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

March 6, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Mar-06 (PDF)

L010 - Wed 6 Mar 2013 / Mer 6 mar 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 March 2013 Mercredi 6 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

HEALTH CARE

PROROGATION

POWER PLANTS

CASINOS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

POWER PLANTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

WOMEN’S ISSUES

POWER PLANTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS

POWER PLANTS

AIR-RAIL LINK

MIDWIFERY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FAMILY LAW

TRUE NORTH HARDWOOD PLYWOOD

SARS

MILTON’S WALK OF FAME

LONDON CARNIVAL

TRAVEL INSURANCE

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

MIDWIFERY

NURSES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT

(STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

FOR HEALTH CARE

AND EDUCATION), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

(COMITÉ PERMANENT

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

SUR LES SOINS DE SANTÉ

ET L’ÉDUCATION)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS

OF ST. JOSEPH IN CANADA ACT, 2013

SICK DAYS ARE FOR

SICK PEOPLE ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RÉSERVANT

LES JOURNÉES DE CONGÉ DE MALADIE

AUX PERSONNES MALADES

LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉCESSITÉ

DE VIVRE SELON NOS MOYENS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

CONSOLIDATION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA FUSION

DES PROGRAMMES D’AIDE SOCIALE

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DE LA FEMME

MIDWIFERY

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

MIDWIFERY

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

MIDWIFERY

PETITIONS

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LANDFILL

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

AIR-RAIL LINK

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

WIND TURBINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES GRANDS LACS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 4, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

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

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

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I was listening to the prayer this morning, I think it’s a Buddhist prayer—after the Lord’s Prayer—and there was that beautiful line, “Everything vanishes and reappears again and again.” It’s appropriate that we prayed that prayer because here we are with a bill that vanished and appears again and again, hopefully for the last time.

Again, a shout-out to those from the co-operative housing movement who are here and who have been here on this particular issue, I think, since 2004. I’ve often said that being in this place is a little like pushing an elephant uphill. Occasionally it budges, so today we witness the elephant budging just a little bit, taking a long, long time.

Needless to say, off the top, we’re going to support this. We wished it had passed before the prorogation. I know today we’re going to hear more about prorogation, but we wished that prorogation hadn’t happened and we wish that this bill had happened before the House rose. Hopefully, the amount of money that’s been spent, since prorogation, on this issue is a small amount.

In a nutshell, for those listening and watching who perhaps have not heard this before, although it’s unlikely that you haven’t—it’s been on the agenda, as I say, many times—this is a bill that’s simply going to take the disputes that happen in co-ops between tenants and the co-op boards out of the court system and take them to the tribunal where they belong.

I want to give some shout-outs to my co-ops right off the bat in Parkdale–High Park: We’ve got Dufferin Grove; we’ve got Fort York; we’ve got John Bruce; just down the street from myself, Junction; Swansea—and also, of course, just an acknowledgment that the co-op movement is not only about housing; this bill is. But the co-op movement is far larger than housing. We have a groundbreaking co-op that I also want to give a shout-out to: the West End Food Co-op in Parkdale–High Park that has now opened a store, just around the corner from where I live. It’s wonderful. So, incredible kudos to the co-op movement.

We in the New Democratic Party would like to see more co-ops right across the spectrum of human endeavours, and particularly in the housing market. I have to also, in talking about housing, mention sadly the defeat of our federal bill that called for a national housing strategy. That’s sad. It is sad, I think, especially for our neighbours to the right here, the Progressive Conservatives, because when I think about the co-op movement, I can’t help but think about St. Lawrence Market. Really, when St. Lawrence Market was developed back in the 1970s, it was the gold standard of mixed housing.

Back in the day, in the 1970s—and it’s still the gold standard, sadly. Back in the day when that was developed, there was a Conservative at city hall, there was a Conservative here and there was a Conservative in Ottawa. Somehow, under Conservative governments, we got this groundbreaking project off the ground.

For those of you who aren’t Torontonians, who don’t know St. Lawrence Market, what you will find if you go down there is, of course, St. Lawrence Market itself, which is exciting and a tourist attraction, but all around there you will find housing and you’ll find mixed housing. You’ll find housing that is TCHC, you’ll find housing that is commercial and market-driven, and you’ll find co-ops all around there. And here’s the beautiful thing about St. Lawrence Market: You won’t be able to tell the difference, one to the other. Everybody lives and works well together.

How did it start? Well, let me tell you the story. I learned the story myself since being elected. We had a visioning day and a visioning week, actually, in Parkdale–High Park on issues that beset our community. Pre-eminent among them was the issue of lack of affordable housing, and we invited David Crombie, Conservative mayor of Toronto at the time. Remember, we used to call him the “tiny perfect mayor”? I’m not so sure. He’s tiny for sure. And particularly where St. Lawrence Market is concerned, we think that was a good move.

We invited him to talk to us about how he ever got the St. Lawrence Market development off the ground. He came and he was very gracious. He spoke to us and he said, out of his own mouth, “It all started with a co-op”—that that entire gold standard of affordable housing started with a co-op. We took that as advice. We decided to look in our own riding at, how can we get other co-ops going? So we in Parkdale–High Park set out on an adventure. It’s an ongoing adventure. The end of the story hasn’t happened yet.

We have a Tibetan community, a very well-entrenched and organized Tibetan community. They were interested in housing. We suggested the co-op model. We got a grant from CMHC, and we’re currently, and we have been for the last two years, looking for a place to do this. Here’s the problem, and I’m going to point to a problem with starting a co-op in the province of Ontario: Historically, 20% to 25% of projects developed under social housing—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, folks, it seems that we have about six sidebars going on. I can’t hear a word the member is saying. As I say always, if you want to have a real heated discussion or something fantastic, take it outside. I would suggest that we cut it down a notch or two on the decibel level.

Go ahead.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It cost me a few seconds, but thank you.

Where was I? To backtrack, the Tibetan housing co-op, which we’re still in the process of trying to get going, is hampered. It’s very, very difficult to get a co-op off the ground now in Ontario. This is not what we should be doing. We should be enabling co-ops to get off the ground, and we should be doing everything possible to allow them to keep functioning. That clearly was true in the 1970s, when the St. Lawrence Market redevelopment project got off the ground and became the gold standard, and it’s true today in 2013.

So I hope—here’s the hope—that as far as the co-op movement or housing is concerned, that this is just a very small step in, I hope, an ongoing revision of government policies around not only affordable housing—I’m going to talk about them in a moment—but particularly in enabling co-ops to get up, get functioning and continue to function, because truly they are the cornerstone of any affordable housing response, and that’s what we need.

As I said, it’s sad to see a Conservative majority government vote down the possibility of a national housing strategy when clearly in their own history, the history of their party, they’ve been advocates for affordable housing. I hope that my colleagues to the right here will talk to their colleagues in Ottawa.

So what is the situation in Ontario where housing is concerned? Well, it’s absolutely and irrevocably bleak. In fact, it’s bleaker than in any other province in Canada right now. We have approximately 160,000 families waiting on affordable housing lists, the average wait being between 10 and 12 years. That is, I think by anybody’s standards, completely and absolutely unacceptable. Here’s a fact: In 2009, Ontario spent $64 per capita on affordable housing—half the average of other Canadian provinces. This particular administration has nothing to be proud of where housing is concerned.

I spoke on another topic the other day about the number of homeless deaths. We’ve seen six since January; we’ve seen over 700 since the 1980s. The rate of homeless deaths has increased under this current regime. It used to be considered a national disaster; now we just step over the bodies that sleep on the grates. It’s as if we don’t care anymore.

I remember my very first portfolio when I was elected, lo, those almost seven years ago; it was housing, and I remember the now Attorney General was the housing minister back then. I remember very well—he might too—sitting at a committee with him, at government agencies, and asking him; I said, “Here are the stats, Mr. Housing Minister. It actually costs more to keep someone in the shelter system than it does to provide affordable housing for them. Why are we doing this? It makes no moral sense and it makes no economic sense.” To give him his due, he agreed. The then housing minister agreed with that.

He said, “Yes, we should be doing more for housing.” The sad reality is, that was almost seven years ago, and here we are. Nothing, really, has changed.

Interjection: It takes time; it takes time.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Well, as I said, pushing an elephant uphill, sometimes it budges. It has budged very, very slowly with this bill. We need that elephant to start running up that hill where affordable housing is concerned.

Not only do we have 160,000 women, men and children waiting, but this is an increase of 6%—we’re increasing those waiting lists—since January 2012. The simple reality is, both the federal government and the provincial government have gotten out of the business of providing housing for their citizens. This is unacceptable. This is absolutely unacceptable.

We have about 13 million people in Ontario. I point to other jurisdictions in the world. There are nine million people in Sweden. In Sweden, they managed to build 100,000 units of affordable housing a year for 10 years. There is no homelessness problem in Sweden; quite frankly, it doesn’t exist. It’s doable to eliminate that wait-list, and here’s the amazing news: It doesn’t only rely on tax dollars to do it. In fact, a bill that I put forward—that I’m going to be bringing back again soon, this spring—on inclusionary zoning would allow us to provide up to 12,000 units a year of affordable housing without one tax dollar being spent.

How do you perform that miracle? Let me describe to you how. It’s the same way other jurisdictions around the world that are cash-strapped provide affordable housing. Here’s what you do—first of all, here’s what we do in this Legislature. What we do is provide a change to the Planning Act so that municipalities can bring in inclusionary zoning. That’s all my bill wanted to do: just allow them the option, the possibility, of bringing in inclusionary zoning.

What is inclusionary zoning? It’s the requirement—and it varies from municipality to municipality—that developers who build, in my bill, over 50 units have to provide a certain element within that building or development of affordable housing. It doesn’t even say what kind of affordable housing. It could be rent-to-own, it could be flat out rent—there are many, many things that municipalities could do if they had the tools to do them. They don’t right now, because what happens right now is, if a municipality tries to do that, tries to require—for example, in Toronto, instead of

section 37 dollars—dollars for housing from their developers, then that developer could take them to the OMB and win, because there is no revision to the Planning Act at the provincial level.

So, there’s an option—inclusionary zoning—that this government could have picked up on. In fact, it passed this bill on to second reading; of course, it never got to committee. Now that we have a minority government, I’m sending a plea across the floor that when it comes back again, let’s actually act on it. Let’s send it to committee and let’s get it past the committee and let’s bring it back for third reading: a very simple, tax-free way of providing housing and one that I must say just about every municipality signed on to.

I have a file this thick of letters from municipalities, some of whom have actually passed resolutions at their councils in support of my bill. So let’s move on that; let’s move on affordable housing. But to get back to this bill, wow, let’s just do it.

It was interesting. I had a couple of Conservative members yesterday on my radio show, called 3 Women, for those who are interested: 89.5 FM every Tuesday morning at 9. That’s the plug. Christine Elliott was there, the member from Whitby–Oshawa and deputy leader, and also the member from Burlington was on the show. They were talking about some of the frustrations of this House, and this was one of them, one where I think we have agreement around all parties, and that is how slowly things move, how slow it is to get even the smallest thing done here.

I think our constituents are quite frankly gobsmacked at the process that it takes to get even something this small through the legislative process. They had made suggestions. I’m not going to warrant their suggestions or to put forward any of my own right now, but simply say that this is something that should have happened long ago. This should have happened long ago, and it should have happened much more seamlessly than it is happening.

The fact is that the housing co-operative folk have had to come back time and again, that it’s been on the radar since 2004, and really, it’s almost a regulatory change. Really, this shouldn’t be an earth-shattering law. There’s something very wrong with a process that would take almost 10 years to get something like this passed. So that’s the broader picture.

Mr. Speaker, even the Drummond commission talks about the sad reality of this province getting out of the housing business. The sad reality, of course—even Don Drummond mentioned the federal government getting out, and Don Drummond, as we know, is not known as being a rabid leftist in his prognostications.

So to summarize here: Co-op housing is one of the cornerstones of affordable housing. It has to be part of the mix. We as government have to make it easier. In fact, we have to facilitate, I would say, new co-ops getting built and up and running. That is not the case. I’ve discovered that first-hand. When you can get a sizable grant from CMHC, when you can get people to step up with money of their own and still face a mountain of red tape and a nightmare just to get a co-op off the ground, that’s not good enough.

What we need is what we had, and that is exemplified, as I said right off the top, in the gold standard: St. Lawrence Market. And it’s not about partisanship; it’s about people just getting back into the business and feeling it’s their moral obligation to provide housing for their citizens.

We’re in a crisis situation. We had a report come in last week that showed that 50% of our full-time jobs in the GTA are precarious; 50% of people in full-time jobs said they didn’t know if they’d have that job next year. This is a pretty grim portrait of life in the GTA, and a very large part of that precariousness is their ability to maintain housing. When 50% of our renters are paying more than 50% of their income on rent, this is a precarious situation. We need to have answers for it.

We need to have answers for the homeless deaths that are taking place on our streets. Six people have died on the streets since January 1. It used to be considered a national disaster. Where’s that sense of urgency? Where is the sense that we need to do something about this? Where is the moral indignation that it’s not okay in one of the world’s richest countries and richest jurisdictions to have our citizens dying on the streets for lack of a bed? That’s not acceptable. It’s not acceptable, and the solution doesn’t always start in Ottawa. It starts here. It starts at the city level, too, but it starts here. This is where we have to have some political will to provide housing.

We have not had that political will for two separate administrations now. We haven’t had that political will since 1995. That’s not good enough. And it’s not about who is in power—it’s not about what political party is power—it’s about the will of those folks sitting around the cabinet table to actually get something done. As I said, we had the gold standard produced under Tory administrations. We can have it done under any administration. The question for this administration is, why isn’t it being done? Why isn’t it even being entertained under this administration?

This administration promised 20,000 units. It hasn’t delivered. We, in our platform, put forward a minimum of 10,000 new builds—minimum. Where is the discussion about new builds for housing? It’s gone. It’s off the table. And when we look at social assistance reviews, when we look at how we’re going to get people out from under poverty, housing is the critical determinant of that. If they don’t have housing, they can’t get a job. If they can’t get a job, they will be relegated to poverty. And they will be relegated to poverty if they don’t have housing. It’s a vicious cycle, and we have no answers in this place—no answers whatsoever.

So just to summarize, yes, of course we support this bill—absolutely. My goodness, it’s a baby step, a baby step that should have been taken 10 years ago. Finally, much talk later, it will maybe, I hope, be passed. Let’s speed it through committee, let’s get it back here and let’s get it done.

But more than this bill, Mr. Speaker, let’s see some gumption on the housing file from my friends across the aisle. Let’s see some action on the housing file. Let’s see some new bills. Let’s see something as simple as inclusionary zoning or density bonusing put into the mix. It doesn’t even cost a tax dollar, so we can’t use the deficit as an excuse here. Let’s see some solutions. Because my goodness, we have a problem, and part of the problem is to begin to open our eyes to see that we have one. It’s admitting we have a problem. We have a problem when people are dying on our streets. We have a problem.

Everyone here should have those deaths on their conscience. We are charged, at the very least, to prevent deaths, and housing would do that. So let’s build some housing. Let’s pass Bill 14. Let’s get on it with it. My goodness, let’s get on with it. Let’s give that elephant a good push so it can get over the hill this time on this one. Let’s give our poor friends in the co-operative housing movement a break so they don’t have to come back here day in and day out.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for her comments.

I would mention one thing for our friends in the gallery from the co-op sector, who are back here today. There’s been a bit of a consistent theme in this debate over the last few days when it comes to the effect of prorogation on this particular piece of legislation. I think it’s fair to say that that angle or that theme has been slightly overstated.

It’s important to remind our friends in the gallery that while this was at second reading in September/October of last year, had it passed second reading it would have been referred to committee, and instead of second reading here, we might have been at third reading now. It wouldn’t have advanced things that much further down the road than they currently are. And of course it would have been up to the committee it was referred to to make the decision on when the bill would be called and what amendments would go forward. I think it’s important to state that.

In terms of the consistent support for the bill that I’m hearing across the way, we’re happy to hear that. In effect, trying to diminish what’s being done here—I would say that if it was that easy to do, both of the opposition parties, while they were in power in the last little while, had an opportunity to do this very same thing. Of course, as you know, the main piece of this is taking referrals out of the court system and referring them to the Landlord and Tenant Board. That’s the main piece of this. Each of the opposition parties had an opportunity to do that when they were in government, and for whatever reason—I wasn’t here at the time—chose not to do that.

The last thing I would say is that, on the long-term affordable housing strategy, we are concerned as well. The feds seem to be stepping away from this—the agreement ends soon. Of course, an even more serious announcement from the federal government very recently—we’ve seen the federal government downgrade how much money they’re going to spend on infrastructure across all of Canada from $6 billion down to $3.9 billion. We in Ontario are committing much more than that just in our province alone. We need the feds to give us a little help when it comes to these issues as well.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, there’s a lot of merit in this bill. It’s intended to help people who are having a tough time—low income, can’t afford proper housing—and we want to provide them with non-profit housing, and we want to look after them in a fair and responsible way. I think it’s an obligation as a society. We have an obligation to help those in our society who can’t help themselves.

The intention of this bill is to streamline the system of solving problems and disputes, and we applaud that and we support that. It appears that there has been significant cost in going to court as opposed to going to the Landlord and Tenant Board to solve problems, and this would seem like a logical thing to do.

We have some minor concern that not enough consultation has been done at this point with landlords and tenants and advocacy groups that speak for these people across the province. We would like to hear from those people before this bill goes to third reading. The committee could travel, hear these folks and better make a decision on what the appropriate thing to do here is to try to help these people.

We’re aware that this is an opportunity to do something good. We embrace that; we look forward to that. We have to do it in an appropriate manner. We have to do it in a responsible manner. If we do this right, it will be a good thing. It will also be a good thing for landlords as well as tenants, and it will be an encouragement for landlords to invest in more non-profit housing. I think we have to keep that in mind. It’s not just a one-sided story to help those who need help, which is unquestionable; we have to look out for both sides. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I listened intently. I like that word that my other—

Interjection.

Miss Monique Taylor: Pardon? Anyways.

The member from Parkdale–High Park has it right on when she talks about the history of housing in our province and in our country. We need to make sure that we’re supporting co-operative housing. We need to make sure that we move this bill forward and get it into committee. If the Conservatives have some kinks that they want to work out, I’m sure that everybody can work together to find a way of moving this bill forward.

We need to make sure that we have more housing in this province. We need to make sure that people who aren’t able to pay a full market-value rent are being able to have adequate housing, and I know that co-ops provide that. They work together as a community to make sure that everybody is living in good housing conditions.

I have several co-ops in my riding, and I work with them on a regular basis and have made very good friends with people in the co-ops on the Mountain. Everybody is working for the same goal, and that’s to make sure that everybody has a happy, healthy place to raise their families.

So I completely support this bill. I’m looking forward to it getting to committee and making sure that they have a fair cost price looking at them, and when they have to deal with evictions and when tenants need the assistance of the tribunal board, that that will also be there to assist them. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: I know the member opposite who just spoke knows of my passion for affordable housing as well. I’ve been involved in one way or another, I guess for the last 40 years, in municipal non-profits, private non-profits and co-op housing because I think that housing is an absolute right for people. I’m absolutely convinced of that.

Let’s not forget—she talks a lot about what hasn’t been done. But one of the opportunities that I had on behalf of the government back in 2005 was to sign that historic agreement with the federal government, the Martin federal government at the time, to provide $600 million of new affordable housing to the people of Ontario; $300 million came from the province and $300 million came from the federal government. I don’t know how many units were created, but I know they were in the thousands that were created as a result of that.

Now, dealing with this bill specifically, Speaker, the reality is that right now, if co-ops want to get rid of a tenant—and they’re not really tenants, anyway—they have to go to the courts. Courts are not the best place to deal with eviction issues. Quite frankly, most judges don’t like to deal with them. So why don’t we use the expertise that’s available in the Landlord and Tenant Board—the adjudicators who deal with these issues on an ongoing basis—to deal with any kind of eviction notices that may be required of people who live in co-op housing? That’s what this really is all about.

The other issue is the waiver of fees with respect to low-income individuals. May I just remind the Conservatives, who may not be in favour of that, that actually we have that waiver-of-fee provision as well in other tribunals such as the Ontario Municipal Board, social services review boards etc., and they were initiated, by the way, by the true Progressive Conservatives who used to be in power here many, many years ago. We’re not doing anything all that radical by adding that in this bill as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Parkdale–High Park has two minutes.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you to everyone for their comments. I want to focus on a couple of them.

To the Attorney General: Housing is a human right, of course. It’s what the United Nations has asked for and, in fact, it was a motion I introduced in this House that the government did not support. I wanted it enshrined in our Legislature that housing was a human right. It didn’t pass over there.

The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan knows full well that it is the government’s and only the government’s prerogative to bring bills back for third reading, and he knows full well that, had this bill gone forward and prorogation not happened, if it had seen committee time in a timely manner, this government could have passed it before Christmas. He knows that. That’s just to correct the record.

Also, just to go back to two main points here: Co-op housing is one of the most cost-effective ways of providing affordable housing. This bill is a very small step. Yes, it should be passed, and in a timely manner. I hope that it goes in and out of committee quickly, and I hope that this government calls it back for third reading in a timely manner as well.

But more to the point, to my friends across the aisle: The fact remains that our province spends less than any other province on affordable housing. That is not a good record. We need political will from across the aisle to step up. We know the federal government isn’t doing what they should; that doesn’t get you off the hook. You need to step up. We need to have a plan, and it’s a plan that needs to see new units being built, but also, lots of other solutions and tools can be used to provide housing without much cost—even at all—like inclusionary zoning.

So, yes, pass the bill. Yes, let’s correct the record, and, by all means, let’s get on with providing housing for people who need it.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you—

Applause.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I have one friend, Mr. Speaker—maybe two, with you. I’ve always considered you a friend, Mr. Speaker.

I want to start off by just making a few comments about the comments made by the member for Parkdale–High Park, and her efforts. I want to acknowledge the very positive contribution she has made and the extraordinary work she has done in this area.

When I was in my previous political life, when we had no federal or provincial housing programs, we built about 4,000 or 5,000 affordable housing units, which I think is a record in Canadian history in any municipality. It was done through a very grassroots partnership. We talked about some of the tool kits that we could create to do housing. The member from Parkdale–High Park has introduced ideas, and I think this government should look at many of them very seriously.

I always find that there are certain ironies in history. We almost had a national housing strategy in this country that was unprecedented. The Martin government was defeated on December 8 by the Conservatives and the NDP, and we lost our national housing policy, which many of us in the municipal world had worked very hard to achieve. It would have been the first time we had a national housing strategy, a national transportation strategy, a national climate change strategy and a national child care strategy—the four pillars of what I think are the four things that are most missing right now in our national dialogue. Our federal government, quite frankly, has abandoned us on all four.

My grandmother, who came from Ukraine, used to always say to me, “Glen, God never hits with a stick.” I always thought that there was great irony that now both the Liberals and New Democrats are in opposition; our party, federally, is led by a former NDP Premier of Ontario and the NDP is led by a former Liberal cabinet minister from Quebec. There are some lessons on the value of co-operation in that. My grandmother, I think, would always say, “That is karma.”

I think that there are places where this party agrees with the Conservatives—on tax policy and other areas. There are areas in which we agree with the NDP more. I think it behooves us all sometimes to be Ontarians before we are Liberals, Conservatives or New Democrats.

I’ve always believed—and I think if you go back to Bill Davis and David Crombie—one of the things that we should be able to offer every citizen in Ontario is a key to a safe place to live. I agree with members in a number of parties who have made this point, and I would consider my political career a failure in this province if within the next decade, every Ontarian doesn’t have a key to a safe place to live—and not just a safe home. For many women who go home to violence, for children who go home to sexual abuse, the complexity of a safe place to live is not an easy one, and it is not an easy one to achieve.

While government spending is important—and in my community of Toronto Centre, with Regent Park and the West Don Lands, we have been building more affordable housing right now, in my community, than anywhere else. I’m working across party lines, across government, with Pam McConnell and Kristyn Wong-Tam and our school trustees, on an integrated neighbourhood plan. We’re doing some of the stuff that all of us have brought together in our previous experience, because Councillor McConnell as well has a lot of experience as a housing activist.

We’re doing some remarkable things with the private sector and community, without the government being at the table in a significant way. But I think all government has to come to the table.

The member for Northumberland–Quinte West made a comment about cheap shots at the federal government. I don’t think this is a cheap shot. We have a real crisis coming in affordable housing. This is agricultural literacy week. As someone who comes from a family who had a farm in Alexandria, Ontario, I’m really glad that—those of us who now live in cities need to be much more literate about rural and agricultural Ontario.

One of the things that all of us, regardless of where we come from, have to be literate about is the importance of co-ops, because if the federal government does not start to renew its funding and its commitment to co-ops, our co-ops are going to go from being one of the most important sources of affordable housing and human dignity and choice. Co-ops are much more than just housing. They are a community and a culture of caring about your neighbour, and collaborative community-building.

They reinforce the best qualities of our citizenship and the best character of ourselves as Canadians, in the spirit of how we want to live and care for each other and worry as much about our neighbour down the hall as we do about ourselves. Anyone who has ever lived in a co-op or has lived in a condo knows there’s a very different kind of culture that often sets in, in both those places.

When the federal subsidies and the federal contributions to co-ops run out in the very near future, that is going to create an affordable housing crisis in many parts of Ontario. We are not asking the federal government for more money at this point. We are just simply asking them to renew their commitment and to maintain an active hand on finances on that file.

And why should they do that? Not just because former Premier Bob Rae did such a great job on co-ops, quite frankly. I mean, all you have to do in my constituency is walk down the Esplanade to see the incredible legacy of that government in co-operatives.

But, quite frankly, it was also our friend David Crombie, former Progressive Conservative, former mayor of Toronto, former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, who was one of the authors of that legacy. The official opposition, the party opposite, shares in that legacy of activism for affordable and co-op housing. It would seem to me to be a bit of a shame if that’s not continued.

Mr. Speaker, you’ve been very kind, because I’ve wandered so far off topic that it’s not funny, but you’ve given me the same latitude as others, and I should probably come to the point at some point.

Making tenure dispute resolution for co-op residents more efficient, cost-effective and transparent is really the focus of this bill. It has been pointed out by others—I’ve never seen a piece of legislation try to get through this House so many times. I feel like we’re rolling the rock up the hill over and over again. I agree with people who have talked. I hope all parties are committed to getting this through the House.

This is just one of the basic, decent things that we do as MPPs to create some fairness, to create a situation in which people who are living together in co-ops can deal with disputes in a civilized and respectful way. It protects people’s dignity. It removes litigation from the courts. If passed, Bill 14 would allow co-operative boards to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to resolve tenure disputes that are currently provided for under the Residential Tenancies Act. That seems to me to be such a simple and civil thing to do. Only parliamentary Legislatures could make it complicated, Mr. Speaker.

It’s interesting, too, because I think that tenure-based disputes based on the grounds not provided for in the RTA would finally continue to be handled through the internal democratic and co-op tenure disputes process, and then, only if necessary, and very rarely, would these ever be resolved in the courts.

I can’t tell you, Mr.

Speaker, in Toronto Centre, which I think has more co-ops than almost anywhere else—I think that my friend from Ottawa–Vanier would give me a run for my money on that, but there are certainly a few of us on this side of the House who are more than familiar with co-ops, who I think would say that our constituency offices have handled these kinds of concerns and have seen some really heartbreaking disputes, not just for individuals—because these kinds of things can create a great deal of tension in the co-operative housing community, make going home at night very uncomfortable, create divisions between neighbours.

We have been promising for a long time to do something about it, and we have certainly on this side of the House tried very hard to get this bill through a number of times. I again want to thank our friends in the third party, in the New Democratic Party, for their continuing support for this. Hopefully, the official opposition will join in this effort.

We now have about 550 co-op providers. This is no small number of people. There are 44,000 co-op households now in Ontario. There are 125,000 people who live in co-ops. This is larger than a mid-sized city. The cost of the evictions is about $3,000 to $5,000. This is money that could be much better spent by co-ops in investing in facilities and upgrades, in maintaining the buildings and in subsidies, quite frankly, often where people pay higher rents in a co-op to cross-subsidize so that people of lesser means can live as part of that community. I don’t think that any co-op likes to spend thousands of dollars on an eviction process. It’s kind of contrary to the entire spirit of the place.

I’m hoping, as well, if there are suggestions or amendments from the opposition parties, that they’ll be presented, that they’ll move through that in an efficient way. I hope we don’t have any cause to slow this down in any way.

Housing—and I can say this as the Minister of Infrastructure—is a critical part of our infrastructure. We own a lot of land. We have a lot of abilities to create a tool kit and incentives to harvest some affordable housing through this amazing condo boom going on. Right now, in my constituency, there are 47 condo towers going up that haven’t even broken ground out there. If you look at the electoral map for Toronto Centre, it is about one quarter of the geography that it currently is right now.

When you realize that my constituency’s footprint physically is going to be 25% after 2015 of what it is today, it tells you something. Right now, I think I have the second-largest population, after Helena Jaczek, my friend from Oak Ridges–Markham, or my friend from Vaughan. I’m approaching 200,000 constituents, and I think I have another 30,000 right now in the West Don Lands alone.

To the members opposite, many of you, I am gratefully humbled and honoured to be your MPP seasonally, and I hope you’re satisfied with the service you’re getting from your member. You are all my constituents. I feel that I actually have developed—

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I run into the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex on most days, and shortly arrived on his doorstep canvassing, to meet his lovely wife, who was celebrating a very significant anniversary. I’ve gotten to know many of you by knocking on your doors, and I want to tell the members opposite who live in my constituency seasonally, though we’re not of the same political stripe, you have always been very nice to me. A few of you have invited me in for coffee, which I’m sure is simply to keep me from knocking on more doors, but the coffee has always been quite tasty and lovely.

We have to do a lot more in affordable housing. I’ve always felt that this place is best when it’s least partisan. I’ve always felt that most honourable members—and I’ll go further: all honourable members—come here to make a difference.

When I lived through the AIDS epidemic—and I’ve said this many times in this House—the thing that marked my politics in my life more than anything else was celebrating my 30th birthday by going to a funeral for my 42nd friend who died in their twenties of AIDS. I don’t think I would have run for office or done any of the things I’ve been able to do in my life—because I confronted my own mortality in my twenties.

People who went off to war—when they talk about the great generation, it was a generation of men and women who confronted their mortalities at an extraordinarily early age and became one of the most creative generations, from whom we have inherited so much. The closest thing I’ve experienced—and I don’t compare myself to that—is I discovered in my twenties that people die very quickly, our bodies are very fragile, and many of us live our lives into our fifties, sixties, and seventies and look back with great regret that we didn’t do anything with our lives that we would have, could have, should have.

I sort of promised myself and my friends that I lost that I wanted to make a difference in my life.

I think we can do so much more on housing than we are. I think this is an important piece. But we’re the wealthiest, healthiest, most tech-savvy generation in Canadian history. None of our parents or grandparents—and God knows, many of them came from countries with very little, came here with a shopping bag; or First Nations folks who grew up here in horrible residential schools in difficult situations. They left us a pretty incredible legacy.

I think it’s time for us, on things like housing, to ask ourselves, why does every Ontarian not have a key to a safe place to live? Why is that not possible? Why can we not, as three political parties, as decent people who came here to make a difference, work in a less partisan way to accomplish more things? I think many of us would much rather go to the electorate in a few months or a couple of years saying that we have the best housing programs in the world.

I think we’re doing some extraordinary things. You look at my friend Diane MacLean—because for some of us, our job is to criticize the government, but some of the things we’ve done—Diane MacLean just got the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal. This is a woman who got eight people together—there were nine of them; Regent Park was interested in co-ops. It was very hard to do co-ops because of land costs—and we need to look at how we make that easier again, because we need to be getting back to building them again.

But she approached George Smitherman, the federal government and Pam McConnell and she started a conversation and went to some of the developers. That started in 2003. Within 24 months, the partnership between three governments and the communities and developers was building Regent Park, which, if you’ve been down there, isn’t just amazing, affordable housing, it isn’t just mixed income; there’s an aquatic centre there which is being built between the city and the province which is remarkable. There’s the Daniels Spectrum.

They have more cultural and art groups—it’s amazing to see the young people in Regent Park engaged in culture and jobs. We have businesses back in that community that are hiring people in that community. We’re not just building housing; we’re building a neighbourhood there.

The same thing is happening in my constituency in the West Don Lands. We have three major affordable housing projects going up right now on provincially owned land that had been sitting there. I’m very proud of that.

But beyond this bill, I’m hoping that one of the legacies of this session of the Legislature will be that we can actually use our infrastructure budgets, our land banks by community land banking, and we can actually bring forward a housing agenda collaboratively in this House. I have heard, from members on all sides, some very, very good ideas on these things. This simple dispute mechanism is such a simple thing to do. I always believe that you start with small things, you build some trust, you demonstrate that we can do things together by working and being honourable members first, and then take on some bigger things.

My biggest hope about this simple thing that we have been trying to do for so long—which will make so many people’s lives easier, will liberate thousands of dollars in co-ops that will make a difference in some children’s lives and some seniors’ lives, and someone with a disability may get a ramp now built in their co-op rather than it going into an eviction process. These simple, decent things can make a huge difference. Maybe let’s just try to make this bill get through this House faster than any other piece of legislation. God knows, we owe it to the patient people who live in co-ops who have been waiting so long for this.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Maybe you shouldn’t have stalled it so far.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I can see that some of the members opposite lost the spirit of Christmas and Valentine’s Day very quickly. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, 106 of 107 of us can work together collaboratively on this. I have hope for my friend from—oops, I’m not that good yet at this—Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I’ll buy him a beer sometime over in the neighbourhood and we’ll become friends.

But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this actually leads us to take on a larger project together and that many of us can reach out within our own caucuses and across the aisle to try and look at what are some of the next things that we could do. How do we start to kick-start co-op housing when the land thresholds are that? How do we actually start to create some opportunities to take this condo boom and make one of the legacies of this condo boom in my constituency and many others—and I’ve heard some very good ideas on that in this House—the creation of some affordable housing?

How do we actually start to engage the federal government not to walk away from its commitments to federally established co-ops and keep that money so we don’t lose that affordable housing?

If all of us work together on that, if we don’t have a confrontational approach to the federal government but just simply say, “We’re keeping our commitment with provincial co-ops; the provincial government is maintaining its commitment”—a simple resolution in this House wouldn’t cost us any money, Mr. Speaker, asking the federal government. All of us have our sister parties in that federal House. This is an immediate thing where we could save thousands of affordable housing units if we could all cherish a legacy that is, quite frankly, in this province, a legacy of all three parties—everyone.

There have been Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats at every order of government who helped build that legacy, and it is very much in jeopardy right now in Ontario if the federal government does not continue—simply continue—its existing commitment to co-ops.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Slam the feds.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Well, 106 to one, Speaker; that’s the way I look at it.

It’s not slamming the feds; it’s actually us working very hard to maintain our contribution and simply asking the federal government to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I used to live in another province. I saw the highway sharing on the Prairies, the matching dollars that still go on. I know there’s a floodway being built in Winnipeg where $1 out of $4 comes out of this province’s tax base in federal transfers. We export $22 billion. Having lived outside of Ontario, I used to always end my speeches as mayor of Winnipeg thanking Ontarians for being a foundation for the rest of this country. I don’t think we ever need to apologize as Ontarians for the role—

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

Questions and comments?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: The minister alluded to my earlier comment about always blaming the feds. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we’ve noticed from this government is that they repeatedly always seem to blame our federal counterparts for their shortcomings.

Obviously, we have a vested interest in ensuring that all Ontarians are included and brought in and that they have a proper home that they can call their own, and function and provide the dignities that a family deserves here in this great province. But the debt load that this government has brought upon the province of Ontario—when we’re paying $10 billion annually just in interest payments, imagine what that $10 billion can do for low-income housing in this province. This government has denied future generations the proper dignity that they’re going to need not only in getting a job but also finding a house, even if you are working.

When I hear the Liberals across the way—the minister—say it’s the federal government’s fault, we’ve heard this before. They repeatedly do this over and over again. They are not accountable for their actions, Mr. Speaker. That’s one of the reasons why I’m here today. The minister discussed, absolutely incorrectly—I believe that all members here, regardless of political party, are here to make an improvement in the lives of Ontarians. That’s why I’m here, Mr. Speaker, because I truly believe that what this government has done is taking us down the wrong path.

We can ensure all Ontarians have a great future.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m happy to join the debate this morning. First up, let me just say that of course you can count on my support, on our party’s support, for co-operative housing. That’s where we’ve always stood on this issue.

The Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation referenced the Esplanade, the co-operative housing down at Parliament. In fact, that’s close to my home. My mom lives in that co-operative housing. She’s a person over 65 years old. She’s still working. She has worked her entire life, but like many people who are aging in our province, she does not have much of a pension. The fact that she has stable housing is a relief to me and to my family and to her. She’s a very active participant in that co-op, and I think they’re lucky to have her there as well.

Speaker, today we stand in a province, in the GTHA, where almost half of workers don’t have stable work. They don’t know if they’re going to get paid next week or next month, and they can’t count on any kind of benefits, on any kind of pension. That means that we have to create affordable housing.

We need to have a government that actually stands up and takes responsibility on this issue. While my colleague across the way speaks about friendship and so forth—and I appreciate that; I believe we should have a collegial Parliament—I also believe that we actually need to take responsibility for this issue. This government has been in power, by my count now, almost 10 years. So to continue to pass the buck to others does not actually feel respectful to the people who are looking for affordable housing in this city. There are people who won’t go into shelters because our shelter system is so broken and because there are no affordable housing options.

Going back to federal Minister Martin, in history, is not acceptable either. If we look at the Liberal government federally under Martin, we delivered the biggest tax cuts, the biggest spending cuts, we’ve ever seen in this country. I’d like this government to stand up today and actually close the corporate loopholes that we’re asking for. Put that in this budget bill and put that money toward affordable housing, and I hope that I can count on my friend across the way to come through on that issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, it’s good to see you in the chair again.

I’m very pleased that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has introduced this particular bill which we are debating today. I have been listening very attentively to the remarks by Minister Murray as well as the member from Parkdale–High Park.

I have to say—and we have to give credit where credit’s due—that the bill wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for the consistent and persistent efforts of the wonderful people representing the co-ops: Harvey Cooper and Dale Reagan. They are in the audience here today, Speaker, so I want to acknowledge their presence and their continuous knocking that this is an important thing to do.

We have 125,000 people living in co-ops, Speaker, and they have a few problems. In order to solve some of those problems, they have been asking the government to do something, and that’s why we are here today. I totally agree with the member from Parkdale–High Park to move it ahead and get on with it. Let’s approve it and do the right thing for the co-op people in Ontario.

The bill, as it is, aims to do a couple of things. There are three sections: one, it amends the Co-operative Corporations Act; the second

part is, it’s amending the Residential Tenancies Act; and the third

section contains consequential amendments to the other acts affected by the proposed changes.

Speaker, this has been a long time coming. I have dealt myself with these issues I forget how many times. We all say it’s got to be done. It’s the right thing to do. I think we owe it to the co-op people of Ontario. This is one way of moving it forward, so let’s go ahead and do it, Speaker. Thank you.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a privilege for me to stand and talk with regard to Bill 14. I appreciate the comments from my colleague on the government side, and the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation as well.

We do have a housing problem here in Ontario, especially for low-income tenants. I was privileged for 25 years to have sat on the board of directors for a seniors’ complex back in the riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, working with those people. We know some of the issues and challenges that they’re faced with on a daily basis at times.

A couple of things: This act, Speaker, as we know, streamlines the internal dispute resolution process to non-profit co-ops that clarify that hearings before the LTB and the courts are determined based on the merits of the case.

As we all know, Speaker, there are 125,000 Ontarians who live in the province’s 550 non-profit housing co-ops. One of the things that this particular bill does is it waives that $45 filing fee for low income. Of course, one of the things that I’m concerned about is that that $45, as you multiply that out, may be borne by taxpayers along the way.

One of the other things that could also be a concern is the fact that this bill, Speaker, should have been passed in our last session. However, it was delayed because of former Premier McGuinty’s prorogation. This should already be law.

We will support this particular bill in second reading. But what we really would like to do is to push for province-wide hearings on the amendments to the LTB so that the landlord and tenant advocates can flood the committee with recommendations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation has two minutes.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I won’t go through them all, because there were many of them, but I want to thank all the honourable members for their very positive comments.

The member for Davenport raised, I think, a very important issue. This is part of the challenge we have on this side of the House. Your friends to your immediate right will point out that we do not have the lowest taxes in Canada, and they’re right. But we have very competitive taxes.

In your value system, from my perspective, is: What’s the overall quality of life? I don’t mind paying my fair share, because I came from a family—my grandmother had nine kids and lived in a two-bedroom cold-water flat, and, quite frankly, no one should ever have to live like that. That was a time before we had medicare and before we had bigger government, and bigger government has meant that my 85-year-old mother lives securely and safely. I support her, as my friend from Parkdale said.

It should also be pointed out that we have the lowest per capita spending of any province, which, my friend from Parkdale–High Park pointed out, also has consequences. So we have some tough choices to make here, and they’re not always easy, because, as my friend from Davenport pointed out, we tried some things, and we should reach out across the aisle.

We tried the 2% surcharge on people over $500,000. The challenge we have is that tax money is very mobile and corporate taxes are very mobile. There is $38 billion stranded offshore in the United States. That tax may not generate much new revenue. As a matter of fact, over time, we could lose revenue. So we have to be a little more sophisticated in this world. It’s not simply a matter of cutting or raising taxes; that isn’t synonymous anymore with growing or reducing revenues or costs.

So I’m hoping that we can have a fact-based government and elevate this discussion to some evidence-based approaches to these problems. These are not simple challenges; they are very complicated.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 14 this morning—the reincarnation of Bill 65. I do want to welcome Harvey Cooper and other representatives from the co-op housing sector here this morning. I know he was welcomed by the minister responsible for seniors as well, but I think—and I’m not trying to speak for Harvey—he probably believes he has been here too often because, do you know what? We could have had this taken care of, Harvey. Bill 65 was introduced on April 12, 2012.

The member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan made excuses for the prorogation when he was speaking earlier, saying, “We really couldn’t have got it through.” Hold on a minute, Speaker. We’re not completely paralyzed here yet, are we? April 12 was the introduction of that bill, I say to the member—April 12, 2012. This House never rose for the summer till the end of June. It never was called for debate once, until October 2, 2012.

I think Harvey would have liked to probably have visited this place sometime in April or May 2012 and maybe had Bill 65 debated on. Maybe we’d have passed the darn thing before Dalton McGuinty took a walk in the snow, as they say. Of course, there was no snow on October 15, but he was certainly thinking about winter—the winter of our discontent, when all of you folks were out farmed across the province, trying to prove to the people that you were the right one to choose by a few members of the Liberal Party to be the next Premier of Ontario.

I think that when the Liberals get up—and they opened the door; they opened the door to the prorogation discussion. Good Lord, I detect a guilty conscience—

Mr. Grant Crack: Did you ever prorogue?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I detect a guilty conscience, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell was already asked once. Last chance.

Continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, you know it’s hard enough for me to keep my train of thought without the interruptions.

I detect a guilty conscience over there. Every time a Liberal gets up to speak, they want to talk about how the prorogation really didn’t amount to anything. Well, then stop talking about it. Stop talking about it. Let’s get on with the business here. It was wrong. You did it for all the wrong reasons. Dalton McGuinty did it because he didn’t want to have any more focus on the scandals that your government has brought on. He didn’t want to talk about power plants, he didn’t want to talk about Ornge, so he prorogued the House.

I understand, but we’ve got a bill to debate in the House this morning, and they should stop talking about prorogation. They did it. It was their sin. We’ll deal with it at a later date.

What I detect here this morning though, too, is that nobody is talking about co-op housing. They’re talking about affordable housing. They’ve taken the debate into their own little areas, so I suspect, then, you’re giving a fair bit of latitude on the debate this morning of which I may take advantage, and I may just speak right to the point—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Only if I let you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I understand, Speaker. I may attempt to take advantage of that, and if you allow me, I will be grateful forever and ever. I’m not sure I’m offering to buy you that beer that the minister offered me, but I will be grateful forever and ever.

I want to talk a little bit about housing in general. The Attorney General said earlier that housing is a basic right, and he’s correct. Good Lord, in a country as rich as Canada, in a province as rich as Ontario—getting poorer under this government, I might point out, but still a great province in Canada, the province of opportunity, the province that, historically, everyone looked to as the leader—housing is a basic right, and everyone should expect to have adequate housing.

Having said that, I think that we will always have homelessness, because there are other reasons—sometimes it’s mental illness and other challenges. We’ll always be having to deal with that, but we also have to have the systems and assistance in place to try to help people who find themselves in that category, as well.

The minister talked about his mother. I’ll talk about my mother-in-law a little bit. She lives in a rental unit in Eganville, 89 Bruce Street—hardest-working person I’ve ever known. She’s going to be 80 this year. It’s only a couple of years ago that she quit cleaning other people’s homes to make a little extra money. She has no income other than what she gets from the government. Her husband has been dead a long time. She never worked out of the home. She came from Germany in 1954 with my wife as her young daughter, and has just struggled through her entire life, but she never complains.

She just puts her shoulder to the wheel and keeps working and doing whatever she can to help others. That’s the kind of woman Elma Smith, my mother-in-law, is. She struggles and she struggles, but I am extremely proud of how she has faced the challenges that she has in life. She won’t be happy that I mentioned her in debate today, but I feel compelled that I must.

Our expectations in housing have changed so much over the years—our expectations of society. You know, when I was growing up, when I was a young boy—today, our kids all have always had their own rooms—I didn’t have my own room. I shared a room, not with one, not with two, not with three, not with four, but five other brothers. I shared a room with five other brothers—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Good night, John-Boy.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, good night, John. It was like the Waltons.

But I’m one of 10 boys. I live in the same house that we grew up in—we’re a much smaller family today than I grew up in, a much smaller family today—but it’s just life’s expectations. People expect more and more today. I’m just pointing that out to my own children, I think.

Let’s talk about the bill here—but you know, I don’t have any complaints, because you always had somebody to talk to in that room with five other brothers. It was never a lonely time falling asleep, you know? And presumably, I didn’t snore when I was that young, so I didn’t bother everybody else.

Let’s get to the bill, Bill 14. I think that’s the matter at hand today. Basically, as I see it—and I want to thank my colleague Steve Clark, our critic for municipal affairs and housing, a great member from the great riding of Leeds–Grenville, where my great friend Bob Runciman hailed from before him. I want to congratulate Steve on the tremendous work he has done on behalf of our caucus on this file. I know how closely he has worked with Harvey Cooper and his people as well.

As I understand it—and I’m not, obviously, as well versed on this bill as my colleague might be. But one of the essential components of the act is to allow—when there are disputes between the operators of co-op housing and tenants in co-op housing, they can now go to the Landlord and Tenant Board to settle the dispute as opposed to going to the courts. I share the Attorney General’s view that the courts are not the place to settle disputes such as that.

We have essentially supported the bill, Mr. Speaker. We committed to supporting Bill 65 on second reading in the House whenever the government finally got around to bringing that to second reading—but I’m not talking about the prorogation; they keep talking about it. So we bring the bill back—it’s now Bill 14—and we’re debating this bill. That is the right thing to do, to allow the Landlord and Tenant Board to deal with those disputes.

We do have situations, and it’s not an either/or. When you have disputes, it means there are two parties that can’t agree. Sometimes one is completely wrong and sometimes the other is completely wrong, but most times there’s a little bit of a shared responsibility. It’s just like a discussion or an argument with someone else. I say “discussions.” When I have a discussion with my wife, usually I am entirely wrong. Then there are some other people who have discussions with their wife, and they might share some of the responsibility. In my case, it’s usually me all the way.

But I want to talk about my wife. My wife is a real estate agent. She has had many situations when she has been charged with the sale of someone’s home, and those people have a tenant; and they did a very poor job, maybe, of assessing—what’s the word?—evaluating, getting the background on that tenant before they signed the dotted line on the lease. Folks, that is like pulling hen’s teeth when you get one of those tenants, and they know they got you, and they ain’t leaving.

She has had situations where she has got the house for sale—I’ll tell you about one. I say this to the Attorney General. She has got the house for sale, and these people really want to sell because they’re older. They want to rid themselves of the asset. So she goes and makes the appointment. You have to call the tenants and make the arrangements, so she calls the tenants and makes the arrangements. See, the tenants don’t want the house to be sold because they are not paying the rent and they’re behind on hydro, but they don’t want to get out. It’s like trying to pull a stump that has been cemented in out of the ground when you’re trying to pull them out of there.

She gets there for the real estate appointment. Well, they’ve got about 12 friends there. They’re all drinking beer, smoking dope. The lady walks in to buy the house—they turned around and walked out. There’s no way in hell they wanted to buy the house at that point. Mission accomplished on the part of that particular tenant.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Is this up at Barry’s Bay?

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, I cannot reveal that. I say that to the member for Peterborough and the Minister of Rural Affairs.

Those are just some of the things that happen in the real world. In the theoretical world of lovey-dovey politics, everybody gets along. But in the real world, there are some real challenges.

In general, as I said, we’re supporting the bill. But I do want to ask why they brought in this provision of waiving the fee of $45 to apply to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I thank the member.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being that magical time of 10:15, the member will resume when we start again on this debate on this bill. He’ll be—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I could be dead by then.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You could be.

This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize a number of people who are here from the great riding of Oxford. To make sure that I listened to you last time, Mr. Speaker: They’re here in the members’ gallery.

I will go through the names: Deb Tait; Wayne Walden; Monika Rauch; Suzanne Crellin; Heather Gingerich; Reed Elliott; Judah Gingerich; and Robbie Gibson.

They’re here as part of a group concerned about a proposed landfill in Oxford. I want to commend them for their work and for bringing forward their concerns, and I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I appreciate the member from Oxford’s introduction.

Introduction of guests?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I am delighted today to introduce members of the Association of Ontario Midwives. They’re here for their Queen’s Park day. Lisa Weston, Kelly Stadelbauer, Juana Berinstein and Allyson Booth are all here today. Allyson Booth is a special midwife because she helped catch my grandson Pax.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. Please help me welcome James Jonker to the visitors’ gallery. He’s here to watch his son A.J. perform his duties as a page. Welcome.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I am pleased to welcome to the west visitors’ gallery this morning Moreen Miller, the CEO of the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; and also two members of OSSGA: Craig Copping of Rankin Construction and Marlene Yakabuski of Bot Construction, who is also my sister.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I am pleased today to introduce my friends who are here from Belmore, Ontario: Kevin and Marilyn Ashley.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the Legislative Assembly today Mr. Steve Baker, president of Union Gas, and Mel Ydreos, all from the great riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex and who, by the way, gave a very compelling presentation of natural gas to our PC caucus this morning.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I promise not to say anything about gas and the PC caucus.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to indicate to the House that joining us will be the 9th Pickering Scouts, who were at the launch of the second round of the Great Lakes Guardian Community grant program this morning. The Scouts have been actively involved in teaching youth appreciation and the need for environmental stewardship, along with cleaning up garbage from streams and marshes, and encouraging the use of freshwater resources for recreation so youth can appreciate the value and need to preserve our Great Lakes.

Welcome to the 9th Pickering Scouts.

Hon. David Zimmer: I’d like to recognize the presence of some visitors from my riding of Willowdale. Stephanie Tom is going to be a page captain this week, and her family is visiting to wish her well. Joining us are Jack and May Tom, Stephanie’s grandparents; Julie and Christopher Tom, Stephanie’s parents; and Stephanie’s sisters, Katherine and Evelyn Tom. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before we move into question period, I will offer a gentle reminder. I’m not upset about it, but I would ask you to get to your introductions and leave the editorials aside, as it creates discourse with statements and all of those other rules that do apply. I would ask for everyone’s indulgence, to allow me to not be seen as picking on the member from Oxford. It is actually convention for us just to do the introductions, and I’d appreciate it if we stuck to that as best we could.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Your government said it would cost $180 million to cancel the Mississauga gas plant. Then you added $10 million in financing; it’s now $190 million. That’s your number; it has been in the papers a hundred times.

But I have new documents here, Speaker, that show a “side deal” which provided an additional $5 million “above the amount of $10 million.”

The cost is more than $190 million but, Premier, you already knew that. In the 600 just-released documents, there is proof that cabinet had this back in 2011, yet you stood here in 2012 and said, “You have all the documents,” knowing full well that we did not have this document at that time.

Premier, will you admit that you said one thing but knew the absolute opposite to be true?

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The opposition are trying to count the number of angels on the head of a pin.

We have a committee that is looking into this. The Premier has indicated that she’s willing to go and be a witness at committee, where they can produce documents, where they can put them in front of witnesses, so they can answer the questions in a credible matter.

The Premier has been outstanding in her clarity, in her transparency, in opening up the process. We have nothing to apologize for. We look forward in every way possible to answering these questions in a professional manner, with the proper documents in front of us, instead of somebody waving a piece of paper in question period and expecting any credible answer to come out of that—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The page that I’m referring to was in the secret documents that were released in the fourth document dump.

Premier, in July 2011, a cabinet minute on Project Vapour, your government’s code name for the Oakville gas plant cancellation, was circulated. You were a member of cabinet at that time. But on September 25, 2012, you stood in this House and stated that “all of the documents that have been released ... are the ones that were asked for.”

Premier, you said that, but you knew full well at that time that all of the documents were not released. So I ask you today, do you stand by your statement in the House at that time, or will you stand today and apologize to the members of this House and the people of Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: All parties asked for the relocation of the Mississauga gas plant. That’s on record. What also is on record is that this government won power again, and we fulfilled our commitment and our promise and we relocated it.

We then asked the Ontario Power Authority to provide us with the cost of relocating the power plant in Mississauga. They provided us with that information; we made that information public.

I want to add again that we were transparent and forthright in asking the chair and the CEO of OPA to come here and answer questions before the media for an hour. They said clearly and precisely that the release of documents was a decision of the OPA, and that they made it of their own will, of their own volition, without interference. It was clear there’s absolutely no contempt, and there’s absolute transparency from this side of the House.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, this newly released material, the 600 secret pages presented today, prove that you and your members did indeed know we did not have all of the documents. Yet one by one, they stood here and said something opposite to that fact.

The member from Sudbury said, “All the documents associated to those gas plants were released.”

The member from Guelph said, “The minister has in fact tabled all the documents.” These are members of cabinet who had the secret document. The member from Peterborough said, “All the documents that have been requested have certainly been delivered”—even though this new document proves, new information proves, they knew.

The list is very, very long, Premier, of your members who stood up. If you won’t apologize, will you at least ask your members to?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The opposition continues to ask questions, trying to parse and analyze what has happened. It’s very, very clear what happened, Mr. Speaker. It’s extremely clear what—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I want to again refer to the CEO of the Ontario Power Authority. The question that was asked to him was, “At any point during these searches” for documents “—we are talking about all of them, not just this one—did you feel you were under a great deal of political pressure to either produce or not produce records?” The answer was a clear no.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the question to Colin Andersen, “Are you sure you were not under any pressure from the government to delay telling when you had those documents? Why that time?” The answer was, “Government had no involvement in regard to the timing of our disclosure. It was totally our decision.” The information is very clear.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Deputy Premier this morning. We know that in July 2011, cabinet was aware of the existence of Project Vapour. That’s your government’s code name for the Oakville gas plant cancellation. You were in cabinet at that time. But on October 2 of last year, you stood in the House and stated, “The Minister of Energy has complied with the request to release the documents.”

You knew of the existence of Project Vapour more than a year earlier, and you also knew that none of the Project Vapour documents were released by the government initially. So what I want to know and what the people of Ontario want to know is, do you stand by your statement of October 2, or do you believe that it’s not part of your job to read confidential cabinet emails?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, you provided a ruling to this House on the very issue of statements that were made by members of this Legislature about the issue of documents during the debate and question period during that period, and I congratulate you on your ruling.

But I think there is a bigger issue at play here, and that is that the justice committee has begun its work. I confess that I slipped out of the House yesterday during my House duty to watch it on TV, and I’m not sure if all members are aware of this—I could not believe my eyes. The government brought forward a motion at that committee to offer all government documents on the power plants. They brought it forward. Mr. Speaker, do you know what PCs and the NDP did? They joined together to vote against it, Mr. Speaker. They put their hands up unanimously to vote against it, that they didn’t want this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

Supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, I’m standing. Second of all, I’ve asked you to stop. Third, when I do get the quiet, people start up again. I’m going to remind you that I’m not going to tolerate that, because the only way in which we can make this thing work is you.

Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: That was the motion that the member is referring to that was ruled out of order by the Clerk, I’m assuming; right.

My question is back to the Deputy Premier. Cabinet knew and was briefed on Project Vapour. That means you knew what it was, and you were briefed on it as well. You knew during debate on the contempt motion last October that no Project Vapour documents had been released, but that didn’t stop you from saying, “The documents have been tabled. That work has been done.”

Minister, I’m going to give you a chance here. You’ve known at least since the second batch of documents were released on October 12 that you made an incorrect statement to the House on October 2. Will you stand and correct your record and apologize to the people of Ontario?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think if anyone needs to correct their record, it’s the honourable member who just stood up and talked about what happened at the committee yesterday. A motion went forward to the committee, put forward by government members, to produce all documents on the gas plant issue held by the government of Ontario. I watched on television as members of the Progressive Conservative Party and members of the New Democratic Party voted against that. I was going to call Legislative Assembly television to say, “There’s something wrong with my television; the opposition will not take yes for an answer and they would not vote for it.”

They talk about how they want to get to the truth, but it’s all just talk. When we have offered them, over and over again, initiatives for them to allow to look into this matter, they have repeatedly turned them down, Mr. Speaker. I think they have some explaining to do.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: The political games are continuing. Every time I turned on my TV yesterday, there was no committee on there because the government continued to recess time after time after time. Political games are continuing on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

My question is back to the Deputy Premier. You were a senior official on the last Liberal campaign. You’ve been a senior cabinet minister for both the old Premier and the current one. You were involved in briefings to cabinet and minutes distributed by the secretary of cabinet about Project Vapour. If anybody knew about Project Vapour, it had to be you. Yet for months, you’ve risen in the House day after day. You’ve refused to correct your record about statements that were incorrect.

Why don’t you folks do the honourable thing? You know you were saying incorrect statements in the House; stand up and correct your record, like the House leader did.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, let’s review. First, the member from Cambridge tells us that a public inquiry would be too expensive. Then the member from Nipissing holds a press conference asking for a public inquiry. Then we offer the opposition a select committee, and the opposition says no; they want to go on a mean-spirited, vindictive witch hunt against the former Minister of Energy. Then we come forward and offer to broaden the mandate of the committee, Mr. Speaker, and it takes them a week to get back to us.

Then the government yesterday puts forward a motion at the committee offering to produce every government document on the gas plant, and they, to my astonishment and the astonishment of everyone watching, vote against it.

HEALTH CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Speaker, I am hopeful that the government will take the good advice of the New Democrats and introduce my private member’s bill, the Skin Cancer Prevention Act, to finally protect our youth from cancer by banning the use of tanning beds for minors. It would be a good thing to do—a good small step but an important one.

As the Premier knows, though, there are more than 6,000 people waiting for home care, and sometimes, the waits stretch for over 260 days. Will the Premier take action on a five-day home care guarantee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows that we are very keen to work with her on the issue around tanning beds and cancer prevention initiatives, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Minister of Health and she have been talking, and I am very much looking forward to us being able to find common cause on this. Again, I think this is one of these issues that really is not partisan. I think that there is lots of evidence that demonstrates that this is a direction that we should be going. So, as I say, we very much look forward to working with her on this legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I tend to agree with what the Premier has said: that banning tanning for youth is not partisan. It’s actually a no-brainer. If you ask any of those youth in the gallery, they will tell you that it’s the right thing to do.

Bringing a guarantee of five days for home care is also a no-brainer. We know that there is work to do in home care, but we would like a simple commitment. We would like this Premier to commit to a five-day guarantee so that people don’t have to wait. Is the Premier willing to do that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This is an issue that the member opposite also mentioned in her first question. Mr. Speaker, it’s again another area that we have been, I have been, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has been very clear on: that as we transform our health care system, one of the foundational pieces of that transformation is making sure that people get the health care that they need, where they need it and in a timely way. Moving those services out of acute care hospitals into homes, into the community, is a fundamental part of what we need to do in order to make the health care system sustainable.

We know that there is more to do, Mr. Speaker. We have spent millions of dollars and have provided millions of hours more of home care. We know there’s more to do, and I think it’s, again, an area that we can work together on.

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

M me France Gélinas: For the thousands and thousands of Ontarians who are waiting for home care right now, they would like to see real results. They would like to see improvements to our broken home care system, and they would like to see improvement in their own lives.

The government seems willing to move ahead with some proposals but unwilling to do things such as capping CEOs’ salaries, and you seem unwilling to implement the five-day guarantee for home care. People want to go beyond working together to actually getting results, and the way that they describe results to us is getting a five-day guarantee for home care services.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, I am delighted that the NDP is focusing on the need to enhance home care, because we are in complete agreement with that.

We are making progress, Speaker. We do measure wait times, and what we’re saying is that now 90% of people who are referred to home care from hospital upon discharge are waiting less than seven days, so we’re getting close to the five-day wait there. If referred when they’re already in the community, that wait is nine days, but it was 13 days, so we have gone from 13 days to nine days.

We are making additional investments in home care because we do want people to get the home care they need so they can stay home safely, so that they do not need to go to hospital unnecessarily and they can be discharged from hospital when they’re ready.

PROROGATION

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Would the Premier agree that the decision last fall to shut down the Legislature was a mistake that shouldn’t be repeated?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have been quite clear that my predecessor made the decision that he believed he needed to make in order to be able to give an opportunity for a leadership in order for us to be able to work with our broader public sector partners and to come to some agreements. All of that happened, Mr. Speaker.

I was committed to bringing the Legislature back as quickly as possible on the legislative calendar. There were many who said it couldn’t be done, but we did it. We were back on February 19. We’re here, and the work of the people of Ontario is going on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Premier, people are getting cynical about politics, and we owe it to them to do better.

Last fall, the government made a desperate attempt to win majority power in a by-election. They used divisive tactics that created chaos in our schools. When all of those games failed to deliver a win, they shut the doors to the Legislature to avoid any sort of accountability.

Does the Premier understand that this is exactly what is making people cynical about politics in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the member opposite is very genuine in her desire to have real engagement in politics and for people to feel optimistic and hopeful about their politicians. I know the member opposite, and I know that that is her desire. Mr. Speaker, I feel exactly the same way.

I made a commitment that we would bring the Legislature back as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker. We did. Every party in this Legislature has used the rules of prorogation at one time or another, has made decisions on legislative procedure, has made those decisions in the context that that is the parliamentary history and the existing rules.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that what is most important is that we make our interactions real, that we make sure that we reflect the needs and the desires of the people of Ontario and that, to the very best of all of our abilities, we allow the business of the people of the province to go ahead so that people get the services that they need in this province.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Premier, I had the honour of being elected in that by-election, and 11 days after I arrived here in this House, the Legislature was shut down. I don’t think that’s acceptable, and the people who sent me here don’t think it’s acceptable either.

Tomorrow, we’ll be debating a bill that would stop the partisan use of prorogation in the future. Can I count on the Premier’s support?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I welcome the discussion that’s going to happen in the Legislature tomorrow. I think some of the most interesting discussion in this place happens in private members’ bills, because there are issues that come forward that reflect some very specific opinions and desires of people in the province. I look forward to hearing the debate in the Legislature. I don’t think that there is any rule, any process or any tradition that can’t be questioned and discussed. I think it is a very worthy subject that the member opposite is bringing forward, and, as I say, I will be listening very carefully to the debate.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is not for the House leader; it’s actually for the Minister of Finance. Since the minister was a key beneficiary of the billion-dollar gas plant scandal, I’m hoping I can derive some insight from him directly about the gas plant cancellations.

Last fall, he stood before this House to tell us about the documents. Apparently, and I quote you from Hansard, Minister, “The government put each and every document on a USB key,” and, I quote from Hansard, “The request of the committee for these documents has been satisfied.”

Finally, in Hansard again, he assured us, before three reluctant document dumps, that the energy minister “has complied with the committee’s request and the ruling of the Speaker.”

Minister, you knew full well at the time that none of the Project Vapour documents were among those that had been released by the government prior. Luckily, credibility didn’t factor into your recent promotion. Minister, do you think it’s time to correct the record and apologize to the people who voted for you and to the people of Ontario about the gas plant cancellations?

Hon. Charles Sousa: This is what I do know: I know I fought for my community before I was even elected. I fought for my community when I sat in the rump. I asked for support from the Conservatives and the NDP to support the issue, and I continue to do so. I fought for my community. I will continue to fight for all of Ontario on this issue—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: —and I don’t apologize for that. I did the right thing—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: The McGuinty-Wynne campaign team did not believe the minister could retain his seat on his own in the last election, obviously, so as a reward, they infused his campaign efforts with at least $190 million in tax dollars by cancelling the Mississauga gas plant. Then he had the gall to stand before the House last fall, trying to convince anyone who would listen that his government was complying with committee requests for the information.

Instead, this was followed by one document dump after another document dump after another, confirming that the minister was one of the key beneficiaries of the gas plant cancellations. This minister was then boosted to treasurer of Ontario, despite the lack of confidence in his credibility in winning fairly in his own riding.

Minister, will you correct the record today, do the right thing and the honourable thing, and apologize to the hard-working families of Ontario who ensured you have a job here today?

Hon. Charles Sousa: To the House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I am very, very happy—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga, come to order. The member from Lanark, come to order. Anyone else?

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m very happy to talk about what went on in Mississauga South, and here’s an oldie but a goldie: “Hi there. This is Geoff Janoscik, your Mississauga South Ontario PC candidate. I’m calling about the McGuinty-Sousa power plant that the Liberal government decided to build in your backyard. I’m against this power plant, and as your MPP, I will fight to stop the power plant from being built.... Our team has been out knocking on doors every single evening for several months, talking about the power plant and making sure that we defeat the Liberals in this riding and put an end to their bad decisions. On October 6, choose change that puts our community first.”

All parties of this House were opposed to it. My question to the PCs is, when are they going to let their documents and their—

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

New question.

CASINOS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Premier: MGM Resorts has retained Metrolinx head Robert Prichard as lobbyist for their proposed casino. One of the pressing issues for the casino at Exhibition Place is gridlock, yet the chair of the very organization that is in charge of finding the solution, the chair that the Liberal government appointed, is a lobbyist for a casino in Toronto.

Is the Premier comfortable with a Liberal appointee lobbying for a casino over the objections of the people of Toronto?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I have lots of time.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Okay. Mr. Prichard has done the right thing. He is—

Interjections.

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

It’s kind of disappointing on both sides. The nuances of this place require me to have quick conversations. I would recommend to everybody that we allow that to happen, and at the same time, when somebody is seeking to have quiet, that you don’t amplify.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You asked us to take a race to the top; I don’t think that’s happening today.

Mr. Prichard has done the right thing. He properly sought the advice of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, which is what all of us should do in those situations. He did that of his own volition. I am confident that the chair of the board will follow the rules and continue to take the advice of the commissioner going forward. The commissioner has provided excellent advice.

The decision we should be discussing right now, quite frankly, is the important conversations that Metrolinx is trying to have with the public and is having very successfully.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. John Tory called 2013 a turning point for transit investment in the region. He is on board with the Big Move and the need to make smart transit investments for the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I’m going to go back to the Premier; the question was for her.

Torontonians are turning up by the thousands to make it clear they don’t want a casino. Yet this government is ignoring the voice of the people whose communities will be affected.

Torontonians can see the government’s utter disregard for the wishes of the community, but that’s the case across Ontario, from Hamilton to Kingston.

Will the Premier be listening more closely to Liberal insiders or will she be allowing municipalities to decide this issue through referendums in the next round of municipal elections? Whose voice will she listen to?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, this government is unmatched in the history of this province in respect for municipal government. We are uploading services. We have turned over to municipal councils the proper authority to go with their responsibility. We gave the city of Toronto the City of Toronto Act, which is the most progressive piece of municipal legislation in North America. The city of Toronto has more taxing and control over its spending authority than any other municipal government in North America. It is the envy of everything.

Our Premier rightly has stood up and said that she will respect, as will this government, the decisions of the city of Toronto and other municipalities regarding casinos. I meet with my city councillors—Councillor McConnell, Councillor Wong-Tam and others—who think that we are showing the proper respect for the city, and they’re thankful for it. Since some of them are members of his party, maybe he should talk to them.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Phil McNeely: This question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, last summer, farmers across the province experienced dry, hot weather for extended periods, which impacted their crops. This in turn affected the growth and availability of livestock forages.

In response to this, the government worked with farmers to assess the damage and initiated an AgriRecovery file with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada—which, as you know, is a responsive program under the Growing Forward sweep of the national Business Risk Management program.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you please provide the House with an update on the AgriRecovery file?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for this question—thank you very much.

I just want to take a moment to explain how the program works. The AgriRecovery program, Mr. Speaker, is triggered by provincial requests, not federal. That’s how the program is designed nationally. It was my colleague, the former Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, who requested an assessment under the AgriRecovery program in July of last year. That led to a federal-provincial task team being struck to work on assessing damage done by the drought and related impacts on Ontario livestock producers.

While that assessment was under way, the provincial and federal governments agreed to jointly provide immediate support of up to $500,000 upfront, and then up to $2.5 million to match donations in support of HayEast. The provincial and federal governments worked as quickly as possible to complete the AgriRecovery assessment and to negotiate the details of the Canada-Ontario Forage and Livestock Transportation Assistance Initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Speaker, and through you to the minister: I’m glad to hear that the federal government had been willing to co-operate with the Ontario government in assisting farmers during this difficult period. I’ve heard from farmers in my constituency, and they are pleased the program is available for them this year.

Nevertheless, this has not been easy for anyone. Farmers are concerned about the timing of the program and whether it will be effective for them. Specifically, there has been a call for an extension of the program.

Minister, can you please address this concern?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve heard this a number of times. I heard it from the members opposite, but I also heard it directly from farmers, that there was an issue around the timing.

So last week I asked ministry staff to look at options for extending the timelines and to work with the federal government on extending the existing program, because that would require their co-operation. Right now, ministry and Agricorp staff are available to assist producers with their application forms because part of the issue around the timing—and this is what farmers have said to me—is that the forms are very complicated, and so they need some support in helping to fill those out, Mr. Speaker. I’m looking forward to that federal-provincial collaboration.

I just want to comment that this support that I spoke about in the first part of my answer was actually on top of existing business risk management programs, especially $106 million from Ontario’s own Risk Management Program. So these were additive dollars.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. In July 2011, a cabinet minute on Project Vapour—your government’s code name for the Oakville gas plant cancellation—was circulated. You were a member of cabinet at that time. But on September 26, 2012, you stood in the House and stated, “I have looked at them. I don’t see a lot wanting. I don’t see much substantive that’s missing.” Minister, you knew full well at that time that none of the Project Vapour documents were among those that had been released by your government prior.

Minister, I ask you today: Do you stand by your statement in the House that I just read to you, or will you do the honourable thing today and apologize to the members of this House and to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I’d like to share some quotes with the member opposite here. On October 1, 2011, the Leader of the Opposition talking about the Mississauga power plant: “We don’t support ... it.”

September 25, 2011, in the Globe and Mail, the Leader of the Opposition: “We’ve opposed these projects in Oakville and Mississauga.”

From October 5, 2011, the Canadian Press: “Asked if he’d scrap the Mississauga plant if he formed the next government, Hudak replied”—and this is my favourite—“‘That’s right. Done. Done, done, done.’”

So my question to the honourable member is, why will the Progressive Conservatives not come forward with the costing and the policy analysis they did in terms of cancelling this plant? It obviously is a top-of-mind issue, it’s the only question they’ve asked here today, and I’m sure they have a lot to talk about their position going into that election and why they opposed it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I asked the question to Minister Murray. It’s too bad you’ve got to turn the question over to this guy.

We know Project Vapour was a term cabinet was aware of, discussed and was briefed on back in 2011. You knew what it meant and what it referred to, that being the Oakville cancellation. You knew when you stood in the House to debate the contempt motion last September that no Project Vapour documents had been released to anyone, yet you said, “Unless we have evidence to the contrary, it is our responsibility to take their word as honourable people.”

Obviously their word wasn’t good enough, and neither is yours. Your credibility is on the ropes here, so please don’t pass this question on. You’re part of the Liberal team that spent a billion dollars to save the political careers of five of your seatmates.

I ask you again: Will you stand in the house today and apologize to the hard-working people of Ontario, and will you ask all of your Liberal colleagues to do the same thing? Please answer the question. Don’t—

Interjections.

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

Government House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, that member opposite was part of a Progressive Conservative team that went into the last election over and over again and talked about how they would cancel the plant in Mississauga.

We have asked them again and again to talk about their costing, to talk about their policy analysis, to table the information that I know they must have about the work they’ve done.

Mr. Speaker, the promise they made was to cancel the plant. “Done, done, done,” said the Leader of the Opposition. At the end of the day, it was a promise they made and it was a promise we kept.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Now, as we get to this point where I do get attention: For those who are not sitting in their seats, I will ask them to sit in them so I can call them to order anyway.

New question. The member from Kenora–Rainy River.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Thank you, Speaker. To the Minister of Finance: Municipalities across the north have expressed deep concern with the MPAC assessment process. A few weeks ago, the city of Dryden received devastating news that MPAC had reduced the assessment of its Domtar mill by an astonishing 72%. This reassessment will result in the city losing $1 million in property taxes this year and having to repay Domtar $5.4 million, or roughly 25% of its operating budget for the past four years.

Will the minister act now to review this flawed process that threatens to devastate small communities across the province and issue a stay of decision until a permanent solution is found?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question. It is something that I addressed yesterday as well in this House. It’s something that we are going to look at. I know the ARB decisions have been made. We are taking the extra steps to ensure that they’re making progress, and I’ve asked my staff to look into it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of Finance as well. Last week Niagara Falls and the surrounding region were ordered to repay the Niagara-area casinos $16 million after an MPAC reassessment of the casinos. In addition, local governments will lose an additional $6 million in future tax revenue from those casinos.

Will this government order an immediate review of the Niagara casino reassessment decision, which threatens to devastate another community in Niagara and in this province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the member from Niagara Falls actually approached me on this yesterday as well. As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s something that we’re reviewing. We want to make certain that the process is appropriate and that we’re taking the necessary steps to facilitate municipalities.

Certainly, this government has gone out of its way to upload as many services as we can, to provide the supports necessary to municipalities, and we’ll always partner with them. We recognize there is only one taxpayer in this system. We have to make certain that the public and those who are affected are appropriately assessed. We will do everything necessary to protect them as well.

WOMEN’S ISSUES

Ms. Soo Wong: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. As you know, this week is International Women’s Week. This is a time to celebrate and reflect on the leadership and achievements of women around the world and right here in Ontario. This week, we recognize how much the women’s movement has accomplished over the past 100 years.

Our province made history this year with the first-ever female Premier, and I’m very proud that that is part of this history.

Of course, we know that there’s more work to be done, especially when it comes to the violence women continue to face. Domestic violence is a very serious problem that crosses economic, social and cultural barriers. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What is our government doing to halt domestic violence and support victims?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you to the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for asking this important question, and for her advocacy on this issue.

The member is right: Violence against women is far too prevalent in our society. Every woman deserves to live her life free of fear. Every child deserves to grow up knowing there is no threat of violence in their home.

The importance of this theme is recognized in this year’s International Women’s Day. The United Nations theme is “A promise is a promise: Time for action to end violence against women.”

What we have seen is by working together, we can better support victims and we can put an end to domestic violence in the long term. We’ve seen the positive effects of our efforts in that regard. That’s why the province supports the Neighbours, Friends and Families public education campaign. It’s a campaign that teaches people how to recognize the signs of abuse and what they can do to help. It’s why we’ve trained 28,000 front-line workers and it’s why we have expanded language

interpretation services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: These are extremely important initiatives our government has taken to help women who are victims of domestic violence.

We know that one of the best ways to help women escape these circumstances is to help them achieve economic independence. I’m very proud as a member of this government, which has consistently prioritized the economic independence of women in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt.

In a time when we have to reinvent our economy through new and innovative businesses, we find women who wish to start their own business but are faced with economic barriers. We know that with the right skills, training and support, we can remove these barriers and help women become successful business owners and entrepreneurs.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What is the government doing to help low-income women get the skills and support they need to build their own small businesses and careers?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Microlending has been proven to be effective in lifting women out of poverty here in Ontario and around the world. I was so proud to stand with my colleague, now the Minister of Research and Innovation, to announce the establishment of the Microlending for Women in Ontario program to add to this record.

Through this program, we are going to help low-income women start and build their own businesses. With a commitment of $760,000 over the next three fiscal years, our government will use the microlending program to help low-income women across the province. Under the program, as many as 400 women who are business-ready will be eligible for microloans to help them build and grow their businesses.

In the words of Kirsten Eastwood, the executive director of the Women’s Centre for York Region, “We wanted to create a well-rounded program that would not only give applicants the knowledge and support needed to run a successful business but the self-confidence to start one from the ground up.”

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In the weeks leading up to the 2011 general election, a cabinet document was circulated, using the code name Project Vapour. It has since been determined that this was your government’s veiled reference to the Oakville gas plant cancellation.

Obviously you were a member of the cabinet at that time, but on October 1 of this past year, you stood in this House and stated—and I quote from Hansard—“Documents were requested, flags were raised, the debate and the discussion ensued and the documents in their entirety have been provided to this Legislature.”

When you made that statement, you were well aware of the fact that no Project Vapour documents had been provided by your government. In light of this, I would ask whether you are sticking to your previous statement, which I just read, or whether you will do the honourable thing and apologize to the members of this House and the people of Ontario.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, we are in the 21st century, so let’s talk about Twitter, shall we?

Just to echo back what the member said, tell me about the weeks leading up to the 2011 election when Geoff Janoscik, the Mississauga South PC candidate, was tweeting the following: “An Ontario PC govt will stop the plant for good.” That was September 24, 2011. The next day he tweeted, “@timhudak government will cancel this power plant.” The same day he tweeted, “A @timhudak PC govt will cancel the east Miss power plant once and for all.”

Again, since the Progressive Conservative Party has spent the entire question period talking about it—

Interjection.

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

Hon. John Milloy: —I imagine there is accounting, there is costing, there are policy documents, and we look forward to seeing those, and having the Progressive Conservative Party explain their position heading into the last election.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, Mr. Speaker, I again try to give the opportunity back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to apologize. We all know very well that the cabinet had the documents relating to Project Vapour. She was a member of that cabinet at that time. I can repeat the quote if she likes, but we know what she said.

I’m giving her an opportunity—she’s an honourable lady—to apologize to the people of the Legislature and the people of Ontario. So, I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to please answer the question, not the House leader who has already apologized.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, if I can borrow from some of the heckles that have come from my side of the House: When the horse is dead, it’s time to dismount.

I mean the simple fact is that last October—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, last October, I rose in this House, as did the then Minister of Energy, and provided an explanation to the Legislature about the situation related to comments that were made during the debate that the member references. At the same time, several weeks ago, a point of privilege was made and yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you delivered your ruling. I think the tradition of this House, if I’m not mistaken, is that the matter has been dealt with.

Again, there are all sorts of questions surrounding the gas plant issue, and we look forward to learning about the Progressive Conservatives and the work that they did heading up to the 2011 election, and their very firm promise to relocate this gas plant.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. Senior citizens are very concerned and losing sleep in London. Residents of the Cherryhill apartment complex may not be able to afford to keep a roof over their heads if the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board allows a corporate developer to slap them with huge retroactive rent increases above and beyond the legal yearly limit.

My question is simple: What will this government do to protect seniors living on a fixed income in London and across the province from unaffordable rent hikes?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member for the question. Obviously I wouldn’t be talking about a specific issue, but certainly this ministry works very closely with municipalities and landlords in order to find a solution because affordable housing, as everybody knows, is something that our government has been working on very hard over the last decade, and has made a difference. Affordable housing is certainly a strong need for those vulnerable populations like our seniors, and it’s something that we work hard to find a resolution to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, the Ontario Liberal budget in 2012 cut the operating budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the fourth time in the last four years, and that’s a 12% reduction from 2009.

Back to the Premier: Seniors living in the Cherryhill apartment complex are worried sick about making ends meet. Yesterday, over 200 seniors went through the ordeal of climbing on a bus and sitting all day through an Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board hearing that will decide if many of them can afford to stay in their homes. This isn’t the kind of excursion Ontario seniors should have to make.

When will this government commit to protecting seniors living on a fixed income from massive rent hikes they simply can’t afford?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Certainly this government believes that safe, affordable housing contributes to the health and the livelihoods of our communities. We work hard to find resolutions and limits to the amount of increases, and the Landlord and Tenant Board is one of those tribunals that can help those individuals find a resolution—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Certainly our government has invested more