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

October 2, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Oct-02 (PDF)

L087 - Tue 2 Oct 2012 / Mar 2 oct 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 October 2012 Mardi 2 octobre 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

POWER PLANTS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

POWER PLANTS

MENTAL HEALTH AND

ADDICTION SERVICES

POWER PLANTS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND YOUTH

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

VISITOR

DEFERRED VOTES

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORLD HABITAT DAY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

AIR-RAIL LINK

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

CARIBOU CHARITY RIDE

JOSH NELSON

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT (HEALTHY

DECISIONS MADE EASY), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SANTÉ

(DÉCISIONS SANTÉ SIMPLIFIÉES)

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

UTILITY TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

ELECTORAL REFORM

GASOLINE PRICES

MINING INDUSTRY

RADIATION SAFETY

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

RADIATION SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

ELECTORAL REFORM

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

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, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Ms. Wynne moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

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 65, 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): Ms. Wynne, you now have the floor for debate.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very pleased to be here to speak to second reading of Bill 65. Just before I begin, I’d like to do two things. First of all, I’d like to introduce, from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, some guests who are with us today: Dale Reagan, managing director; Harvey Cooper, manager of government relations; Diane Miles, manager of co-operative services; and Simone Swail, project manager, government relations. Thank you very much for being with us this morning. And my policy adviser, Nick Wall, is joining us as well.

The second thing I’d like to do is just note that I’ll be sharing my time with my very capable parliamentary assistant, the member for York West, and he will be speaking in this hour.

As I said, I’m very pleased to speak on second reading of Bill 65, an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and the Co-operative Corporations Act. First, I want to make clear why we need this legislation. Under the Co-operative Corporations Act, co-ops have a sometimes complex, sometimes costly and often time-consuming eviction process. This eviction process is called the co-op tenure dispute resolution process.

Ce projet de loi, s’il était adopté, rendrait le processus de règlement des différends en matière d’occupation impliquant des coopératives de logement plus efficace, accessible et transparent.

The underlying reason why this is important is that we want to make sure that co-op housing in this province can function as efficiently as possible. We believe in the co-op model; we think that it is a very strong model of housing. Certainly in my own riding, and I know in ridings across the province, we have fine examples of co-ops where there’s a very collegial and fine working relationship among the residents because of the model, but this eviction process, this dispute resolution process, is not in place.

As you may remember, my colleague Donna Cansfield, the MPP for Etobicoke Centre, introduced a private member’s bill designed to help improve the co-op housing dispute resolution system in spring 2011. Regrettably, there wasn’t enough time for Bill 198 to proceed to a final vote. The Ontario region of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada has advocated to move co-op housing tenure disputes from the Ontario court system to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Now, I want to just talk for a moment about who and what the Ontario region of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada is. They’re the main advocate in this province for not-for-profit co-op housing members and boards. Our government recognizes and appreciates the dedicated work of the Co-operative Housing Federation.

Nous partageons l’engagement de la fédération en matière de maintien et de promotion d’un secteur du logement coopératif fort.

We share the federation’s commitment, as I’ve said, Madam Speaker, to maintaining and promoting a strong co-operative housing sector, so our proposed legislation supports the co-op housing sector by making some of these long-needed changes.

So what are we proposing to change? Currently, the tenure dispute resolution process for co-op housing is governed by the Co-operative Corporations Act. Under this act, co-ops must go through a lengthy and oftentimes costly process in the courts to evict a resident. I can’t stress enough that it is an onerous process, and that’s why we are undertaking this change. We’re proposing to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and the Co-operative Corporations Act to move most co-op tenure disputes from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

We have to ask: How is this a desirable improvement on the existing system? What is this going to make better? First of all, let’s talk about what the Landlord and Tenant Board is, because I think that will make it clearer why this is a good thing to do. The Landlord and Tenant Board is the body established under the Residential Tenancies Act to resolve rental housing disputes. Under our proposed legislation, co-ops would also be able to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to resolve tenure disputes. However, this could happen only when the dispute concerns grounds already provided for under the Residential Tenancies Act, or the RTA.

I want to emphasize that the Landlord and Tenant Board is an independent agency. It provides Ontarians with timely access to specialized, expert and effective dispute resolution. So the Landlord and Tenant Board has a lot of experience in this area and understands many of the issues that surround these residency disputes.

The Landlord and Tenant Board has offices across the province, so it is very accessible, and it gives landlords and tenants convenient access for resolving matters that profoundly affect their everyday lives.

Madame la Présidente, le transfert des expulsions des tribunaux à la Commission de la location immobilière rendra le processus de règlement des différends en matière d’occupation plus efficace, rentable et transparent, tant pour les conseils d’administration des coopératives que pour leurs membres.

Madam Speaker, moving eviction cases from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board would make the resolution of tenure disputes more efficient, cost-effective and transparent for co-op boards and their members. It would remove some of that onerous burden that exists in the current system.

The Co-operative Corporations Act provides a framework for housing co-ops to create their bylaws. A bylaw is created when it is passed by the co-op’s board of directors and is confirmed by the members of that co-op at a general members’ meeting. While there are many common bylaws shared among housing co-ops, there are also some that have passed their own unique bylaws.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the proposed legislation would also amend the Co-operative Corporations Act. It would do this in two important ways. First, the Co-operative Corporations Act would be amended to clarify that when a co-op tenure dispute proceeds through the courts, it would be judged on the facts of the case rather than an assessment of whether proper procedures had been followed by the co-op. The second key amendment to the Co-operative Corporations Act would see the streamlining of the internal decision-making process of the co-ops.

It would do this by clarifying that decisions made by a co-op’s board could be appealed to the co-op membership only if the co-op’s bylaws expressly permit appeals.

Ces modifications favoriseraient la transparence de toutes les décisions.

These amendments would promote the transparency of all the decisions. They’d be less costly for co-op boards and co-op members, not to mention less time-consuming for all concerned. We have to remember that in these situations, the people involved want to get these issues resolved as quickly as possible. That is because it affects their lives and it’s an unhappy time, often, so you want to be able to move through the process quickly.

J’aimerais aussi souligner que les modifications proposées, si elles sont adoptées, offriraient l’avantage supplémentaire d’accorder aux coopératives de logement et à leurs membres un accès à des services de médiation pour régler leurs litiges.

I’d also like to note that our proposed amendments, if passed, would have the added benefit of giving co-ops and their members access to mediation services to help them work out their differences. This could provide relief to the court system. I think all of us in this House could agree that if a mediated solution is possible, that is desirable, because what that means is that there’s been a process whereby some common ground has been achieved, and that can make for a much more satisfactory conclusion. Our proposed legislation would offer co-op members involved in tenure disputes a process that’s independent, transparent and affordable.

Notre projet de loi est le fruit de consultations exhaustives avec le secteur du logement coopératif au cours des trois dernières années.

For three years, we have been in consultation with the co-op housing sector. We’ve heard from them about their concerns, and our proposed legislation is a result of that process.

Madam Speaker, I hope that all members recognize the benefits of this proposed legislation and I hope that we will have support on all sides of the House. I know that these concerns have been expressed to all sides of the House, and I hope that in the spirit of partnership and our mutual goal to improve co-op housing in the province, there will be support for this bill. We only have to look at a few examples of the successful housing co-ops around the province to see the difference they make to our communities. I noted at the beginning of my remarks that I think we have co-ops everywhere.

For example, the Eastern Ontario Christian Senior Citizens Co-op in Ottawa: This co-op recently completed an extension made possible by support from the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program. The funding helped to build 69 units for Ontario’s most vulnerable people, including low-income seniors and persons with disabilities.

The construction of these units also served to stimulate the local economy by creating jobs, of course, and contributed to the strength of the community. From the library services to the in-house nurse to the event rooms for birthday celebrations, this co-op is a shining example of what a successful co-op can provide. I think that is a very important part of this discussion that we should note, that when we talk about housing, often we talk about bricks and mortar; often we talk about four walls and a roof; we talk about the shelter component.

But if we think about the programs that are involved in the successful co-op or other successful models, those are supports and opportunities and space within a housing development that provide a community. They provide a place for people to come together and become a community. So those supports are very important to a successful housing development.

Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’un foyer; c’est une collectivité. C’est un endroit où les résidants se sentent en sécurité et qui leur permet de mener une vie productive.

It’s not just a home; it’s a community. It’s a place where residents feel safe and secure and lead productive lives.

Another successful co-op is the Huron Pines co-operative in London. This project in northeast London opened in 2009 and provides comfortable, energy-efficient townhomes and apartments. The project was developed by a group of dedicated and committed Londoners eager to create a community designed for and targeted to singles, couples and small families. As with so many co-ops, the push for the co-op came from the community.

It was made possible with assistance from three levels of government and support from Gethsemane United Church and the London Affordable Housing Foundation—again, a partnership of community members and organizations. Our government’s affordable housing program helped to support the construction of 26 of these units, so government has a role to play.

Rappelons que cette coopérative de logement n’est pas qu’un simple abri.

Again, this co-op is much more than a building or just a shelter; it provides a stable and safe place for vulnerable Ontarians to build a good life for themselves and their families.

In another example, McLean Co-Operative Homes in Ottawa received funding from our affordable housing program for 63 affordable housing units. This co-op provides a home for seniors, recent immigrants and persons with disabilities. The units are designed for both families and single individuals.

The list of amazing co-op examples around the province goes on and on. As I said, I’m sure that every single member in this House today could come up with an example of a remarkable co-op in their own riding. But it’s the residents of the co-ops, obviously, Madam Speaker, that make these terrific places. Co-op residents don’t just live in the co-op; they help to build the co-op community, and they take

part in the life of that community.

Co-op housing provides safe, secure, affordable housing to many families. The sector provides a viable option for families and individuals with a diverse range of backgrounds and incomes. And that is a big conversation—it’s a big, important conversation—within the housing sector; that is the mixed-income communities that I think are the healthiest kinds of communities. If we look at the redevelopments that are happening around the province, it’s a focus on mixed income, people from different backgrounds, people with different vulnerabilities living together and creating that strong community.

J’accorde une grande importance au logement coopératif et aux personnes qui vivent dans ces collectivités et qui travaillent pour fournir ces habitations.

Co-operative housing and the people who live in those communities and work to provide those homes are very important to me and to our government, not just because I’m the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but because I know that having a safe and decent place to live is vital to good health, personal success, raising children, caring for parents and having a well-balanced life.

Decent housing is much more than a shelter: It provides stability, it provides security and dignity, it plays a central role in reducing poverty, and it creates a strong base from which to find a job and contribute to strengthening the Ontario economy. The sector is a key partner in supporting the availability of affordable and safe housing for families throughout Ontario.

These are the people for whom our government is taking strong action today. Our proposed legislation would help support co-op providers and the families and children who call co-ops their home.

I want to just talk for a moment about some of the things that we have done because, having said that we believe strongly in the importance of affordable and accessible housing, I want to talk about the progress that we’ve made on the housing agenda since we came to office in 2003.

Nous faisons une véritable différence dans le quotidien des familles qui travaillent et pour améliorer la situation des foyers les plus vulnérables de l’Ontario.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that we’re making a real difference in the lives of working families and in the circumstances of Ontario’s most vulnerable households.

Our government recognizes the role housing plays in supporting the growth and health of communities across Ontario, and that’s in fact why we developed the long-term affordable housing strategy. It’s the first of its kind in Ontario, and it demonstrates our commitment to having a plan, to working with municipalities, to working with housing providers and to working with communities to make sure that the needs of people across the province are met.

Now, Madam Speaker, I can predict—not that I have a crystal ball, but I am pretty sure—that at least speakers from one of the parties on the opposite side of the House will say that we have not done enough. I will be the first to say that there is more that needs to be done, but we have made a huge advance, and having the long-term affordable housing strategy in place is part of that progress.

Our strategy supports our poverty reduction strategy, and it sets a strong foundation for a more efficient, accessible system for those who need safe, affordable housing. That’s why we as a government plan to continue to support the co-op housing sector. It’s why we believe that it’s important that we keep the housing sector strong and keep the co-op housing sector strong: so that it can provide viable housing choices for Ontario families.

Madame la Présidente, un secteur du logement ontarien qui mise sur la diversité n’est pas complet sans un secteur du logement coopératif sain.

I believe that a housing sector that offers diversity for Ontario is not complete without a healthy co-op sector, and that’s why I urge all members to support this bill. This legislation is another step we’re taking to support affordable housing across Ontario, and as I have said, there’s much more to be done.

Social housing in Ontario is a public asset, valued in excess of $50 billion, that will continue to deteriorate if the federal government does not become a full funding partner with the province and its municipalities. I think we have demonstrated since we came to office in 2003 that we are willing to work in partnership with the federal government. We have been able to do that; we’re willing to work with all orders of government in order to continue to provide affordable housing. So I strongly urge all members of the Legislature to call on the federal government to become a full partner with us and our municipalities by providing sustained funding for affordable and social housing.

Madam Speaker, that is an issue I have raised at the national table with other ministers, who are working in the local government area. I’m hoping that I’ll be able to have an opportunity to meet with Ministers of Housing from across the country—because, if the current funding commitment persists, by 2033, the federal investment in housing in Ontario will be down to zero. So you can see a clear trajectory downwards from here out over the next 20 years. We really need that commitment from the federal government in order to be able to continue to build affordable housing.

I talked about affordable housing—safe, secure housing—being fundamental in the quest to reduce poverty. One of the things I didn’t speak to, but I think it’s important, is that not only does it provide safety and security for adults and for children, but it also provides opportunities for kids to do better at school and the opportunity for adults to be in a safe, secure environment so that they can go out and find work. If you’re worrying about where you’re going to live, if you’re worrying about the state of your home, it’s very hard to have the wherewithal to go out and look for a job. All of that is contingent on having safe, secure, affordable housing.

I know that having a place to call home is the first step out of poverty. We’ve talked about that.

Pour les familles ontariennes, disposer d’un logement est une première étape qui permet de relever bien des défis auxquels elles font face.

Having a home is the first step in addressing many of the challenges that face Ontario families; having a home is the first step to accessing greater opportunities in life. It’s a foundation from which people can build their lives so as to move from negative situations to better lives that contribute to a better tomorrow for us all.

We know that helping people to have safe, affordable and healthy homes is a complex issue. There is no simple, quick fix; we are aware of that. We need a range of opportunities. Today’s proposed legislation is one more step our government is taking to support the co-op housing sector so that the co-op housing sector can be part of that continuum of opportunity.

Ce gouvernement a l’intention d’assurer la solidité du secteur des coopératives de logement pour qu’il continue d’offrir un choix viable aux familles ontariennes.

Our government plans to help the co-op housing sector to remain strong so that it continues to provide a viable choice for Ontario families. That’s why we’re taking this action today; that’s why we’re proposing this legislation. I urge all members to support this bill, and I want to thank the folks from the co-op federation for their advocacy and for their work in this sector.

Merci beaucoup.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for York West.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair.

There is no question that the current process for terminating occupancy agreements for co-ops is complex, costly and time-consuming for these non-profit housing providers and their members. This legislation is the result of significant consultation with the co-op housing sector over the past few years. The Co-operative Housing Federation has been a long-time advocate of legislation that would help decisions related to tenure disputes be fair to both co-ops and their members.

As you have heard, Speaker, the Co-operative Housing Federation represents housing co-ops throughout Ontario. I want to repeat the minister’s message that we share the Co-operative Housing Federation’s commitment to maintaining a strong co-operative housing sector in the province of Ontario.

The Ontario Region of the Co-operative Housing Federation is the voice of co-op housing in this province. They concentrate on issues that have a provincial focus and affect only Ontario members.

As the minister stated as well, the proposed legislation would amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and the Co-operative Corporations Act to move most co-op tenure disputes from the courts to the Landlord and Tenant Board. This board is the body established under the Residential Tenancies Act to resolve rental housing disputes.

If passed, this legislation would mean that co-op providers and members would have most of the same protections, most of the same benefits and the same responsibilities afforded to landlords and tenants facing tenure disputes under the RTA. For example, co-ops will be able to seek resolution to disputes through the Landlord and Tenant Board for things such as arrears; persistent late payment of rent or housing charges; illegal behaviour; interfering with reasonable enjoyment; and wilful damage.

Tenure disputes based on grounds outside the RTA, however, would continue to be handled through the internal democratic co-op eviction process and the courts. For example, tenure disputes based on the following types of bylaws would continue to be resolved by the courts: violation of no-pets provisions; failure to fulfil co-op members’ duties, such as shovelling snow or cutting the lawn; and any other ground not provided for under the RTA. This process needs to be retained because co-ops are governed democratically. Co-op members vote to establish bylaws that set out grounds for tenure disputes that are not provided for under the RTA.

The proposed legislation would also amend the Co-operative Corporations Act to streamline and to improve the current internal eviction processes of non-profit co-op housing. As the minister said, the Co-operative Corporations Act would be amended in two ways. First, the Co-operative Corporations Act would be amended to clarify that when a co-op tenure dispute proceeds through the courts, it would be judged on the facts of the case. The second key amendment to the co-operative housing act would see the streamlining of the internal decision-making process of co-ops.

As the minister noted, there are many benefits to this proposed legislation. The new approach would make the co-op eviction process more responsive and cost-effective. Streamlining the dispute resolution process mandated by the Co-operative Corporations Act would simplify the internal process and shorten the time required for resolution of these disputes.

Our proposed legislation, if passed, would utilize the expertise of the Landlord and Tenant Board and, in most cases, allow access to established infrastructure and procedures designed to deal with tenure disputes. It would be less costly for Ontario co-ops to use the Landlord and Tenant Board in most tenure disputes, in comparison to using the current court-based system for all tenure disputes. Having cases go before the Landlord and Tenant Board could also reduce the burden on the court system.

Current co-op law and policy regarding housing charges and other requirements of membership would remain the same, and the unique system of co-op housing would be recognized. Although co-op members would not have the right to make applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board, the rights of co-op members to use internal co-op processes and to apply to the courts regarding co-op issues would be maintained. Members would be provided with the opportunity to be heard by the Landlord and Tenant Board through a process that is transparent, accessible and routine.

The Landlord and Tenant Board could provide for mediation and, as much as possible, try and resolve a tenure dispute prior to it proceeding to a hearing.

The financially difficult times we are facing call for us to do things differently. The single most important step the government can take to strengthen the economy is to balance the budget. We are making the right choices to ensure that Ontario families are receiving the best possible services at the best value for tax dollars. All of us have a role to play in balancing the budget. Building a stronger Ontario requires strong action. We will make the right choices to protect the vital gains we have made together. The reality is that we must do more with less; the need is greater than the resources available.

But if we work collaboratively and if we can be flexible, we can stretch those limited funds to produce greater results.

As we know, Speaker, our government introduced a new budget for the province that makes some tough decisions. We aim to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. To reach our target, our government proposes to reduce the growth of program spending and contain costs by $17.7 billion over the next three years. The choices were difficult. We are in different times, with a vulnerable global economy. We all face difficult realities. Expenditures have to equal revenues, and revenue sources have to be sustainable, which is why we must work together to be innovative in our approaches and to find ways to stretch the funds we have.

Co-ops have a history of stretching funds. They make efficient use of their members’ resources. Speaker, I have been talking about co-op housing, but co-operatives take many forms and operate in all sectors of our society. Last year, the Premier wrote in a letter to the Ontario Co-operative Association that “Co-operatives boast a proud history of enriching our communities, strengthening our society and building our nation.”

Their importance is recognized by the United Nations, which has declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives. The 2012 slogan for the campaign is “Co-operative Enterprises Build a Better World.” The campaign is intended to raise public awareness of the invaluable contributions that co-operative enterprises have made towards poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration. The campaign highlights the co-operative business model as a strong and potent alternative means of doing business and furthering social economic development.

In the spirit of the International Year of Cooperatives, I would like to acknowledge the wide range of co-operatives that exist in Ontario. From the local credit union to housing co-operatives and agricultural co-ops, they all play a critical role in supporting strong communities.

Co-ops are a way for a community to have control over the economic, social and cultural activities that affect the daily lives of community members. Co-ops take on many different forms. They can be: agricultural, housing, credit and other financial services delivered through credit unions, groceries, education, telecommunication, insurance, utilities and many more. This just reaffirms the importance that co-ops play in our society. Co-operatives play a unique role in improving our communities, building communities and strengthening our economy.

The community-based management style is at the foundation of all co-ops. When people manage their own resources, they take pride in their ownership. They unite to help the community that they have created. The values of honesty, openness and concern for the wider community are the engine that fuels the co-op movement.

There are about 1,300 co-ops in Ontario. These are a strong part of the economy of many communities throughout our province. In fact, an International Labour Organization report provides compelling evidence that co-ops are more resilient than other business models in times of economic crisis.

The report entitled Resilience of the Co-operative Business Model in Time of Crisis notes that the global financial situation and ensuing economic crisis have had a negative impact on the majority of enterprises. However, it also highlights that co-operatives from all over the world are demonstrating strong resilience to this crisis. It notes that financial co-operatives remain financially strong, consumer co-operatives see less turnover and worker co-operatives are seeing growth as people choose the co-op model to deal with our new economic reality.

The report reviews historical evidence, as well as empirical evidence, to demonstrate not only that the co-operative model of business survives crisis but also why co-operatives are sustainable. They help maintain the livelihood of the community. It is remarkable when you think that more than 1.4 million Ontarians are members of at least one co-operative.

There are several key principles that guide all co-ops. These can be found in the Statement on the Co-operative Identity that was adopted at the 1995 General Assembly of the International Co-operative Alliance held in Manchester on the occasion of the alliance’s centenary. The statement was the product of a long process of consultation with thousands of co-ops around the world. They define a co-operative as “an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise.”

“Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others.

“The co-operative principles are guidelines by which co-operatives put their values into practice.”

The Statement on the Co-operative Identity notes a number of these principles:

(1) Co-operatives are open and voluntary organizations. They are open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership. There is no discrimination on the grounds of gender, social status, race, political affiliation or religion.

(2) Co-operatives are democratic organizations. They are run by their own members. These members actively participate in making decisions. Individuals serving as elected representatives are accountable to their membership. Co-op members have equal voting rights—that is, one member, one vote—and co-operatives and other levels are organized in a democratic manner as well.

(3) Co-op members contribute to and democratically control the capital of their co-operative.

(4) Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.

(5) Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers and employees. This is to help them so that they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operative. They reach out to the general public to inform others of the benefits of co-operatives.

(6) Co-ops believe in co-operation among co-operatives. Co-operatives work together through local, national, regional and international structures. This helps strengthen the co-operative movement.

(7) Co-operatives have a concern for community. Co-ops focus on their members’ needs and also work for the sustainable development of their communities.

Speaker, co-op housing in particular contributes to the greater good of society in so many meaningful ways in communities all across the province. It creates employment. It promotes social inclusion and social responsibility. It develops leadership and develops a sense of community. It develops a commitment to partnership. And co-op housing increases a community’s sustainable economic capacity. The fact is that co-op housing helps us build communities we can be proud of. The members who live in co-ops are the ones responsible for running their co-op.

Co-ops have played a vital role in our affordable housing system for over 40 years. In Ontario, there are about 550 non-profit housing co-ops. These co-ops provide affordable housing for some 44,000 households, which represent about 125,000 Ontarians, including some of our most vulnerable citizens. Co-ops can take the form of medium-sized apartment buildings or townhouses.

People who live in co-op housing come from every walk of life. Co-op housing provides a home for people of many different backgrounds, people of many different income levels and people with many different needs. It provides homes for medium- to low-income families, new immigrants, seniors, people with disabilities and members of the aboriginal community. The diversity and community focus of co-op housing is what makes it unique and strengthens this province.

Our government plans to help the co-op housing sector remain strong. We want to see it continue to provide a viable choice for Ontario families. A housing sector that offers diversity for Ontario is not complete without a healthy co-op sector. Our government recognizes the need for affordable housing in its role in supporting the growth and health of communities across our province of Ontario. That is why it is important to recognize the role the Co-operative Housing Federation plays in the housing system in our province.

Many of the same values are at the foundation of co-op housing as well. At the 2009 Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada annual meeting, the delegates adopted a set of common values for Canadian housing co-ops. These values highlight the fact that Canada’s non-profit housing co-operatives are dedicated to developing strong housing communities that operate under the control of the resident members for their mutual benefit on a not-for-profit basis. As a movement, they are united by a strong commitment to uphold and promote these agreed-upon values. They include:

(1) The international co-op principles will guide the way they govern and run their housing co-ops.

(2) They will continue to operate their co-ops on a not-for-profit basis as it is fundamental to the future and their commitment to those in need of housing in Canada.

(3) Co-ops strive to house members with a mix of incomes.

(4) Housing co-ops will treat their employees and other providers of management services fairly and value the contribution they make to their communities.

(5) Co-ops are inclusive communities. They promote diversity by encouraging a membership of differing backgrounds and abilities.

(6) A commitment to environmental sustainability will guide the operation of housing co-ops.

(7) Co-ops will strive to provide a high-quality living environment for their members and do their best to respond to their changing needs over time.

(8) The right of members to live in their co-ops is protected as long as they respect the bylaw rules and policies that they have together agreed will govern their housing.

Madam Speaker, just as with other co-ops, co-op housing is member-governed. The people who live in co-ops are the members of the co-op, not tenants. Many of those who help run co-operatives are volunteers. The people they serve are their neighbours and their friends. They are responsible for the decisions that affect these people’s everyday lives. The role of volunteers in today’s modern society cannot be underestimated. They play a huge

part in the running of our communities. These volunteers come from all walks of life and are of all ages, and they help run co-ops. They build a better community for us all.

The members who live in co-ops are the ones responsible for running the co-op. Each member has a vote, and every year, members elect a board of directors from the membership. Members make the big decisions about how the building will be maintained and how the business of the co-op will be managed. Most co-ops hire staff to do the day-to-day work. Members work together to keep their housing well-managed and affordable.

Co-op housing plays a very special role in communities all across our province. Co-op housing has a long history in Canada. It goes back as far as the 1930s, when, among other co-operative initiatives, the Nova Scotia Antigonish Movement promoted co-ops that built homes for their members. When the construction of these homes was finished, the homes were sold to the members and the housing co-operatives were dissolved. There were building co-operatives similar to this formed in Quebec between the 1920s and 1940s. The earliest student co-op in Canada was the Guelph Campus Co-op, which started up in 1913 as a retail co-operative and later went on to develop student housing and other services.

Organized lobbying began in the 1960s to gain government support for co-op housing, and 1968 marked the birth of the Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada and the beginning of their advocacy for co-op housing. The work of this group paid off. From 1973 to 1992, the government helped finance thousands of co-operative housing units through three successive co-op housing programs. From the mid-1980s on, the three largest provinces in Canada—Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia—also set up their own development programs to finance housing co-operatives.

It was at this time that the co-operative housing movement started to develop with the appearance of regional associations and development groups. These organizations worked with the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada to provide education, development and management services to an expanding number of Canadian housing co-ops. It is this long history that shapes the housing co-op movement today.

The fact is, co-op housing has helped us build communities we can be proud of. Co-op housing helps support people from diverse backgrounds and provides an affordable option for many low-income Ontarians. Housing co-ops frequently cost less to operate. Who calls co-ops home? They are families, women, single parents, seniors, visible minorities, new immigrants, people of aboriginal ancestry and disabled persons. As the minister has said many times, decent housing is so much more than just a shelter. It provides a strong foundation from which to find a job, raise a family and contribute to the strength of Ontario.

It plays a key role in breaking the cycle of poverty. We recognize the need for affordable housing and its role in supporting the growth and health of communities across Ontario.

This proposed amendment supports our poverty reduction strategy and sets a strong foundation for a more efficient, accessible system for those who need safe and affordable housing.

December 2011 marked the third anniversary of the poverty reduction strategy. Much has happened since December 4, 2008, the date our Ontario government announced its first five-year poverty reduction commitment.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: That’s working well.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Yes, but, especially in light of ongoing economic turmoil, much more needs to be done in order to meet the target. This government has focused its efforts primarily on children and families, but we have also taken steps to create opportunities for those most adversely affected by the economic downturn and to build the economic and social foundation to achieve our poverty reduction goal.

From 2008-09, the first year of the poverty reduction strategy, 20,000 children moved out of poverty. This means over 4% fewer children living in poverty. Poverty rates for single-mother-led households dropped from 43% in 2008 to 35% in 2009. The number of children living in households that could not afford two or more essential items has dropped from 12% in 2008 to less than 9% in 2009.

The report also focused on the costs associated with poverty in Ontario. This government, which has invested greatly in education, is aware that children from low-income families tend not to do as well in school as their peers. They often fall behind, drop out in greater numbers, and face higher rates of poverty as adults. The cost of poverty in Ontario has been estimated to be as high as $13 billion per year when health care, criminal justice and lost productivity are taken into account.

Regarding Ontario’s goal of reducing child poverty by 25%, Premier McGuinty stated that there is no shortage of evidence that if we don’t address this problem in the early years, the cost will only be greater later on. Clearly, we cannot afford to ignore that nearly 1.7 million Ontarians live in poverty.

Our government recognized the need for affordable housing and its role in supporting the growth and health of communities across Ontario. This is why we developed the long-term affordable housing strategy, the first of its kind in Ontario. Our long-term housing strategy supports our poverty reduction strategy and sets a strong foundation for a more efficient, accessible system for those who need safe and affordable housing.

During our consultation on the strategy, we heard that the existing housing system was too complicated and created obstacles for those in need. Those who delivered the housing programs told us that because of the system, they were unable to develop the best possible services to those in need. Our strategy transformed the affordable housing system. Our strategy focused on four key pillars: putting people first, creating strong partnerships, supporting affordable options, and accountability.

The long-term affordable housing strategy provides municipalities and housing providers with greater flexibility to deliver housing services, recognizing that communities have different housing needs. Their increased flexibility helps ensure that their resources are located to meet local needs and to improve outcomes for people. It helps make sure services are accountable and on the right track.

Speaker, the federal and provincial investment in the Affordable Housing for Ontario agreement that Minister Wynne announced on November 8, 2011, continues the goals set out in the long-term affordable housing strategy and the work that this government is doing to help address the housing needs in this province.

The objective of the investment in affordable housing for Ontario program is to improve the living conditions of Canadians in need by improving access to affordable, sound, suitable and sustainable housing. This is one step towards helping Ontario families open doors to a safe, healthy and prosperous future. The investment in affordable housing for Ontario program will provide funding to create and repair affordable housing and provide rental and down-payment assistance to make housing more affordable.

The future of housing depends on sustained funding. While we are pleased that the federal government has made a short-term commitment to affordable housing through the Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario agreement, the future of housing depends on permanent, sustained funding to increase the supply of affordable housing and improve the condition of the existing social housing stock. Ontario needs a long-term funding commitment from the federal government that is fair to Ontarians and will help meet the needs of Ontario families.

We know that a lack of affordable housing increases pressure on social programs and hinders economic growth. We encourage all members of the Legislature and our housing partners to work with us to call on the federal government to make a long-term housing funding commitment. Our government has been hard at work to tackle the pressing issues of ensuring affordable and safe housing in this province now and in the future. But we need the federal government to be a full partner with us to achieve these goals.

If history teaches us one thing, Speaker, it is that we must work together to achieve better results. Our government has heard that there are frustrations with the current system. I want to assure the co-op housing sector that we are listening. We must be deliberate in our actions so that we can plan and invest in tomorrow. We must work together.

By strengthening the co-op housing sector, we are supporting affordable and safe housing for families throughout our province of Ontario. The proposed legislation is just one more step to help strengthen the co-op housing sector so that it can continue to provide a viable choice for Ontario families. Together, we are making a real difference in the lives of working families and for Ontario’s most vulnerable households. This new process would be a win-win-win for co-op housing providers, their members and the justice system as well.

Speaker, I urge all members to support this important piece of legislation to help support co-ops and their members. I have to add that I’m also very grateful to see members of the co-op family here; they have been very actively engaged in promoting the benefits of this legislation. They’ve been advocating for the benefit of their members, and I have to say, Speaker, that on a number of occasions, I have been invited to attend some of their functions, and their membership is looking very, very—

Interruption.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Yes—to the actions of this House. As a matter of fact, at one of their do’s, I was told, “Don’t come back anymore unless you deliver on your promise.”

Well, today, Speaker, I have to say that if it wasn’t for their tireless, really dedicated commitment to making this possible, we wouldn’t be here today. I think this is something that all the members of the House share, Speaker, and that all the members of the House would like to see. It’s no gain for us personally, but it’s a gain for all of us indirectly. It’s a gain for those living in and serving on the co-ops. It’s a gain for the justice system. It’s savings for the government. It does great justice to the co-op management providers, and their residents as well. There is no downside to the effect of this legislation.

To the justice—to the hard work that they did over the many years, Speaker—I indulge myself in saying thank you for the time that you have allocated for me to speak on this issue that I have participated in over the many years. It’s good to see that finally it’s coming to fruition. I would like to ask the members of the House, on behalf of all the members of all the co-op units in Ontario, to support this legislation. I thank you, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome the members of the co-op housing community and commend them for their patience. I know that you’ve been waiting a long time because of procedural issues here, and I know that our leader, Tim Hudak, would show great respect as well. I’m looking forward to our member, Mr. Clark, in terms of being critic on this. His remarks will be fair and reasonable; I’m sure of that.

I did listen to the minister. I think we certainly are in agreement with removing this from a court process. A costly wrangling in the courts costs people money, and having a dispute resolution with the Landlord and Tenant Act—I found the Landlord and Tenant Act a bit unbalanced at the time as well. It needs to be restructured so that it’s fair to both parties in the discussion. I would say that right now in my riding I get more complaints from landlords, because it isn’t fair. There have been quite a few media pieces talking about the inordinate abuse that some landlords take, which spoils it for all those people who are renters, who can’t afford to own.

But I would say that the member from York West was reasonable in his remarks, and all I can say is that if people act reasonably and deal with the facts as they are and keep the partisanship out of it, you’ll find that you’ll get a better solution. This is what we’re looking for: a process that’s reasonable and fair and listens to both sides of the discussion. At times that happens here in Queen’s Park—and I was a bit disappointed today, earlier, that the Premier said there should be a free vote. In many cases they are free votes. We vote for the difference between right and wrong as we see it.

We always try to vote for things that are truthful. It’s the same process here in Bill 65. I think it would be the right thing to help co-op housing, because affordability is a big issue—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker. Thank you to the co-ops for being patient and for being here again today, and for being so tenacious about this. The wheels of democracy are slow, as you know. It was about a year ago, I think, that you were initially in my office to talk about this bill, and it isn’t the first time that this bill has been before the Legislative Assembly, so it is a long time coming. It certainly will improve the efficiency as well as the costs to co-op housing, as well as to tenants.

The NDP certainly has support for this bill, but we also have support and have introduced a number of other housing bills over the year that we’re going to be revisiting during this term.

The minister spoke this morning initially to this bill and talked about that members on the other side of the House probably were going to say that the government has not done enough, that at least one of us was going to say that. I would say that probably 50 of us are going to say that as we get to speak to Bill 65. What the government really needs to do is to develop long-term funding strategy targets for affordable housing, because the list has increased from 156,000 households waiting at the end of December 2011 to 170,000 households waiting, so an increase of 14,000 households waiting in a period of less than a year.

I look forward to debating this issue some more over the next few days, and hopefully we’ll get this passed really soon.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I did appreciate the remarks this morning by my colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the parliamentary assistant, the member from York West.

Of course, we have a long history of co-operatives in the province of Ontario, be it farm co-ops, insurance co-ops or indeed housing co-ops. I certainly want to acknowledge Mr. Cooper. I remember him when he, at the first opportunity, late after the election of 2003, during the co-op information day here at Queen’s Park, was talking about the very issues today that are in the proposal in Bill 65.

I’d just like to get on the record, Madam Speaker, that just recently we had a fire at a co-op in Peterborough, the Leta Brownscombe co-op in the north end of Peterborough. You could see the spirit of the people in the co-op, who banded together, working with the city of Peterborough and indeed the ministry, to repair the damage that was done in a very serious fire. Thank goodness there was no loss of life that occurred. But that, I think, is emblematic of the kind of spirit that we have in the co-operative movement in the province of Ontario.

It’s interesting to note: I think this bill is an opportunity for all sides of the House to co-operate, to make sure that we can indeed pass this legislation. I noticed in the spring of this year that the member from Leeds–Grenville, the member from Welland, the former very-articulate PC critic on housing, Ms. Savoline, and indeed the leader of the third party, Ms. Horwath, have all generally supported the kinds of changes that are being proposed in Bill 65. It’s an opportunity for all of us to come together, move this forward and get it passed in the best interests of the co-op movement in the province of Ontario.

Indeed, I think the remarks this morning, the two-minuters after the speeches by both the minister and parliamentary assistant, bode well for the future, that we get this particular bill passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comment?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure to provide a couple of minutes of comments and observations on the introduction and the lead speech by the government for Bill 65.

I also want to take the opportunity, as the other members have, to welcome representatives from the co-op industry here today. These people are very, very patient with government. We’ve been—“we” meaning collectively members of the Legislative Assembly—talking about this change for about five years, so I think we all agree it’s about time. In a minority Parliament, it’s nice and refreshing to actually have a piece of legislation that has support from all three parties. So I appreciate and welcome you to the chamber this morning.

I also want to remind members that next month, on October 17, we have the annual co-operative housing day, so you all get a chance to tell them to their face how we’re going to make sure that Bill 65 gets piloted through this place. Maybe by then, the government House leader will have some committees organized so we can actually move the bill forward and have some public hearings and some public comment. So they’re very patient.

I also want, in the little bit of time I have left, to let members know that there is co-operative housing in 95 of Ontario’s 107 ridings, so it’s very important. It affects 90% of MPPs in this place. Co-ops provide a very valuable mix in our communities. I know I have in my community the Seaway housing co-op and the Shepherd’s Green Co-operative, and I want to thank them for their commitment.

We look forward to further debate. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for York West, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It’s very encouraging to hear the comments from all members of the House. It’s a wonderful spirit of co-operation that pervades in the House today, and I wish it would continue for many, many days and years to come.

I think the members of the co-operative federation would go back today not only happy but happier if we were to see the approval move forward today. But knowing how the legislative agenda works through the House here, there is a bit more work. Yes, they have been very patient in dealing with this issue. It will be good to move it forward—I sense that there is strong support from all members of the House, which is good—for further input, and hopefully bring it back as quickly as possible.

I hope that during the consultation process, indeed, not only will we see further comments from the co-op federation and membership at large themselves, but from the general public for any input to make it even better, to strengthen it and bring this to a head.

There is no question about it, Speaker: This serves the co-operatives and their members very well. It’s something that should have been done moons ago, but it’s here now. And I have to say, again, to all members of the House: Thank you for your support, and to the members of the co-op federation for being so faithful to their membership and for working hard to see that indeed this will come to happen.

Madam Speaker, it was good to have your time. I thank you very much. On behalf of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, I want to thank all the members for participating in the debate.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce retired Admiral Dan McNeil and Ian Raven, the Elgin Military Museum director. Both are here for a meeting with Mr. Chan about Project Ojibwa, the sub we’re bringing to Port Burwell.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s my pleasure and honour to have with us today a former parliamentarian who served with distinction, from my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, Dr. Doug Galt; his lovely wife and good friend, Cathy; and Rose Mary and her husband, Hastie. Thank you very much.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to introduce some representatives we have here from Lakehead University of Thunder Bay satellite campus in Orillia: the president and vice-chancellor, Dr. Brian Stevenson; Debbie Comuzzi, vice-president of external relations; and Richard Longtin, manager of alumni relations. Welcome. Lakehead is a great university—a new law school is coming there next year.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Visiting Parliament today, we have a class from St. Gerard Majella school. I have no idea if that is the class or if they are still wandering through our beautiful building here. However, I wish them a good stay, good enjoyment, good visit, and I welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure for me to introduce a grade 5 class from St. Christopher school in my riding. They’re touring the Legislature, and they’ll be here in a few minutes.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce to the chamber a constituent of mine: Mr. Peter Seemann. Welcome.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to introduce a grade 5 class from St. Bernard school in the great riding of York South–Weston.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I just want to say that the member from York–Simcoe pre-empted my introduction of Mr. Peter Seemann, so I’d like to do it again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Consider it done.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a delegation from the finance portfolio committee of the Gauteng Provincial Legislature of South Africa. We welcome them to our House today.

I also beg your indulgence, as my voice is leaving me, and given the situation of today, I would hope and ask that the members provide me with a little leeway so that they can hear my rulings and hear me speak. I will do my best without imposing any kind of restrictions on you. The Speaker has a few rulings—or I have a few rulings.

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 2011-12 annual report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, entitled Losing Our Touch,

Part 2.

The member from Beaches–East York has given me written notice of his intention to raise a point of privilege relating to the lighting levels in the legislative chamber. I will deal with this point of privilege without hearing from the member, as standing order 21(

b) permits me to do.

I believe that he may now know that the matter he raises does not fall under the defined head of “privilege” enjoyed by the members of this House. Any member seeking to draw attention to any failure or deficiency of equipment or furnishings in this chamber may do so by advising the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Clerk or myself privately.

I’m also prepared to rule on another. The member from Nickel Belt has given me written notice of her intention to raise a point of privilege relating to the question of whether a witness who gave testimony to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Ornge air ambulance issue is now being intimidated or retaliated against as a result of that testimony.

In her notice, the member advises me that the public accounts committee as a whole had considered and was concerned by this matter and had earlier taken steps to begin to deal with it prior to the lapsing of the committee’s membership on September 9. In the interim, the file has evolved, and the member now seeks to bring the matter before the House in the face of the unavailability of the committee to deal with this new information.

I want to advise the member from Nickel Belt that I will deal with this point of privilege without hearing from the member, as standing order 21(

b) permits me to do. Notwithstanding the member’s stated conundrum that, while committee matters need to be dealt with in committee, there is currently no committee membership to do so. Nonetheless, it must be the committee that deals with this matter first. If I were to presume to rule on this matter now, I would effectively be substituting my judgment for the committee’s, which would have intimate knowledge I don’t have of all the nuances involved. I would also be substituting my judgment for that of the House, which is first entitled to receive reports from committees on such matters and to determine the method of dealing with them.

I acknowledge that the current committee situation is unusual. However, I have to assume that committees will eventually be struck. At that time, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts may wish to deal with the serious issue that the member has raised with me.

For these reasons, I must rule that the proposed point of privilege is premature.

I thank the members for their points of privilege.

Mr. Frank Klees: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order from the member for Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: Mr. Speaker, I have heard your ruling, and of course we accept it. At issue, however, is the employment of an individual who came before a committee of this House. There is no question that he is in jeopardy of losing his job for no other reason but for the fact that he had the courage to come forward to speak to our committee. I believe that this—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): While I appreciate the member’s comments, I have made my ruling. As such, the issue is to be dealt with at committee.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you’ve spent Ontario into a huge hole. In fact, you’ve increased the cost of public services by 46% when it comes to wages and benefits, despite the economy crawling along. We, for about a year now since the election, have expected some legislation to deal with this. You brought forward a proposal last week. Can you tell me on what page of your proposal last week, when it comes to collective bargaining for government unions, you actually use the words “wage freeze” in that proposed legislation? What page?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for his question, but I want to talk about the elephant in the room. I want to talk about a motion, Speaker. They closed off debate, Speaker. We’ll take this opportunity to speak to a very important motion.

The fact of the matter is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I’ve already acknowledged, I’m having some difficulty with my voice. It’s obvious that some of you are not having difficulty with your voice, and I would ask you to tone it down. From this point on, I will identify individual members.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, there are two separate matters that will be treated in the motion we’ll be voting on momentarily. One of those would refer the matter of the gas plant relocation to a committee. We support that wholeheartedly, and I want to be very clear on that, Speaker. But there’s a secondary issue that is without precedent in the 220-year rich history of this Legislature, and that is the matter of contempt moved against the Honourable Chris Bentley. I’m saying to my honourable colleague that he should retract that part of it, Speaker, so that together we can vote on a motion that sends the appropriate matter before a committee.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Premier, in response, let me address the true elephant in the room.

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Speaker.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, that kind of stage management we just saw was so incredibly disrespectful to the members, to the matter at hand and the taxpayers who have to foot the bill.

Here’s the real elephant in the room, seeing the attitude of government members. We’re talking there about a $650-million minimum payment from taxpayers to move power plants to save Liberal seats. Here’s the issue I have: There’s no contrition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development and Innovation will come to order. The Minister of Finance will come to order. The member from Peterborough will come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: So here’s the sad issue: There is no contrition, no regret, no apology from the Premier, despite spending $650 million and then burying documents. You know what that tells me, Speaker, because there’s no apology, no contrition? If he gets the chance, he’s going to do it all over again, and we won’t apologize for holding you to account.

I’ll ask the Premier again: Could you please direct me to the page of your proposed bill that actually says “a wage freeze” for collective bargaining in the province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that we are more than happy to refer the matter of the gas plant relocation to this committee. That is not an issue for our government.

Our concern is this: The heavy hand of the majority opposition of this Legislature, Speaker, seeks to use the power of this Parliament against one honourable individual. This is without precedent in 220 years of parliamentary history. I say to my honourable colleagues: While it is within their rights to do so, no other Parliament has ever chosen to do so, because it is fundamentally wrong. I ask them to acknowledge that, Speaker. I ask them to refer the appropriate matter to a committee.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, it’s regrettable the Premier didn’t show any of that kind of emotion when he stood up for defending the interests of taxpayers in the province of Ontario, who are on the hook for $650 million.

Let me ask the Premier one more time—and I think I’ve been very clear, Speaker—if the Premier could point out on exactly what page of his proposed bill where he says it will bring in a wage freeze—those words, “wage freeze”—or even zero, when it comes to collective bargaining for government unions in the province of Ontario. I can’t find the page. Perhaps the Premier will actually point that out for me today.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I want to remind my honourable colleague that in 1995, the PC government cancelled the Eglinton and Sheppard lines, at a cost of $260 million. There was no movement among the opposition members or the Parliament of the day to send this to committee or to move on contempt.

I want to remind my honourable colleagues that since 1792, through the War of 1812, the industrialization of our province, the First World War, through Prohibition, the Great Depression, the Second World War, a series of minority governments and coalitions in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s which saw government held by all three parties, through the advent of the Internet, through globalization and then our most recent recession, no Parliament has ever moved contempt in the way that this one has, and to move beyond that to seek punishment of an individual member.

What they’re doing is reprehensible. It is shameful. It is out of keeping with the standards to which we should all adhere.

Interjections.

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

New question.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier, Speaker. The—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We will get through this. And just before you continue, I’ve already mentioned you by riding.

Leader?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier, Speaker: Perhaps the Premier shouldn’t have ordered the minister to bury the documents and then thrown him under the bus—

Interjections.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —so spare me the phony outrage.

I ask the Premier—again, I’ve asked him several times to point out exactly on what page he uses the words “wage freeze” in his proposal from last week. The Premier refuses to answer that question because those words are not actually in the proposal.

Let me ask the Premier then again: Recently you signed an agreement with 1,200 MPAC employees, the tax assessors in the province, that gives them an 8.5% pay raise that goes until December 31, 2015. Premier, are you going to freeze their wages now or are you going to give them an 8.5% pay increase and then freeze them in 2015 or not at all? Which does your bill actually do?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I believe that in their heart of hearts, there are many members of the opposition who understand that they have stepped over a line which should govern our behaviour. I believe that in their heart of hearts, there are many members of the opposition who understand that there is something bigger in this place, something that transcends partisan lines, something that speaks to our duty and tradition and honour and fundamental respect that we share for each other.

To that end, Speaker, I want to put my honourable colleagues on notice that we will be shortly seeking unanimous consent to ensure that we refer the appropriate matter off to committee for consideration—that is the matter of the gas plants—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —shortly, Speaker, I said—and we will be hiving off that part that has to do with contempt, because my honourable colleagues understand that it is in the public interest that we do so. I ask my honourable colleagues to consider that and to ready themselves for that motion, seeking unanimous consent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier uses the term “crossing the line.” I’ll ask the Premier, did it ever occur to you that spending $650 million of taxpayer money to save Liberal seats, then obstructing the work of the Legislature by burying documents—Speaker, if that’s not crossing the line, I don’t know what is. We’re proud to stand up for Ontario taxpayers.

Perhaps I could get a response from the Premier to the questions that I’ve addressed to him. Premier, your agreement with MPAC will give an 8.5% raise to the union workers at MPAC. It expires in 2015. So let me ask the Premier again: Are you freezing MPAC’s wages at the current rates, are you planning to actually give them an 8.5% increase and then freeze their wages, or do you plan on just kicking this can down the road?

Our view: an across-the-board wage freeze for all of us immediately; no exceptions, no special deals. It will save us $2 billion. Why don’t you take the Ontario PC plan, since you don’t seem to have one?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier, before I come to you, the Minister of Finance will come to order—second time.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: So many of the assertions made by my honourable colleague in his question are without foundation in fact, but I will return to the important motion that we’re all facing today.

I ask my honourable colleague—in addition to considering that motion we’ll be putting forward, seeking unanimous consent to refer the appropriate matter to committee—if he will permit his colleagues a free vote in the matter before us so that we can all exercise our own conscience, as I call upon all honourable colleagues and as I appeal to the better angels of their nature, again understanding that while there is a public interest to be found in considering the matter of the relocation of the gas plants, there is none to be found in the small, petty, partisan and vindictive approach related to the pursuit of a contempt motion.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, the Premier references better angels of nature. It’s too bad he didn’t seek out any of those angels when he spent $650 million to move hydro plants out of Liberal ridings to win seats. He looked for no guidance from angels when they buried documents that obstructed this Legislature.

I want to say I’m darned proud of the members of the assembly on the PC side who have already stood on their feet, with great, passionate speeches, to hold this government to account and stand up for what’s right and stand up for taxpayers in our province.

Let me get to my question again, Premier. TTC workers were recently awarded a 6% pay increase. That will go until March 31, 2014. Could the Premier please describe to me exactly how your proposal impacts on the TTC workers? We’ve seen the city of Toronto have to contemplate fare increases or service cuts to make up that $100 million that was outside any kind of pay freeze. How does your bill exactly deal with this TTC 6% increase?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Back to the matter of the motion and back to the issue of the unprecedented pursuit, on the part of a heavy-handed majority opposition, of a contempt motion against a member of the government: I say to my honourable colleague that he and I, together with the leader of the third party, share a heavier responsibility, I would argue. It is to help set the tone, help establish the tenor and help achieve a certain standard.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That’s what leadership’s about.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That’s what leadership is fundamentally all about. I would encourage my honourable colleague to speak to his colleagues within his caucus and help them understand that we will come and we will go. We will do the best that we can as participants in this magnificent process, but our turn and our time will come to an end here.

Recognizing that, we also understand there’s something bigger than any one of us. There’s the matter of tradition and honour and respect. They have clearly crossed that line. They are failing to adhere to that tradition.

I ask him to set the appropriate tone, the appropriate standard, on behalf of his colleagues.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Earlier this morning, the Premier asked that I make today’s vote on whether to send the breach-of-privilege motion to committee a free vote. Well, I plan to do that. Can the Premier tell us, though, the last time he granted his MPPs a free vote?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question, Speaker. I appreciate the commitment to a free vote, but it has been said that some events in life should not be left unremarked.

Yesterday, the NDP, in a dramatic departure from 20 years of principled history, decided they were going to support a closure motion in this Legislature. Interesting; very interesting. They did so as part of the heavy hand of a majority opposition because it served their interests.

I think it is remarkable, it is noteworthy and, frankly, it is unprincipled for that member to have supported that closure motion, which cut off debate, which would have permitted more members of the government here to speak to a very important motion. I ask her to look at herself in the mirror and understand why she led that departure.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, we were respecting the opposition member whose motion it was, who decided that enough debate had occurred, and so we decided that we were going to support their decision.

The people of Ontario are very tired of a Premier who thinks that rules apply to everyone but himself, his party and his government. It’s this Premier who allowed his campaign team to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in a purely political move. The people will be paying for those costs for years and years to come.

Now this Premier has the gall to claim that he doesn’t want this to be political. Does he really expect anyone to take him seriously?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the honourable leader of the third party’s

interpretation—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —but I prefer my own particular representation.

I want to remind my honourable colleague—she may or may not remember this, but I sat over there in the back row in 1991, and I recall in those days when the NDP government decided in 1991 to cancel the Red Hill Creek Expressway. That had been the subject of a broad community effort in Hamilton for some 25 years. It had been approved by the previous government in cabinet. It had been taken to the Superior Court of Ontario, in fact, as well, and that decision was upheld. But that government of the day, the NDP government, cancelled that, at a cost of $70 million.

Just as the PC government cancelled the subway, that NDP government cancelled the Red Hill Creek Expressway. They said that it was in the public interest to do so. The opposition of the day—we believed them, and we allowed them that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has played politics with the people of Ontario, and the people of Ontario are the ones now paying the price. The Premier played politics when he cancelled the plants. The Premier played politics when he refused to disclose the details. The Premier played politics when he shut his energy minister out of all of the discussions. Does he really expect anyone to believe that he is now above narrow partisan politics when for years he has relentlessly put politics over any sense of principle whatsoever?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, when it comes to the cancellation of the gas plants, both Hansard and the broader public media record will make it perfectly clear that we and the opposition are in violent agreement. We have all agreed that those plants should be cancelled.

What I’m saying to my honourable colleague is that the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances now is to refer to committee those matters that are specific to the relocation of the gas plants. I think in particular we should be looking at the appropriate standards for siting new gas plants and we should be looking at ways to better reconcile two competing interests. What do we do when it comes to making public documentation which could compromise taxpayer interests? I think that’s an important consideration for the committee.

But to the matter of pursuing contempt, I cannot understand why the leader of the third party and her caucus are so bent, so determined in pursuing a contempt motion, something that is without precedent in the rich 220-year history of this Legislature.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier—but I think the Premier needs to know that the appropriate thing to do is to give up the documents when they’re requested by the opposition. That’s the appropriate thing .

This weekend, the Premier said that the energy minister shouldn’t be blamed at all for the private power boondoggles in Mississauga and Oakville, especially since the decision to break the contracts wasn’t even made on his watch—this is what the Premier said. Is the Premier ready to accept some responsibility himself, then, for his role in this mess?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, Speaker, we have the support of both opposition parties when it comes to the relocation of these gas plants.

I want to return to the matter of the motion at hand and I want my honourable colleagues opposite to confront the stark reality of what it is they’re about to do. What they’re saying they want to do is pursue a contempt motion against one honourable colleague in this House. That is the Minister of Energy, the Honourable Chris Bentley. This is an MPP who works hard on behalf of his constituents. This is a minister of the crown who does his very best on behalf of the people of Ontario. This is a distinguished member of the Ontario bar. This is a father and this is a husband.

The members opposite seek to use the heavy power of a majority opposition against one individual, honourable colleague. It is without precedent in 220 years. I suggest to my honourable colleague that it is wrong and she should admit so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, whether the Premier likes it or not, what we are simply doing is our job: holding this government to account. We have to do that because this is what people see. They see a Liberal Party, facing plunging polls, making a political decision and hiding the cost of that decision until after the election.

It’s clear that the current energy minister isn’t solely responsible for this mess. In fact, it’s clear that the energy minister at the time of the cancellations wasn’t even making the decisions either. Is the Premier ready to step up and take some responsibility, or will he be blaming everybody else but himself?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague says that using the full force of this Legislature against one honourable colleague in pursuing a contempt motion is just doing her job. Then I say respectfully to my honourable colleague that she doesn’t understand the job.

There is nothing wrong with highly charged, energized and even electric partisan debate—there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that serves the greater public interest. But when you use the full force of the Ontario Legislature, a Legislature representing 13 million Ontarians, against one individual member in pursuit of a contempt motion as a matter of petty, partisan, shallow, self-interested, mean-spirited politics, that is fundamentally wrong. That is not in keeping with our jobs.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker.

With all due respect to the Premier, I think it will be the people of this province who decide who knows how to do their job.

The Premier says he wants to make the tough decisions. The Premier says he wants to avoid easy politics. Yet when he’s faced with a tough political decision on gas plant contracts that he signed, he quietly cuts the deal, and he did everything he could in the meantime to ensure the public didn’t know about the multi-billion-dollar cost involved.

At what point is he going to stop trying to deflect the blame everywhere else, take some responsibility and let the Legislature actually do its job?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, every once in a while, on rare occasions, we are given the opportunity to more fully consider what we’re doing here, what we’re all about, to whom we are accountable and, in particular, what it is that we owe to each other. I would argue that we owe each other a fundamental respect, a fundamental understanding that we all work hard, that we all do our very best, that we all uphold the ideals that inspire our efforts and inform our thinking.

But we also understand there’s a certain line which we should never cross. It’s a line that has been respected by 220 years of Parliaments that have served in this Legislature. I suggest to my honourable colleagues that they are crossing that line today, Speaker. I ask them to think carefully before they vote on today’s motion; they understand the consequences both in terms of the departure from tradition here and the unprecedented consequences this would have for one of our honourable colleagues.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is to the Premier. Premier, to the untrained eye, it has become impossible to determine whether your decisions of late are calculated or reek of indifference. Your energy minister initially refused to produce documents requested by a standing committee of this Legislature. When a prima facie breach of privilege had been established, your government dug in its heels before handing over blank, incomplete and heavily redacted documents at the 11th hour. Time and time again your government has refused to reconstitute committees to get on with the business of this Legislature.

Premier, which is it? Are you indifferent or calculated? Are you just the puppet master pulling strings behind the scenes, or have you just stopped caring about the province of Ontario that you were elected to lead?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the government House leader.

Interjections.

Hon. John Milloy: It’s always good to be liked, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s review the last couple of months. The Minister of Energy appeared in front of the estimates committee and made a case about two competing interests in terms of the documents that were in question. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that government House leaders should sit down and find a way forward. I came forward to my fellow House leaders with two pathways forward and a willingness to discuss, a willingness to compromise, and they said forget it. They didn’t care about taxpayers’ interests. They didn’t care about any of the competing interests that were going out the window.

Then what happened? We had a debate here in this Legislature where I gave notice to you and to the House leaders across the way, to every member of this Legislature, that we wished to come forward with an amendment, an amendment which would have charged the committee to look into the gas plant issue, to look into this issue of competing interests in front of committee. What they did was reprehensible: They shut down debate. They did not allow us to participate. They did not allow us to move that amendment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, the funny thing is, no one believes that government actually respects taxpayers. While we think that $650 million squandered on gas plants that aren’t going to be built or haven’t been built yet, to buy seats instead of building hospitals, roads, bridges, schools, providing MRIs and cancer treatments—the reality is the reason why this contempt motion has been put forward is because they withheld documents and kept Ontarians in the dark. All the while they haven’t apologized. They haven’t said, “I’m sorry.” They haven’t done anything to show that they aren’t in contempt of this Legislature.

My question to the Premier: If he has suddenly become sympathetic to the procedures of the Ontario Legislature, why does he remain determined to prevent the opposition from seeking the truth? What are you afraid of?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, what we saw yesterday was a display of cynical, vindictive partisan politics on the part of the opposition.

We gave notice to all members of this House that we wanted to move forward with an amendment to the motion, an amendment which would have charged the committee to look into a number of matters related to the gas plants but, at the same time, would not have targeted an honourable member of this Legislature. The opposition did not even have the decency to allow us to introduce that amendment and allow us to have debate here. I think if anyone wants to apologize about the vindictive nature of this, it’s that honourable member and his party across the way, along with their friends in the New Democratic Party.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. As details leak out on this government’s secret, private gas plant deals, it looks more and more like it’s throwing good money after bad. We now know this government has signed a string of sweetheart deals with private energy companies, promising them billions of ratepayers’ dollars, even if they don’t produce a single watt of energy.

Will this government ask the Auditor General to take a look at its secret gas plant deals or will it continue to shovel Ontarians’ hard-earned cash into the pockets of those private energy companies?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, as my honourable colleague would know, the auditor’s already looking at Mississauga, and the auditor had said at public accounts with respect to the other matter, that he would wait until negotiations were concluded. That’s exactly what’s happened.

Let’s be clear on where we’ve come: There were brownouts and blackouts in 2001, 2002 and 2003. We made sure that we could bring on new generation to keep the lights on. The templates of those contracts are all public. They’re up on the website. We’ve been very clear in what we’re doing. We’re going to make sure the people of Ontario have clean, reliable power at an appropriate cost.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, Premier, let’s look at where we are now. As part of the Oakville cancellation deal, energy giant TransCanada is guaranteed revenue of $3.3 billion over the next two decades for its eastern Ontario power plant, no matter how much power it produces.

It’s the Auditor General’s job to determine whether Ontario is getting value for money. Why won’t this government direct the Auditor General to examine these secret sweetheart deals with private power companies?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, there is no news here. In order to make sure we have the power for the hot days and the cold days, you have to have power generators who are prepared to produce, so you enter into long-term contracts with them so they’ll build the facility, run the facility and produce. We have those long-term contracts with both publicly owned and privately owned—that’s a fact. There’s nothing new here.

At the end of the day, Ontarians expect that families and businesses will have reliable power, clean power, and that it will be there when they need it. The only way to ensure that is for these long-term contracts to be put in place to make sure that when the switch goes on, the power’s there—the power that we need. That’s why Ontario had reliable power over the past six or seven months, and many other jurisdictions in North America did not.

MENTAL HEALTH AND

ADDICTION SERVICES

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Speaker, improving care for mental health and addiction patients and reducing the stigma surrounding mental health are two goals that this government is working very hard to accomplish. Our commitment to improving mental health care for Ontarians includes better quality patient care, as well as better access to facilities which provide that care. We know that well-funded facilities mean better care for patients.

As a member for Toronto, I know that the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health provides critical support for those Ontarians, young and old, suffering from issues related to mental health and addiction. Through you to the minister: What is being done at CAMH to improve access to quality patient care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Don Valley East for this very important question.

CAMH does remarkable work for people facing mental health and addictions challenges. I was very proud in June to join staff, clients, community members and neighbourhood members to celebrate the official opening of the second phase of the CAMH Queen Street redevelopment project. It has helped to build a new kind of hospital, one that reflects the 21st-century approach to treating mental health and addictions. We have come a very long way in changing the attitudes and opinions about care for mental health and addictions patients in this province.

This latest redevelopment helps drive this change by providing more treatment in a community setting. We know it’s vital for people facing mental health and addictions challenges to remain part of the community. It helps battle stigma and it speeds up recovery.

Importantly, the redevelopment of CAMH supports the goals of our action plan for health care, particularly when it comes to mental health.

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

Mr. Michael Coteau: Thank you, Minister. I know that this is just one of the many exciting developments for mental health in Ontario.

We know that one in five Ontarians experiences a mental illness or addiction issue in their lifetime, meaning that all of us are impacted in some type of way. This is why we continue to invest in this area. Given that CAMH is on Queen Street and it’s just minutes away from the Legislature, I’m sure that many of us are curious about what we might see next time we walk by.

Speaker, through you to the minister, what physical improvements are part of this latest redevelopment project?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you again. I do invite all members of this Legislature to visit the new CAMH; I know you’ll be very, very pleased at what you see.

The latest CAMH redevelopment has revitalized the neighbourhood along Queen Street West. The physical structure has been transformed from an outdated institution into a welcoming, inclusive and healing-focused environment. In particular, I would urge you to keep an eye out for three new buildings, for new streets, green space and affordable housing. As always, I would like to thank all of the community partners who made this redevelopment a reality, as well as all of those remarkable front-line workers and all who made this project a reality.

The new CAMH serves as a model for our action plan for health care in its focus on patient-centred care. It’s just one more way that we’re providing the right care at the right time in the right place.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, the government House leader continues to insist that we have received all of the Mississauga and Oakville documents, yet we have countless examples of covered-over documents. Let me draw your attention to an email from your senior communications adviser. It states, “I’d appreciate if you could look at the copy and see if there are any inaccuracies.” But, Minister, the rest of the copy has been blanked out. It’s been covered up here.

I can go to another; it says, “Rick may not completely agree with the third option.” Speaker, the third option is a slide about where they were going to locate something, but sadly, it, too, has been covered over; it’s been covered up.

So my question to the minister is: What is so damning on these redacted documents that they—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You can’t say indirectly what you tried to say directly in one of the comments. But I would only offer you a caution: The way in which you worded it could be interpreted two different ways.

I will be more forceful if it continues. Thank you.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My final question is: What are you hiding in these documents?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The ministry prepared the documents and provided the documents that were responsive to the motion. The ministry prepared them according to the procedures that they’ve long used, and I understand the Ontario Power Authority did exactly the same thing. There are, as has already been said, many double-sided pages in the documents that were the result of double-sided photocopying when there was nothing underneath. But once again, the ministry prepared the documents according to the procedures that they’ve long used.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: There’s nothing double-sided about this document. It’s an email that has been clearly redacted. But in the few documents that aren’t whited out, we learned some dramatic news. Here’s a slide that states that “the province would be pleased if the ... negotiated solution (in Oakville) does not exceed $1.2 billion.” It’s followed by one that states that TransCanada, the Oakville proponent, rejected the government’s settlement proposal of $712 million.

So, Minister, the entire business world is waiting to hear the secret of how you settled a $1-billion dispute, in your own words, for $40 million—and, quite frankly, nobody believes you.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: There you have it, Speaker. There you have it. We negotiated hard on behalf of the people of Ontario to move the plants, to stop construction—which all three parties support—to relocate the plants to make sure that we got electricity out of the result. We’ve ended up with one in Lambton, which has long been an energy centre; another one is going to Lennox, long an energy centre, and the cost of that has been out for those to see—in the case of Oakville, $40 million down and a 20-year contract for the same 900-megawatt facility, using the turbines that had been procured for the other one.

That’s the bottom line—and all the negotiations concluded in the agreement we’ve got on Oakville.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is for the Premier, if somebody can get his attention. I’ll just wait for him to take his seat. I know he’s doing something else.

Premier, you’ve gone out of your way to try to characterize this vote today as being a vote of contempt. You know as well as I do that this vote is about striking a committee to look into this issue. So my question to you, Premier, is a very simple one. Under standing order 118, the members of the committee—the majority—can request that the committee meet, and you have up to 10 sessional days to call the committee. Are you going to stall, for 10 sessional days, this committee being struck?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I think that any reasonable person who is watching what happened yesterday would realize the vindictiveness of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we gave notice through all House leaders that we were prepared to support a motion which would allow this committee to look into aspects of the gas plant issue, to look into this whole issue of balancing interests in front of a committee. Instead, what happened is, debate was cut down in this Legislature. Debate was stopped in this Legislature.

As the Premier referenced earlier, considering the long and proud history of the New Democratic Party—who like to remind this Legislature that they don’t favour time allocation; they don’t favour closure—I think it was a sad shock for all of us to see debate in this Legislature stopped by the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, the shock, Mr. Speaker, is the taxpayer getting the bill; that’s the shock.

Under standing order 118, you have up to 10 sessional days to have this committee meet. My question was very specific: Do you plan on stalling the creation of this committee by 10 sessional days? Yes or no?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I’m not going to presume how the vote is going to go in the next half-hour.

Second of all, I have great respect for the Chair of the committee and the members of the committee—that they will govern themselves according to the rules that are outlined in this motion.

Again, I think it is very, very important that we put on the record the fact that we gave notice to this House. We gave notice to you, to the government House leaders, to every member, that we were prepared to reach a compromise motion, which would allow the committee to look into many aspects of this situation, to look into the challenges of governing both the public interest, the taxpayers’ interest and the rights of committees to get documents. Instead, debate was shut down in this Legislature so they could move forward with a motion which is attacking an honourable member of this place.

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question s’adresse à la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones. Nous avons célébré récemment la journée des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes. J’espère que tous nos amis francophones et francophiles partout en province ont passé une belle journée officielle.

Le gouvernement McGuinty présente un bilan solide en ce qui concerne les affaires francophones en Ontario, et nous avons de la chance de compter sur une ministre aussi dynamique que la ministre Meilleur pour répondre aux besoins des francophones.

Cependant, pour assurer que la francophonie reste une part entière de notre patrimoine et continue de prospérer, main dans la main, avec la majorité anglophone, nous devons continuer à investir dans le système d’éducation, notamment pour assurer l’accès des francophones aux institutions postsecondaires.

Est-ce que la ministre peut me dire ce que le gouvernement fait pour favoriser l’accès des francophones au niveau postsecondaire?

Pour 2011-2012, ce financement ciblé s’élevait à 85,5 millions de dollars, et nous en voyons les résultats : la proportion des jeunes ontariens de 25 à 34 ans qui détiennent un diplôme universitaire est maintenant plus élevée chez les Franco-Ontariens que chez les Anglo-Ontariens et même les Québécois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Je me félicite de tous ces investissements, mais quels sont les résultats? Est-ce que la ministre peut nous éclairer sur la présence et le poids des étudiants francophones en Ontario? Que fait-on pour faciliter l’accès des francophones au niveau postsecondaire?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Au ministre de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités.

Il convient de souligner que depuis le lancement du programme de réduction de 30 % des frais de scolarité en Ontario en janvier 2012, plus de 200 000 étudiants et leur famille ont constaté une réduction de 30 % des droits de scolarité. Ce nombre inclut une majorité de jeunes francophones ontariens comme les 1 218 étudiants inscrits à des programmes à temps plein du Collège Boréal et de La Cité collégiale, et environ 1 500 étudiants francophones de l’Université d’Ottawa et de l’Université Laurentienne qui ont aussi reçu la subvention. Cela signifie qu’au moins 2 700 étudiants francophones en tout ont bénéficié de la subvention du programme de réduction de 30 %.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Premier. Premier, last week we learned that the Liberal campaign’s seat-saver program was going to cost taxpayers $650 million. Today you called for a free vote on this motion. Each Liberal member should recognize that a vote against this motion is a vote against government transparency, a vote against government accountability, a vote against parliamentary privilege, and most importantly, Mr. Premier, it’s a smack in the face of the hard-working people of Ontario, who deserve to know the true cost of the Liberal seat-saver program.

Premier, do you think that taxpayers should be on the hook for $650 million on your Liberal seat-saver program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it’s always good to remind the honourable member of some things some of his colleagues have said.

The member from Halton, in this Legislature, said, “The people of Oakville have told you they don’t want the proposed gas-fired power plant ... and I agree with them.” The member from Haldimand–Norfolk wrote a letter to the Minister of Energy: “The potential for future alternate generation at Nanticoke to replace that slated for the proposed and disputed Clarkson plant should receive ample consideration.” The Leader of the Opposition told the Globe and Mail on September 25, 2011: “We’ve opposed these projects in Oakville and Mississauga.” The member for Halton: “I was pleased when it was cancelled.”

Mr. Speaker, there’s an equal list of quotations from the third party, the New Democratic Party. All parties of this House agreed that the Oakville and the Mississauga plants should not proceed.

Discussion took place at the committee, as we’ve gone over, and 36,000 pages of documents have been delivered to committee members.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the Premier: I’m pleased to see that you have, in fact, given your caucus the option to vote in favour of government transparency, and I’m sure that they will do the right thing. I’m confident that our caucus is united and we’ll be voting in favour of this motion because we are concerned with your blatant disregard for government transparency and accountability.

Today’s vote is a vote against political interference by the Liberal campaign team. Today’s vote is a vote against the government’s failed transparency. Today’s vote is about sending this issue to committee to get to the bottom of yet another Liberal scandal.

Premier, why do you feel that holding the government to account on behalf of the hard-working people of Ontario is unjustified?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House are going to vote against this motion. We’re going to vote against this motion because we do not agree with the vindictiveness of the opposition. We do not agree with the partisan and cynical approach that’s put forward. Most of all, we do not agree with an attack upon an honourable member of this Legislature, the Minister of Energy.

We have come forward to the table over and over again with a way forward when it came to the documents, with compromise and co-operation. We also came forward several days ago with a way in which we could amend the motion in front of this Legislature so that the committee would be seized with very, very important matters related both to the gas plant and the balance of public interests. Mr. Speaker, this opposition would not even allow us to debate that motion. This opposition put a muzzle on this Legislature.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The government’s decision to impose contracts on teachers is creating turmoil in our schools. In my riding and across Ontario, the government’s scheme is hurting students as extracurricular sports, clubs, field trips and parents’ nights are all cancelled or being delayed.

Why is the government planning to expand its already-failed strategy to other sectors when this government will only bring similar turmoil to hospitals, universities and day cares as well?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I am proud of the decisions that this government has made to keep dollars invested in our classrooms. The agreement that we reached with more than 55,000 teachers across the province, if fully implemented, will save this province $2 billion and avert $473 million that would need to be pulled out of our students’ classrooms.

On this side of the House, we stand for the continued efforts to move forward with the gains that we’ve made: to keep our class sizes small, to keep our test scores growing, to keep our grad rates going. What we have asked from our partners in education is to take a pause when it comes to pay increases. I would urge the members opposite to join with us, to join with the Premier and I, who are asking teachers to raise their issues with us, continue with extracurriculars for our students and not put them in the middle of this debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, my question again is to the Premier. The government created a problem and now it’s blaming the teachers for a problem they created.

Students should be able to focus on learning at schools, but this government has chosen to pursue a self-serving, hard-line scheme that has undermined peace in our schools and, more importantly, has ended up hurting students the most.

When we already know the government’s scheme is creating turmoil in our schools, why is this Premier insisting on following the same broken approach, which will only hurt Ontarians who rely on hospitals, universities and daycare?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I am proud of the record of this government when it comes to support for the education system and particularly for our teachers. I’m proud that, on this side of the House, we’ve had platform after platform that has focused on what we can do to improve the education system, and that is in stark contrast to the third party, who had no education platform at all.

Each and every year we have sought to improve education, invest in our teachers, invest in our classrooms, to keep young teachers employed. If we were to take $473 million out of our classrooms, we would see young teachers and support workers—10,000 of them—fired. That is not what we want.

Again, I urge the third party: Join with our government. Ask our teachers to be part of the solution, to keep our kids out of this and to allow extracurricular activities to continue right across the province.

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We know that aboriginal youth under the age of 25 represent more than half of the aboriginal population in this province and that youth are often among the most vulnerable in our province. We also know that recreation is a powerful tool in supporting the development of life skills in youth and has been shown to lead to improved health, well-being and education levels.

In 2010, our government announced a partnership with Right to Play and developed the promoting life-skills in aboriginal youth program to help empower youth in First Nations communities on-reserve.

Can the minister update us on the progress of this program and the impact it has had on aboriginal youth across the province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Everyone in this House would agree that if aboriginal people—aboriginal youth—in this province are to have a bright future, the needs and challenges of aboriginal youth need to be addressed. So I think it’s a wonderful thing that in 2010, the Honourable Brad Duguid and then, later on, the Honourable Chris Bentley, when they were Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs, invested in and supported the Right to Play program, and all of the private partners who are part of that.

The program is targeted at engaging and motivating young people through sport and play—uses sport and play as a tool to build confidence—but also the leadership skills that are developed as part of the Right To Play program are absolutely portable and essential to young people going forward.

So far, our government has contributed $1.5 million towards this program, and I recently announced that the province will be pledging an additional $1 million a year for the next three years for the continuation and the expansion of PLAY.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Bill Mauro: Thank you, Minister. To continue the progress, we believe it’s important to keep an open dialogue with the aboriginal community, especially those that make up the younger generation. Aboriginal youth in this province often face unique challenges and can offer a unique perspective for decision-makers when looking into what we can do to help them prosper and succeed.

Speaker, through you to the minister, what are we doing to ensure that the work we are doing to support youth across the province actually responds to the unique needs of the youth living in First Nation communities on-reserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve seen how the PLAY program has worked, and that’s why it’s being expanded. There are now 39 First Nation communities and 1,000 aboriginal youth who are involved in the program. But it’s necessary for us to continue to listen, particularly to young people, and hear what their concerns are.

For example, when I was in Kenora in the summer, I had the opportunity to meet with the Treaty 3 youth council, which is a group of bright, talented young people, and I was so impressed at their depth of knowledge and their concerns about the future of all of their communities.

One of their biggest concerns was education and the funding disparity between on-reserve education, which is funded by the federal government, and off-reserve education, which is funded by the provincial government, and the transition between the two, because most young aboriginal people have to come off-reserve and go into provincial schools. The basis that they’re getting on-reserve is not what they need. They talked to me about the challenges they come across when they face post-secondary.

So we are listening. We are engaging with youth, and that is the way that we’ll know how to move forward with that.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is for the Minister of Health. On July 19, the estimates committee made a simple request of the minister. The committee asked her to provide, no later than August 29, all documents related to the Liberal scandal-plagued eHealth program from 2009 to 2012. For two months, the minister failed to respond to the committee’s request, and she even ignored the clerk. But, finally, two months later, the committee got its response: No, they’re legally sensitive and eHealth is way too busy not building a diabetes registry to find them.

I know the health minister thinks she has escaped the spotlight for now, but I have to ask: Is she willing to travel down the same path as her leadership rival, the energy minister, or has she learned from the past few days that you can’t escape the will of this House?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to answer this question, and let me read from the letter that was sent by myself to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates:

“The ministry is committed to full co-operation with the committee’s requests. I assure you that we respect the authority of the Standing Committee on Estimates to call for information in its course of work.”

The letter goes on, and I believe the member opposite was sent a copy of this letter, so he knows of what I have written, but I will happily read it into the record:

“EHealth will respond to the committee directly. However, eHealth estimates that the time to retrieve and review all of the potentially responsive documents is 420 person-days. This is a time-consuming task. It requires the production of thousands of documents. We understand that it will not be possible to complete such an extensive search and review in the short time frame that has been provided.”

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): At this moment—I thank you for your indulgence—I’d like to welcome and introduce, in the Speaker’s gallery, former MPP Phil Gillies from Brantford, in the 32nd and 33rd Parliaments.

The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding the motion by Mr. Leone arising from the Speaker’s ruling of September 13, 2012.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we have unanimous consent to put the motion forward? I heard a no.

The member from Timmins–James Bay on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 28(f), I just want to give notice to the House that, unfortunately, Mr. Bradley cannot be here today because he’s in the hospital with a hernia, and we are declaring that we will pair with Mr. Bradley, in fairness.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for that point of order.

Just before I deal with deferred votes, there was some concern about a few things that were said today in the House. I confess that I did not hear some of them as a result of what was happening in this House. At any time—and I repeat myself—at any time, if a member feels that they may have said something that they should not have said or have said something unparliamentary in the heat of the moment, it’s always a point of order for them to correct the record and withdraw. Thank you.

DEFERRED VOTES

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement a healthy homes renovation tax credit / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts en vue de mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt pour l’aménagement du logement axé sur le bien-être.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1144 to 1149.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Members take their seats, please.

On May 9, 2012, Mr. Bradley moved third reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement a healthy homes renovation tax credit. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Broten, Laure