed the rules in long-term-care homes to allow for couples to be together. It is absolutely our predisposition and our intention to do everything we can to keep couples together. I know the Minister of Health will want to speak specifically to what we are doing now.

But we have already taken action and we’re very, very concerned that this is something that needs to happen, that people who have been together for that long—or even not that long because that’s an exceptionally long time—would be able to spend their days together, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, Everett and Simone Price aren’t getting any younger as they wait for reunification. This is not the way a seven-decade-long love story is supposed to end.

As recently as last week, I updated the government on the family’s situation by letter. The health minister has already agreed in media reports and in the chamber that “It’s the right thing to do” to bring this couple back together. She has publicly said that she’s working on it, but so far the family hasn’t heard a single peep from her office.

Will the Premier stand in her place today and tell Marilyn Savage what the plan is for reunifying her parents and when it’s going to happen?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as the Premier said, we want people who want to be together to be as close together as possible, and that’s why we have gone as far as we have in bringing people together when both are in a long-term-care home. The next step is working on how we bring people closer together when one is in long-term care and one is in the community.

Speaker, I know that the CCACs work very closely with families who are facing these kinds of challenges. I urge families who are faced with an issue like this to work closely with the CCACs, who very much want to have people as close together as possible.

I would be more than happy to talk to the family members after question period. The CCACs are mandated to make this happen whenever possible. And actually, we have responded to the family from my office.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, as you know, Bill 160 came into force last April, and through it we transferred the mandate to prevent work-related injuries and illnesses from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board to the Ministry of Labour. Minister, as part of this initiative, we also created a prevention office and appointed a chief prevention officer, the first government in Canada to do so. We did this, Minister, because we are a prudent government, a fiscally prudent government. We know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that’s why we created this.

I had the opportunity to meet with the chief prevention officer when he came to my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville. But Minister, I’d like to know: This is a great idea, but what concrete results has the prevention office achieved since its inception?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member for asking a very, very important question, because I think we’ll all agree in this House that workplace safety is of utmost importance. We need to make sure that our family members, when they go to work, return home safely at the end of the day.

As the member mentioned, I’m very pleased to note that Mr. George Gritziotis was appointed as the province’s first chief prevention officer. His mandate will be supported by the newly founded Prevention Council. This council will help protect workers and improve workplace health and safety across the province. The council includes four labour representatives, a non-union worker representative, four employer representatives, an occupational health and safety expert, and a representative from the WSIB.

In fact, Speaker, on my very first full day on the job as Minister of Labour, I had the opportunity to meet with the Prevention Council and thank them for the work they’re doing. In the supplementary, I will speak to the consultation they have launched to build a strategy for health and safety.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Minister, for that update.

I also understand that building on the prevention office, your ministry is launching the first province-wide consultations to develop an integrated occupational health and safety strategy. Could you tell us a little bit more about the strategy and what the consultations are about?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Absolutely. Speaker, again I thank the member for the question.

We know that more often than not, a lot of workplace injuries can be easily prevented. That’s why we need to do a lot of work to ensure that prevention is key in workplaces, so that workers are safe at all times. The changes that are currently under way in our province are one of the greatest transformations of Ontario’s workplace health and safety system in over 30 years.

We are, at the moment, consulting on a strategy that will focus on issues such as addressing the needs of vulnerable workers, supporting small businesses, high-hazard activities, and providing effective support for workplace parties. Our consultations are ongoing right now until May 17, and we’re encouraging everyone to participate in those consultations. Please visit our website at ontario.ca/labour and click on the link for the prevention strategy. We need your point of view on this very important issue so that we can get the right prevention strategy in place.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Rural Affairs. Minister, in the March 13 edition of the Peterborough Examiner, you were quoted as saying that you were shocked to hear that Kawartha Downs had failed to agree to terms with the province’s negotiating team and that racing