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

October 3, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Oct-03 (PDF)

L088 - Wed 3 Oct 2012 / Mer 3 oct 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 October 2012 Mercredi 3 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

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

POWER PLANTS

PHARMACISTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

POWER PLANTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

POWER PLANTS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GEORGE ZEGOURAS

ANTI-HUNGER CAMPAIGN

QUEEN ELIZABETH II DIAMOND JUBILEE MEDAL

JOSH PHILLIPS

PROVINCIAL PARKS

KOREAN NATIONAL

FOUNDATION DAY

SENIOR DRIVERS

AMATEUR LACROSSE

CARDIAC CARE

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS

OF ST. JOSEPH IN CANADA ACT, 2012

FAIRNESS IN FILM AND MEDIA

PRODUCTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ

DANS LE SECTEUR DE LA PRODUCTION

CINÉMATOGRAPHIQUE ET MÉDIATIQUE

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(ENABLING MUNICIPALITIES

TO REQUIRE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE (INCLUSION

DE LOGEMENTS ABORDABLES

PAR LES MUNICIPALITÉ

S) VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH /

MOIS DE L’HISTOIRE DES FEMMES

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES /

FRANCO-ONTARIAN DAY

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES /

FRANCO-ONTARIAN DAY

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DOG OWNERSHIP

BOURSE D’ÉTUDES

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

AIR QUALITY

EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

ELECTORAL REFORM

ANIMAL PROTECTION

ELECTORAL REFORM

WIND TURBINES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Orders of the day. The Minister of Economic Development and Innovation.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, sir. I can see your voice is starting to come back a little bit today. It’s good to hear.

Government order G65.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): Order G65. Resuming the debate adjourned on October 2, 2012, on the motion for 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): Further debate?

Mr. Steve Clark: Good morning. I want to thank the Minister of Economic Development for calling this order this morning. As the Ontario PC critic for municipal affairs and housing, I’m pleased, on behalf of our caucus and our leader, Tim Hudak, to speak to Bill 65, the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012.

I have to say, right off the top this morning, that we’ll be supporting this piece of legislation. I think it’s long overdue, and it finally gets on with addressing an issue that the current government has promised to fix since 2007.

I’ve had the great opportunity since I was elected, and especially since I became the critic for municipal affairs and housing, to meet with a number of co-operative housing advocates. Yesterday, in the east members’ gallery, we had the good folks from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. I have to tell you that these folks are really patient. Not only were they here yesterday for the minister’s lead and her parliamentary assistant’s, the member for York West, but they were here last week on the same day that Mr. Leone moved his motion. They’ve been here many times to advocate with members of provincial Parliament.

Even though they’re not here today, MPPs will get the chance to meet them again on October 17; they’re going to be here at Queen’s Park for their annual co-operative housing day. I encourage people to come and see them, to meet with them during that lobby day. I think MPPs from all three parties will continue to look forward to seeing them at Queen’s Park to have the opportunity to discuss very important issues within the co-op housing sector.

I’ve said many times that these folks—I’ve met with them and discussed issues that they feel are important, and I think this bill proposes to finally bring about some of the changes they have lobbied for, for many, many years. This bill that we’re debating today is good public policy. It’s a bill that I believe quite strongly is non-partisan in nature. I hope, and I think, by the comments and questions we had yesterday morning after the minister’s and the parliamentary assistant’s speeches—based on those comments anyway, I think we have some consensus on how to move forward.

Having said that and having acknowledged that there is lots of common ground in this bill for us to agree upon, it certainly hasn’t been an easy road for the proponents of this legislation to travel. It has been quite a long journey, Speaker, and I’m a bit puzzled about why that was the case. Why is it, when we’ve got an issue that has been talked about for years—and one the government knows full well there is strong consensus for—that it has taken so long for us to have this bill brought forward for second reading? I think it’s one of the reasons why the general public gets disenchanted with this place.

It’s bad enough that it takes us a long time to pass contentious pieces of legislation, but I can appreciate people’s frustrations when we have a bill like Bill 65, which there is general agreement on.

The government, as I said earlier, promised to do this for about five years. In that time, we saw a private member’s bill on this issue. It was Bill 198, introduced by the member for Etobicoke Centre. Sadly, for people in the industry, that bill, as we all know, died on the order paper.

Before I get too far in my remarks, I want to acknowledge those proponents from the co-op housing sector who have worked so hard to get us to this point. They have every right to celebrate the fact that they’ve had so many years to try to get this bill, and the fact that we’re able to discuss it at second reading is a pretty important part.

That said, and despite our support for this bill, I have to say it’s difficult for me to jump for joy today. It’s hard for me to pat the government on the back enthusiastically, because, after all, it has taken several ministers and a number of years to really be able to pilot through a very, very straightforward bill. I think, from our side, we just have to say on behalf of the industry that it’s about time Bill 65 is here.

Yesterday, the minister outlined in her leadoff some of the issues around Bill 65. It amends the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and the Co-operative Corporations Act. I should also say that Bill 65—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Do you realize you’re the first Tory to talk about housing in this place?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m sure the Attorney General is going to provide two minutes of questions and comments when I’m finished.

Bill 65 also makes some minor amendments to the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010, and the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit Act, 2010. But the primary purpose of the bill is to move most co-op tenure disputes out of the courts and put them before the Landlord and Tenant Board. Speaker, this is common sense, and again begs the question why it has taken this government so long to be able to put this forward.

Perhaps it’s not that surprising, though. Proponents of this legislation have said it will streamline the dispute process to make it faster, more efficient, more cost-effective and more transparent for both co-ops and their members, and we all know, when we use those types of adjectives, that we sometimes don’t use them when we describe the McGuinty government. From eHealth to Ornge and the scandalous decision to sacrifice hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars on the gas plant seat-saver plan, this government has hardly been the model for efficiency, cost-effectiveness or transparency.

Perhaps, Speaker, the government was just waiting to bring this legislation in during this, the international year of co-operatives, as declared by the United Nations.

Regardless, as I said, the Ontario PC caucus welcomes this legislation and its primary function of taking most co-op disputes away from the courts and moving them into the Landlord and Tenant Board. Ontario PCs have long supported amending the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Residential Tenancies Act in a way that would allow for this new process. We’ve done so for some very, very good reasons. First, Ontario’s already clogged court system simply doesn’t need the additional burden posed by having its dockets filled with this type of civil matter. Our court system has enough trouble already, and anything we can do to reduce the number of cases in that system should be welcomed.

Beyond reducing clutter in the courts, I think we can all agree that that’s really not the appropriate place for landlord and tenant disputes over tenure. After all, when any other landlord in the province is dealing with an eviction or other dispute, they follow the well-established Landlord and Tenant Board process. So it only makes sense for non-profit housing co-operatives to follow the same process. But they can’t do this under the existing legislation because co-op accommodations are governed by the Co-operative Corporations Act rather than the Residential Tenancies Act.

In welcoming this move to the Landlord and Tenant Board, I want to stress very clearly that I know there are some serious problems with the Landlord and Tenant Board. Both landlords and tenants aren’t happy with the way the board operates, and I’ll be speaking to some of the valid reasons that create that unhappiness a little later.

Regardless of those problems, I think we would agree that Ontario’s courts are not the venue to resolve disputes between co-ops and their members. We know it takes too long, and the costs are too much to continue using that eviction process. Currently some 300 of these co-op disputes end up before the courts every year, and it’s estimated that these cases saddle co-op members with an annual legal bill—I was astounded by this, Speaker—that totals approximately $1 million. I understand that cases typically cost between $3,000 and $5,000 to resolve; however, in some cases a single case could be up to $50,000.

And those figures don’t take into account the tremendous amount of time that both parties are involved with in terms of paperwork to resolve this dispute in our already overburdened court system.

Again, it’s unfortunate that the McGuinty government has taken so long to finally get this moving. Using the figures provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the five-year wait seems to mean that some $5 million was spent on legal costs to resolve these co-op tenure disputes through the courts. It would have been nice to have some action on the file earlier—something I think all three parties would agree with—so that that $5 million could have been saved.

Let’s look at how Bill 65 works. The inner workings of this bill set up a process by which a non-profit housing co-op can make application to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate a former member’s occupancy and ultimately evict the former member. These provisions under

Part V of the Residential Tenancies Act are the same any landlord in the province would use to evict a tenant.

A co-operative has two avenues to terminate a member’s occupancy. As with other landlords, the co-operative can issue a notice when it is pursuing an eviction under one or more of the 11 instances set out in the Residential Tenancies Act or the RTA. These include nonpayment of rent, committing illegal acts or causing willful damage to the property.

The new process would also allow the co-operative to pursue an eviction from the Landlord and Tenant Board without notice in some very limited circumstances. They include:

—where a former co-op member has either terminated his or her membership, and therefore their occupancy rights;

—where the member’s occupancy rights have expired by virtue of a predetermined date; and

—where the former member is a post-secondary student in a student housing co-operative and has given notice of termination.

These are very straightforward circumstances which under the existing system would have required that the co-op head to court to complete what really amounts to routine paperwork. Under this bill, they will be able to get these situations resolved by applying directly to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

We should note that this legislation does not entirely remove the role of the courts in the dispute resolution process. There will remain some tenure disputes that will continue to go before the courts, that are not spelled out under the Residential Tenancies Act. These deal with specific bylaws to individual co-ops, and they include provisions like the no-pet rule violation, and also failure for the member to undertake certain member duties, like snow removal or lawn care.

These disputes that can’t be resolved by the board itself for the co-op still would ultimately have to be adjudicated by our provincial courts. Bill 65, however, adds a new

section to the Co-operative Corporations Act to ensure that these cases will be judged on the merits of each case. In other words, procedural irregularities will no longer be able to trump the basis upon which a co-op board has decided to revoke a person’s membership. This is important because it ensures the wishes of the co-op board—which after all represents the members of the co-op—are the primary focus whenever the courts do have to become involved. It’s easy to see how this provision will ensure these hearings don’t get bogged down in procedural wranglings and stay focused on the issue at hand.

Bill 65 also changes the co-op act in a number of ways to streamline the internal dispute resolution processes used by individual housing co-operatives. Co-ops have functioned very well under these democratic rules for years, and it’s essential that they retain the ability to do so regardless of the amendments outlined in Bill 65.

We should also note that respecting this well-established internal dispute resolution process, Bill 65 does not allow individual members to make application to the Landlord and Tenant Board. Disputes that co-op residents may have with the housing provider regarding issues over charges or maintenance will continue to use that internal resolution process. That’s the right decision, because there’s no need to further encumber the Landlord and Tenant Board with these disputes when a very sound process is already in place within each co-op in the province. Again, these are all changes that the Co-operative Housing Federation and other proponents have been seeking for years.

Let’s talk about a little background on how Bill 65 proposes to usher these in. As I said, these are not new, they’re not surprising, as the co-op sector has been engaging members of provincial Parliament on these issues for years. Of course, I appreciate that we do need to ensure that all voices are heard on whatever issue we’re debating, no matter how much consensus there is between MPPs. The public’s voice is also important, and although when I was speaking to the member for York West yesterday he indicated that, “Wouldn’t this be a great bill to give second and third reading to?” I think we still need to have that opportunity to have the public look at it and to put it into committee.

Now, again, whenever a politician on this side of the House talks about committees—the government has had terrible difficulty managing its minority. We still have not got a committee system set up. So even if we allowed debate to collapse today, which I know is not going to happen, there would be no place for this bill to go. I think it would be a shame, when we have general support from all three parties, that this bill would languish with no committees. I’m sure that we want the public to have an opportunity to come to hearings and to also give them an opportunity to propose amendments before we bring this bill back for third reading.

I also wanted to spend some time this morning to step back and to look at exactly what housing co-operatives are and the important role that they play in our province’s housing mix. Housing co-operatives are not-for-profit organizations in which members do not own equity in their residence. If they move, their home is returned to the co-op to be offered to another individual or family who needs an affordable home. That’s what’s great about co-operative housing: it’s a diverse mix of where people can call home. They’re an example of the kinds of neighbourhoods any sound housing strategy should strive to achieve.

Some co-op members pay reduced monthly rent that’s based on their income, with government support funding the difference. Because they are non-profits, co-ops charge members only enough to cover the costs of repairs, as well as ensuring that they can sustain a reserve of some funds. The result is that they provide housing that can be more affordable, which is why we need to champion them as a very important part of Ontario’s affordable housing strategy.

As I mentioned earlier in discussing the amendments proposed by Bill 65, co-ops are democratic organizations that are controlled by their members. Every member has a vote in decisions about their housing, including electing the co-op’s board of directors. Each housing co-operative is a legal organization, incorporated as a co-op.

Anyone watching at home this morning may not be completely familiar with how substantial a part of Ontario’s housing mix co-ops really are. There are currently more than 550 non-profit housing co-operatives in the province, which add up to a total of 44,109 households in which more than 125,000 people live.

I mentioned this in my questions and comments yesterday after the minister and the parliamentary assistant did their leadoff, and MPPs will be interested to know that there are housing co-ops in 95 of the 107 ridings. So it’s a debate that hits very close to home and affects 90% of members of provincial Parliament in this House.

In my riding of Leeds–Grenville, I’m very proud to represent two of these co-ops. Both are in the city of Brockville. The Brock-Seaway Housing Co-op is located on Dana Street, and the Shepherd’s Green Co-operative Homes is on Liston Avenue. If you spend any time visiting, as I have, these 30-unit co-ops, you’ll find that they’re extremely lively neighbourhoods—and I can tell you they’re a great place to live, and that a great mix of families call them home. I want to just congratulate the people at Brock-Seaway and Shepherd’s Green for being such a part of what makes that city a vibrant community.

We all know that, even in the best circumstances and in the best accommodations, there are going to be issues that arise with some landlord-tenant relationships, issues that can’t be resolved by the two parties. So it’s welcome that we’re seeing Bill 65 ensure that those issues will no longer be dealt with in the courts.

I mentioned earlier that there are some glaring problems with Ontario’s Landlord and Tenant Board as it currently operates. In fact, if there’s any issue I have with Bill 65, it’s that I have serious doubts of the process that co-ops and members are going to find waiting for them after this bill is passed. That’s because the board is hardly a model of efficiency in action; in reality, it’s quite the opposite.

While I’m attending events in my riding, a weekend doesn’t go by that I don’t at least have one person who is a landlord talk to me about issues. I had it just on Sunday. I was at an event and a landlord stopped and told me some horror stories about what they’ve had to go through. These aren’t owners of large multi-unit buildings; they’re the small three- or four-unit, which is really the vast majority of landlords in the province, who I accept and I believe are really the backbone of the rental housing sector in this province.

More and more, they’re coming forward to express frustrations that they experience at the board, whether they were to collect back rent or in fact to evict a problem tenant. In fact, many of them are telling me they’re so fed up that they’re considering getting out of the business altogether. I can tell you these are the landlords that we need to keep. They’re landlords who provide great accommodations, are quick to address any problem that arises and have an absolute respect for their tenants.

Now, I know that members in this place have probably all read stories from the Toronto Star’s tenant-from-hell series. Those articles told the story of a North York landlord who spent nearly a year battling with the Landlord and Tenant Board, trying to evict his nightmare tenant.

I want to quote an interesting line from a recent Toronto Star article, because I think it’s enlightening, in part for what it says, but more for its source. The Star said its coverage of this tenant-from-hell story shows “how easily tenants can manipulate the provincially funded Landlord and Tenant Board, using protections designed to avoid unfair evictions to stay in properties rent-free.” That’s the Toronto Star, not exactly the mouthpiece for landlords in the province of Ontario. So when the Toronto Star is using language like this, I think most of us will acknowledge that there is a problem here.

This was an extreme case that was in the story, but the problems that are in those stories are similar to stories that I’m hearing in my own riding of Leeds–Grenville. As I said, it’s a rare opportunity that I would go a week in my riding without having a landlord of some type express to me his or her frustration. I’ve had landlords like Mike Gordon come into my office with pictures showing me thousands of dollars in damages that tenants have willfully done to his property. Yet he takes this evidence to the board and he finds that the deck is stacked against him and that there are roadblocks at every turn.

Mike isn’t the only landlord who has talked to me about them, about how difficult it is to get an order from the board, and then, when they’re fortunate enough to actually get one, how impossible it is to actually enforce. Where is the legislation to deal with this issue, from the government opposite? How come we can’t have that type of reform and that type of discussion between landlords and tenants in the province of Ontario?

In debating another bill that the government put forward on housing, Bill 19, I mentioned one of the good guys, who is a landlord in my riding, Ted Carr. He has been providing housing in Brockville for decades. I know he tries very, very hard to treat his tenants fairly and to accommodate them even when they’re late for their rent. Like any good landlord, he realizes it’s better to work with tenants to resolve any issues, including rent arrears, than to face the dreaded alternative of a trip to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

That just creates animosity between the two parties, and ultimately, at the end of the day, it leaves him with an empty unit to try to get a tenant for. As much as he tries to be fair, though, inevitably there are going to be disputes, and some are going to be ending up at the board.

I want to capture, in Ted’s own words, the experience that it’s like for a small landlord, and his perspective, because I think it bears repeating: “I have, and continue to have, money outstanding from a tenant, this after many requests for payment, different hearings and appearing at different levels of the system, the bureaucracy, getting several judgments, yet I still have money outstanding.

“Not many have the time, the patience or the resources to litigate these matters. It is the opinion of this landlord that the system, which has seen benefits over the years, has to be simplified, the process more friendly.... One has no idea until they experience this bureaucracy from a person with no idea of where to start, the frustration of where to turn or what to do now. To go to the tribunal to be turned away because of an incorrect process, incorrect form served, to hear that the tenant has access to duty counsel, while the landlord has no support.” That’s his quote.

Ted is among the many landlords asking me why the government can’t take a look at the obvious problems that exist with the board and come up with something that’s simpler and more streamlined. What we need is a process that works for both sides and one that really tries to do what the board was intended to do in the first place, and that’s resolve disputes. Instead, our current system gets bogged down in procedural matters and bureaucratic delays that only perpetuate the original complaint.

Rather than sorting these conflicts out, I believe the atmosphere at Landlord and Tenant Board hearings makes things worse. I think if the minister really wants to get an understanding of just how much of a struggle it is for a landlord to recover back rent or be compensated for property damage, she should go through the process herself. If she did, I suspect she might be a little more motivated to press for some long-overdue changes to that system.

Having reviewed the details of Bill 65 and provided some background on housing co-ops in the province, I think it’s easy to understand why I wish the government would have dealt with those changes in the proposed legislation a lot earlier. Had we done that, perhaps the minister would be coming forward today with a plan to create more housing co-operatives in the province of Ontario. That’s the piece of legislation that I’d prefer to sit here and debate this morning. Sadly, though, we’re not seeing that type of ambitious agenda from this government or this minister. Instead, time and time again, we’re seeing bills like this come forward.

Yes, our party is going to support Bill 65 in the big picture. It’s really some housekeeping and should have been part of a much larger plan of action by the present Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but that’s not what we’re seeing, Speaker. We don’t need some relatively straightforward housekeeping bill. We need some initiatives that are more than just window dressing—and that’s what our caucus calls bills like this: window dressing. They’ve got a great-sounding bill. They’ve got a great headline. They make for some great publicity.

But really, in the whole scheme of things, they’re just window dressing. So we need to have a far more substantive action plan on housing in the province of Ontario.

It reminds me, Speaker, when you look at some of these shell bills, of that old TV commercial: “Where’s the beef?” It’s all filler. We need some more substantive policy.

Look at the bill we gave third reading for yesterday, Bill 2, the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act. When you deal with a bill where a senior needs $10,000 at the max to barely even cover the HST that the government has imposed on the renovations, it’s hardly a benefit.

There’s also Bill 30 we passed, the Family Caregiver Leave Act. Actually, when the minister was asked by our critic, the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, who they consulted with the bill, she actually looked at him and said, “No one.”

When you look at some of these bills where there’s no consultation and it’s just a shell bill to grab a headline, it’s ridiculous. We’ve seen it with our own Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We saw it with her other housing bill that was passed in the spring session, Bill 19, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act. When it was introduced, we heard the government taking a lot of time talking about Bill 19—that it was going to be the panacea. It was going to be a piece of legislation that was finally going to make life more affordable for tenants in the province of Ontario.

The reality, as we said from the time that Bill 19 was tabled, turned out to be something much different. This bill won’t build any new affordable housing and it won’t make life affordable for Ontario families. That’s what we said when we debated Bill 19, and I’m pleased to now say that I have some evidence to back up those statements. This was the first year that act, Bill 19, was used in calculating the rent increase guideline. So we’re all waiting for the annual announcement in August to find out what sort of impact the minister’s legislation would have. We were so anxious to discover the real difference it would make for the lives of tenants.

Well, Speaker, the savings amounted to one tenth of a percentage point. That’s right. Thanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the average Ontario tenant household will have an extra loonie in their pocket every month. It’s true. The government’s big plan for affordable housing will save money and give somebody renting a typical two-bedroom apartment in Ontario $1 per month.

Times are tough, and I know people are counting pennies, so every little bit helps. But I have to tell you, since August, I haven’t had any tenants calling my office to say how much they appreciate the government’s efforts.

I have to give the minister credit. She’ll probably say I’m being a little too negative by saying tenants are only saving $1 a month, so I’m going to try to put a more positive spin on it, Speaker. It’s $12 a year; they get to save $12 a year. I hope that the government members realize I tried my best to put a positive spin on that for her. I hope she feels that it sounded a little better.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Is that before or after they put on the HST?

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, that’s a good question, to the member for Algoma–Manitoulin. In a few moments, I’m going to get to a good bill that you put forward, because certainly that dollar a month isn’t going to do anything to cover the cost of a tenant’s skyrocketing hydro bill.

I want to remind that under this government, hydro rates have been increased eight times since 2003—84%. If you were a family that had one of those smart meters, it was a 150% increase. Part of the reason for that increase in our hydro rates, as we all know, was the cost to cover the minimum $650 million under the government’s scandalous decision to cancel the power plants in Mississauga and Oakville, to save a few seats.

But, ironically, there was a bill that was passed in this Legislature that would have given those family budgets the relief they deserved on their hydro bill, and that was from the member for Algoma–Manitoulin. I had a great chat with him last evening at one of the receptions here. It was when, on November 24, the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic caucuses stood united to pass Bill 4, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, for the HST rebate on home heating.

With that famous vote of 54-50, we showed that residents of the province deserved a break on their HST, to improve their home heating costs. That’s the initiative, not Bill 19. That Bill 4 would have been the initiative to provide a relief for families. But it didn’t suit the government’s agenda. It did not suit the government’s agenda, so they committed that that bill would go nowhere, even though the will of the majority of members in this Legislature felt that it was a priority. It was a sad day for democracy in the province of Ontario.

My colleagues and I in the PC caucus, throughout the debate of Bill 19, talked about it as window dressing. I think the facts have borne that out, with that dollar-a-month increase that people were going to get. Only a government that was that adrift, in the face of so many housing issues, would have tabled Bill 19.

I have to quote something from the previous critic for our party: my friend, the former member for Burlington, Joyce Savoline. As critic for municipal affairs and housing for our party, one of her bold ideas that she talked about in this place was the creation of a housing benefit. It’s an idea that poverty advocates, a cross-section of the housing industry, as well as tenant and landlord organizations have supported.

We know the government has ruled out this idea. It hasn’t even been on their legislative agenda. But I think something like that, and a discussion about that type of initiative, would be good for the three parties to engage in. It’s really something that I think we should all turn our minds to, and it would be a much stronger piece of public policy to discuss.

To be fair, the government did take a shot at it. They created the ROOF program, rental opportunities for Ontario families. But they have a bit of a habit that they sometimes make criteria in these programs so restricted that—it really didn’t have the impact on families that it could have. Like the examples I cited earlier, this was another attempt for positive press, but again, it didn’t measure up to all the hype that it had before. Instead of working with the many groups interested in the idea of a housing benefit, the government went for a quick fix and a quick hit on the news cycles.

I want to refer the current minister to a report entitled A Housing Benefit for Ontario: One Housing Solution for a Poverty Reduction Strategy. I’m sure that the minister is familiar with the report. There were so many diverse groups that came together to produce it. They included the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, the Greater Toronto Apartment Association, the Daily Bread Food Bank, the Metcalf Foundation and the Atkinson Charitable Foundation.

The housing benefit can be a targeted solution, the temporary lending of a hand until the recipient’s economic circumstances improve. Again, if people know they don’t have to worry about having a roof over their heads, they can make better decisions about improving their prospects for the future. It’s really, I believe, an effective way to break the cycle of poverty, and I would really wish that we could engage in that type of debate.

Consider, too, that it would allow people to access some of the more than 20,000 vacant rental units that exist in Ontario right now, even as people are in a state of desperation for housing. We know this government has no plan that will get a sufficient number of new housing units built, so why not explore this approach and take advantage of some of the existing housing supply? As I said during debate on one of the previous government bills, I think it would show that the minister was serious about the housing problem, and I think there would be great potential for us to have a discussion on that strategy. We can do it without increasing spending by reallocating how funds are spent now.

The housing benefit study examined existing shelter support programs and found that they are inefficient, ineffective and, for too many Ontarians, nonexistent. Worse, the system is actually a disincentive for people trying to break the cycle of poverty by seeking employment. We all know that any income will trigger a loss of benefits and suddenly put them back in that unsustainable living situation.

As the housing benefit report stated, it examined—I just want to quote it for you now:

“Unpaid rent and its consequences also affect costs for governments and landlords. For landlords, the costs include: rent that they cannot recover; time spent filing applications with a housing tribunal; and time delays in finding new tenants. For government, there are administrative costs in dealing with eviction and in programs such as rent banks that provide temporary help to” those “in arrears. There are also the costs of legal aid and temporary shelters for those who are evicted for not paying their rent.”

Unfortunately, with this government lurching from crisis to crisis, from scandal to scandal—they’re too busy coming up with wedge bills or window dressing to deal with the problem. So I suspect that, like a lot of problems in Ontario, real change won’t come until we change the folks on the other side.

I spoke earlier about the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, which has been a champion for the reforms proposed in this bill that we’re debating today. The Ontario region of the CHFC was also the co-author of a report issued during the last provincial election campaign in September 2011. That report, entitled Where’s Home?, outlined the very real need for politicians to focus on creating new affordable housing spaces.

I’m enlightened to use some of the details in that report to measure the current minister’s performance. The need was particularly acute in the part of the province where I come from, in eastern Ontario. Vacancy rates in the region were among the lowest in the province—three times lower, in fact, than the 3% figure that’s considered a healthy retail housing market.

Harvey Cooper, who was here yesterday, of the CHFC, noted in a news release, “This year’s findings clearly demonstrate that the gap between homeowners’ and tenants’ incomes is growing ever wider and many Ontarians of low and modest means are struggling to find a home that they can afford ... I worry about families being forced to choose between paying for the necessities of life, putting food on the table and paying the rent.”

Twelve months later, thanks to this government continually opting to kick the can down the road rather than roll up their sleeves and get to work, the picture isn’t any better for households across the province. In fact, I’d argue that the situation has actually worsened. Equally disturbing is that the number of families that find themselves in such a desperate situation grows every single day.

That same report also notes that in order to keep up with the growing demand, Ontario needs to see 10,000 new affordable housing units built each year. Again, I want to ask the minister how much progress she is making on that aspect of the affordable housing problem. Put aside the spin and do-nothing bills like Bill 19, that she put up before. The statistics speak for themselves.

What we know is that there were 156,358 households waiting for affordable, rent-geared-to-income housing at the end of last year. This number has increased every single year for the past five years, and it rose 2.9% in 2011, on the heels of a staggering 7% increase in 2010. Sadly, the need cuts across all demographic groups, including the 56,130 families with children who are stuck on those waiting lists.

The latest report from ONPHA also underlines that there is a growing need for adequate housing for seniors. Twenty-five per cent of those on waiting lists are seniors.

As I stated, we need 10,000 new housing units every single year, to try to meet the need. This isn’t happening. As ONPHA clearly states in its report, “New affordable housing is not being built in sufficient quantity to meet the growing demand, and, in many cases, the rents for these units are not affordable to households on waiting lists without an additional subsidy.

“Municipalities now have responsibility for the planning and delivery of affordable housing options in their communities, and a local commitment to affordable housing is vital to addressing the shortage. But municipalities do not have the resources to do this alone.”

Strip away all the rhetoric from the affordable housing discussion, and we discover that on this watch of this government, waiting lists are growing every single year. In fact, the waiting list has grown by 26%, or over 32,000 households, since 2007, and the numbers are up across all individuals—families, seniors, single parents. In my riding, the waiting list for families alone is 500 people.

When we talk about the waiting lists, we need to understand how long they can be and how long it can take a family or an individual to get off of them. Overall, wait-lists can be as short as one month or as long as 10 years.

Looking at the average wait in 2011, we see the following: that seniors spent two and a half years on the waiting list; non-senior singles and couples, 3.4 years; families, 2.3 years. That’s far too long waiting for a safe and secure home, which we know is the foundation that everyone needs for a successful and fulfilling life.

It’s not going to change until this government gets serious about resolving the problem. Until then, we’ll be stuck in this terrible situation that we have now, where for every household that gets off the waiting list, three more get on.

While those on the waiting lists are clearly the men, women and children who are suffering the most, we know the problems don’t end there. Even those fortunate enough to have a roof over their heads are desperately struggling to hold things together. Provincially, we know that some 20% of tenant households spend more than 50% of their income on rent. Additionally 32% are in core need, meaning that their current accommodation fails to meet standards of adequacy, suitability and, of course, affordability. That 32% figure represents a staggering 630,000 households. It’s estimated that 1.5 million Canadians live in substandard housing today. Those are depressing numbers, Speaker.

When you look at the issue we’re debating here, people need to understand that the reality out there is far different than the picture that the government paints for us every day. Day after day, their members shuffle in here and take their seats over there and wait for their moment to stand up to defend the indefensible. Whether it’s the power plant scandal, our economy, our fiscal situation or our debate today on housing, the government members are all on their feet, telling Ontarians all is well. I think they’re in complete denial over there. Honestly, I have to wonder how we can continue with debates like we’re having today.

We need to have a different plan from the government on this file. We have a government that has run out of gas. They’re coasting, and we can see it every day. We look at their lack of engagement, their lack of debate on simple bills day after day. We all know, Speaker, that they have no plan over there. They’re lurching from one scandal, one crisis to the next, desperately doing whatever it takes to cling to power just that little bit longer.

Over the past week we’ve seen proof of it with the scandal, the mountains of documents that were given on the power plant scandal, thousands that were either redacted or completely whited out. The fact is that the power plant scandals affect every single bill we talk about. Look at Bill 65; think of the affordable housing that could have been created in this province with $650 million that was squandered for a political decision. It just shows this government’s complete mismanagement of the energy sector.

There must be a reason why successful Ministers of Housing have failed so completely when it comes to the critical issue of creating more housing stock. I think the real reason is the fact that this government can’t deliver. We need to start looking at the waiting lists, and we need to look at working across party lines.

It’s just utter mismanagement of the finances of this province that have put us in this area. There’s no money that this government is offering municipalities for making repairs to their rapidly deteriorating stock of social housing. The backlog of repairs now sits at $3 billion, and the government is still not offering sufficient funds.

I think all Ontarians recognize that this province is in a dire financial situation. I’m not really sure the average person would understand how dire it is. Take a look at Ontario’s annual operating deficit, the amount of money we spend in this province above what we take in; many people know that it’s about $13 billion. Now that’s bad, and people certainly expect better of their government. Let’s talk about just how bad it is. Consider this: Ontario’s 2011 deficit was actually twice as big as every other province combined. That definitely puts the McGuinty government in a league of its own.

It’s really quite an accomplishment, especially when, on their watch, they’ve actually seen government revenue increase by $35 billion annually.

The problem is that as good as this government is at taking money out of taxpayers’ pockets, unfortunately, they are even better at spending it. That’s why we’re taking in $35 billion more every year while this government is spending $45 billion more on an annual basis. You don’t need a degree in math to figure out that that’s not a sustainable way to run a government.

But they do add up to one thing for sure, and that’s the fact that Ontario, on this government’s watch, has become a have-not province. All that red ink doesn’t look bad on paper and doesn’t just give MPPs cause for concern; the citizens of Ontario need to understand that this has a real connection to the services that they care about. When we carry a huge deficit and a debt that’s on track to hit $411 billion, it’s a huge drain on the resources we have to put forward for things that we invest in, things like health, education and, of course, affordable housing.

Remember that the interest on the debt alone is $10.1 billion. That would make the ministry of debt servicing the third-largest portfolio after health and education. Certainly, one could do a lot for affordable housing with $10 billion, looking at the existing housing stock that municipalities have to deal with, and the fact that $3 billion of it is in desperate need of repairs. Every percentage point that we have a jump in interest rates adds $500 million in debt servicing costs. That’s crazy; that’s an unsustainable fiscal model that this government has put forward. They can’t continue to ignore it. They can’t continue to kick the can down the road.

We’ve all got ideas on what to do, and I’m sure that the third party, when they do their lead for Bill 65, will have a number of ideas that they want to put forward on how to add to the housing market.

I’m glad that Harvey’s here from the federation. Welcome back. I gave you another plug for your lobby day on October 17.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize the fact that they’ve done such a great job in doing their work. I mentioned earlier in debate that this bill coincides with the International Year of Cooperatives, as declared by the UN. I think it’s a great opportunity for us to celebrate and acknowledge the important role that co-ops play in so many aspects of our communities, including the housing sector. We know that there are some 1,300 different co-ops operating in Ontario today, serving their members and their communities well.

Indeed, as the UN slogan for the year states, “Cooperative Enterprises Build a Better World.” We can see so many examples of that on display every day across Ontario, in everything from housing to banking and agriculture. The UN Secretary-General observed the following: “Co-operatives are a reminder to the international community that it is possible to pursue both economic viability and social responsibility.” I suggest this is a particularly accurate description of the values we find at the core of co-op housing and why we need to ensure it remains a vital part of Ontario’s affordable housing strategy.

Again, I want to take this opportunity to commend the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. It was great to have representatives here in the House yesterday. Harvey is here, and I’m glad that he’s here. I hope that he has a chance to talk to some members about his organization, and as I mentioned in my brief remarks, I’m looking forward again to seeing them later on in October for their lobby day.

As we know, the UN declared 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives, and the co-op housing federation has done something special this year. They’ve declared 2012 to be the Year of Getting Management Right. Speaker, I can’t resist saying I wish that the McGuinty government would do the same, would do the same as what Harvey is talking about: getting the management right. Maybe they can get some advice from our friends from the federation when they come for a visit later this month. Ontarians would be a lot better off if the McGuinty government would get management of the province of Ontario right.

Dedicating a year like that, and their unwavering commitment to co-op housing residents, some 125,000 who live in the province, is commendable. I’m so impressed with the federation, while reviewing their website, to see a comprehensive tool kit that they’ve developed to help co-ops become 2020 co-ops. The plan sets out five standards required to become a good 2020 co-op: (1) a mission statement and a vision for the future; (2) good governance and a principled leadership; (3) sound management; (4) a long-term plan; and (5) a commitment to environmental sustainability.

I think anyone reviewing this tool kit will quickly see how forward-thinking and innovative our housing co-ops are. They’re committed to evolving in a way that ensures they will continue to serve the needs of their residents and meet the challenges posed by our changing economic and social climate. That ability to adapt is fundamental in any successful organization. And I wanted to make sure I took a few minutes while Harvey was here—I’m glad I saw him in the gallery—to compliment the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada for demonstrating such leadership.

Speaker, I found it a bit ironic, though, yesterday to hear in the debate both the minister and her parliamentary assistant looking for some support from this side of the House in their efforts to lobby the federal government for affordable housing funding. I have to say it’s a bit ironic, because Ontario municipalities have been telling the McGuinty government it needs to step up to the plate, that the McGuinty government should step up and do more for a long-term affordable housing plan that municipalities have in their lap.

Yesterday, we heard from the government, saying, “Hey, don’t blame us. It’s the folks in Ottawa whose fault it is.” We all know that this government made its plan—its plan—completely dependent on federal funding at a time when, I suggest, the feds were crystal clear that they were getting out of the business of housing.

If there’s one thing that I know about the McGuinty government, it’s that it’s pretty quick to throw a stone at the federal government whenever they want. I’m not just talking about in this Legislature, but also in question period. They blame the feds for not giving them the cash.

I’m sure, if anything goes wrong with the delivery of the housing plan, they’ll blame their municipal partners too, because we all know that the McGuinty government’s long-term affordable housing program puts the onus entirely—entirely—on Ontario’s municipalities to do all the heavy lifting. Municipal service managers are the ones working hard to develop the 10-year plans with objectives and targets. They even have to come up with a mechanism to measure their progress.

Now, I’m all for ensuring that municipalities have their voice, but this plan, the government’s plan, puts everything—everything—on the shoulders of municipalities and does so with no funds to offset the administration costs, let alone give them funding to have predictability in trying to meet those housing targets.

If there’s a government that needs to step up and do its job, it’s the McGuinty government that needs to step up. So with all due respect to the minister and the parliamentary assistant, the member for York West, I’m going to confine my lobbying efforts to the McGuinty government.

Just in closing, when we—

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a surprise? What? Again, you’ll have lots of opportunity to provide comments.

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m glad you’re so engaged today. I’m glad you’re so engaged.

When we measure growth in average weekly earnings across Canada, between March 2011 and March of this year, the results, I suggest, were nothing short of embarrassing for this province. Where did we finish? Dead last, 10th out of 10. Saskatchewan led the way with a 5.9% increase in weekly incomes. Nova Scotia was ninth at 2%. Ontario was basically stagnant, with a measly 0.1% monthly increase. That’s not the province that I’m from, Speaker. That’s not the province that I want us to be from.

We need to do better. We need to have a better plan. We’ve got essentially nothing from this government. They’ve failed. Their formula for success isn’t working for Ontarians, whether they want to own their home, whether they want to rent from a private landlord or whether they want to live in a non-profit housing co-operative.

The McGuinty government has had nine years to get it right, and instead of getting better, things are getting worse in the province of Ontario. We’re falling deeper into debt, and we’re continuing to lag behind the rest of Canada on just about every single economic measure you want to use.

I welcome Bill 65, and our party is going to support this piece of legislation. But this bill and our support for it don’t change the fact that Ontario is on the wrong track under this government. Only the Ontario PC Party has bold ideas that will get this province back on track.

Thank you, Speaker, for allowing me this wonderful hour to talk about Bill 65. I appreciate the opportunity.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I listened intently to the member’s lead-in on this bill, and I’m thrilled to hear the Conservatives talking about affordable housing. I’m not here to knock them. I’m here to congratulate them, because I think that effort needs to continue, and it needs to continue across this House. So don’t get me wrong on my statements: We all need to be talking about affordable housing.

I’d also like to welcome Harvey here on behalf of the government relations from co-ops.

The work that co-ops do in our province is so important. I know in Hamilton, I have some great co-ops, and they have wonderful initiatives. Being environmental—I have a co-op that has solar panels, high-efficiency furnaces, new floors, appliances—all of this coming from the great work that co-ops do. It’s initiatives like this that not only show concern for our environment, but it’s also generating income for them.

If we have initiatives like this going forward, that the government’s bringing, that are going to be saving co-ops money, then more co-ops across this province can be doing these initiatives because they’ll have more funds in their banks to be bringing initiatives forward like that.

I would like to congratulate the co-op in my riding that has just celebrated its 20th anniversary, and that would be Stoneworth Co-operative. I have many co-ops that I’m supportive of in our riding, but I’m looking forward to these changes coming forward. I know that we on this side of the House will definitely be supporting this.

We do have a little concern, though, I’d have to say, Mr. Speaker, and it’s about the appeals process. We would like to see that tenants would be able to use that appeals process also, not just landlords and the co-ops. We know that the tenants need to have a voice. The procedure, the way that’s set up through the co-op housing, is the backbone of it, and we’d like to see that continue. Thank you.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: This is truly a historic day. For the first time in 17 years, the Conservatives are talking about affordable housing. Let’s just deal with history. What is the first thing that Mike Harris did, before he even cut the welfare by 22%? He cancelled every affordable housing project, every affordable housing—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, I see someone’s touched a button. I believe that when I’m standing, you’re not talking, and I believe that goes for the member for Leeds–Grenville especially. He’s answering your presentation.

By the way, stop the clock.

I would suggest that we give the Attorney General an opportunity to respond. You may not like what he hears—but I can’t even hear him. Thank you.

Continue.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Mike Harris, for the record, cancelled every affordable housing project that was on the books then or ready to go, which cost this province and the taxpayers of this province millions and millions of dollars. Number two, the only consultation Mike Harris ever had—and he openly admitted it in the House here; he would always say, “We had our consultation on election day.” So let’s just remind them of that.

The last affordable housing program that we had in the province of Ontario was as a result of an agreement that I had the privilege to sign on behalf of my government in 2005, with the then federal government led by Paul Martin, for some $720 million worth of a joint affordable housing project that created over 10,000 units. Why has there been nothing built since then? Because the Harper government is not even interested in talking about affordable housing or putting up their half of the money, which is the way affordable housing has usually been financed. Yes, we need affordable housing.

I’ve been involved in this business for over 40 years at the municipal non-profit level. I’ve built non-profit projects etc. It’s great to see that in the Conservative Party, all of the Red Tories aren’t quite dead yet. Fight for this within your caucus, because it’s the first time in 17 years that we’ve heard any comments from the Conservatives about affordable housing at all. Welcome.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It’s my pleasure to say I support this bill. It’s a very worthwhile initiative. It’s trying to streamline the process of solving disputes among tenants and co-operatives. That’s a noble idea and makes great sense. It’s appalling to see that $1 million is spent on dispute-solving in courts, when something simple like this could be solved at the landlord-tenancy board.

It’s a pleasure to see that the government is so concerned about efficiencies and cost savings, when they were not too concerned about $650 million that was wasted recently and caused great turmoil and commotion in the House; it was such an unpleasant thing and a waste of time for all of us. We had Ornge scandals, we had eHealth etc.

I applaud the government on this great initiative. It’s going to help people. It would be nice if they went even a little bit further. There is a need for greater housing, as my colleague from Leeds–Grenville pointed out. Again, some of the $650 million that was wasted could have been spent that way to truly help people who are standing there in need, and that should have been done. I’ll close on those words, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I just want to say “great presentation” to the member for Leeds–Grenville. I, as well, enjoyed our discussions that we had last night. It was really nice to actually have that conversation with you, to get to know you, and I look forward to having those types of conversations with everybody in this House. We sometimes have different perceptions of what we think to what individuals actually do and how things are done in their riding. It’s nice to see that—again, I just want to say I appreciate the discussion that we had last night.

Again, I appreciate the support that the Conservative caucus gave to my private member’s bill, because removing the HST would actually be a very big savings for individuals back home. It would be a very big step forward in making life a little bit more affordable for them.

Now back to this bill: The one thing it does do is that it will improve the speed in regard to how these conflicts, these issues, these concerns get dealt with, and it’s going to provide an efficient resolution mechanism in order to do that. But by doing that, there are some fundamental problems that we need to really address, where this bill doesn’t do that, and that is providing actual affordable housing for individuals in Ontario. That is really the white elephant in this bill, that it doesn’t actually implement those things.

There are benefits to it, and I want to commend the Liberal government. This was one of their messages that they’ve been on record talking about since 2007. We’re in 2012. Why did it take five years to actually do something positive and get this going? I’m not sure. But I’m going to enjoy hearing the debate about this particular bill as we move forward.

There are benefits for individuals, organizations and the co-ops throughout this bill. I look forward to hearing the debate about that, and I look forward to presenting my comments to this bill.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain, the Attorney General, the member for Algoma–Manitoulin and also my eastern Ontario brother, the member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills. I want to thank you for your comments.

I was a little disappointed with the Attorney General—I have to be honest—with his comments. I’ve known him for years, and I just wish he wouldn’t focus on the past. I just wish he would focus on the future. Actually, I hoped he would stand up and basically denounce a casino in Kingston that would cripple the town of Gananoque. I hoped he would denounce that today in the House but, unfortunately, he didn’t.

I do want to thank the members for their comments. I honestly do believe that when we have a bill, even though it doesn’t create the new housing stock that is so desperately needed in the province, there should be some mechanism so that we can, in good faith, look at our proponents and be able to have a legislative agenda that we can actually tell them and be able to say that this bill has some political will, that we’ll be able to transcend, create committees, have some public hearings, deal with some amendments. And I appreciate that the New Democrats have got some ideas about some changes. I’m sure Ms. Forster, when she does her lead, will talk about that.

I think we have to have an adult discussion, at some point, regarding housing issues in the province. We’ve seen to date, with this bill—it’s a very minor consensus bill; everybody agrees. Bill 19 just didn’t cut it. I know I walked out this morning and saw a gentleman, Cal, who I see pretty regularly here at Queen’s Park. They need better out of this government. Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to once again welcome the family and friends of page Jenna Rutherford to Queen’s Park. In the gallery today are her mother, Carolynn Rutherford, and her aunts Marilynn VandenBorre and Lisa Pirie. With them are a number of Jenna’s friends from East Oxford Central Public School in Norwich township: Jolanda Laan, Abby Grass, Annet Laan, Kristy Langeveld, Joelle Sinnige, Sabine Sinnige, Melissa Sinnige and Emily Wilker. I want to welcome all of them to Queen’s Park and take this opportunity to thank Jenna for all her hard work in her tenure here at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Mr. Paul Street. He is the father of page Maggie Street from my wonderful riding of Mississauga–Erindale. Maggie is actually the captain of the pages today. I really want to extend him a very warm welcome.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I’d like to welcome to the west members’ gallery Elaine Fusciardi and Leo Fusciardi. They are the parents of my page from Thornhill, Roberto Fusciardi, who is the page captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m pleased to introduce Carol Anne Boothby, who is the mother of page Christina Boothby, who is joining us today. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to be here yesterday, but Chief Boothby, her grandfather and a former chief of police, was here as well, along with other members of the family. So we’re thrilled to have her mom with us today.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s my pleasure to recognize two guests from my riding of Durham, Mr. Mike Slocombe and a good friend of his, Mervyn Thomas, from London, England. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I would just like to recognize a birthday, Mr. Peter Tabuns’s, today, and to wish him a happy birthday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will pause for the rousing rendition of Happy Birthday—

Mr. Peter Tabuns: No! Rule it out of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome members of the Ontario Pharmacists’ Association here today. Billy Cheung is with us, the chair; and Dennis Darby, the CEO; along with other members of the Ontario Pharmacists’ Association board. They are at Queen’s Park today for their Queen’s Park Day. They’re hosting a reception at 5 o’clock in the dining room. Come say thank you to the pharmacists for the great work they do.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to also introduce the most trusted profession, voted continually, the pharmacists of Ontario. In particular, Phil Hauser is here visiting. He came to Queen’s Park earlier this year, and he’s back again. Thanks for coming, guys.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to welcome Marita Tonkin from my riding. She is the chief of pharmacy practice at the Hamilton Health Sciences and is here with the Ontario Pharmacists’ Association this morning. Welcome.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome from my riding of Sarnia–Lambton, Darryl Moore, past chairman of the OPA and the owner of a number of pharmacies in Sarnia–Lambton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to welcome Maria del Mar and Sarah Manninen, part of the ACTRA contingent visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine, Mike Cavanagh, who’s also a board member of the Ontario Pharmacists’ Association here with us today and co-owner of Kawartha Lakes Pharmasave in Lindsay, and he’s also a member of the City of Kawartha Lakes Family Health Team—a very busy man. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to introduce a pharmacist from my riding. His name is Carlo Berardi. He owns two pharmacies in Nickel Belt and is the vice-chair of the Ontario Pharmacists’ Association and is about to become the chair.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Actually, I’d like to correct the record for the member from Nickel Belt. Carlo Berardi—and we welcome him to Sudbury—is a constituent in the riding of Sudbury who owns businesses in Nickel Belt, and we would like to welcome him warmly to Queen’s Park. I look forward to meeting him this afternoon.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to recognize a very special constituent of mine, Peter Zakarow, on his 80th birthday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, I would like a point of order, please.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m standing, and I’m beating you to the punch.

Today, I would like to acknowledge a guest in the Speaker’s gallery, led by the member from Leeds–Grenville. We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from Russia visiting with MPPs. Leading the delegation is the Minister of Culture, Galina Syrovatka; the Minister of Industry and Energy, Oleg Polyakov; the Director of the State Establishment of Culture, Nikolay Syrovatka; and the rest of the delegation. We’re glad that you’re here with us today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Premier. Premier, in a ruling made by the Speaker on September 13, he told the Minister of Energy to provide all of the documents related to your government’s decision to cancel the Mississauga and Oakville power plants. Mr. Speaker, as you no doubt know, this House has yet to receive all of those documents.

Despite the Liberal House leader’s claim that “absolutely nothing was redacted,” the member from Nipissing has shown that page after page was blanked out or redacted. Will the Premier now obey the Speaker’s ruling and produce those documents so that the people of Ontario can find out what their $650-million purchase bought them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We’re going to have a chance—I know we’ll have a chance—at committee to address these issues, but the request by the committee and the ruling by the Speaker was worked on by ministry officials and the OPA. Thousands of documents have been provided. My understanding of the approach is that nothing relevant to the gas plant issues was taken out; it’s as simple as that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is directed back to the Premier. Premier, both you and the Minister of Energy are lawyers, and you know that if a court orders the production of documents, they have to be produced—period, no question. The Speaker’s ruling is no different; it’s clear and unequivocal. In the end, the Speaker stated that the minister had an obligation to comply with the committee’s call for these documents.

Premier, why have you abandoned your responsibility, both as a member of this House and as a lawyer, to comply with the rules of this House and comply with the order to report and produce all of the documents to the standing committee?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I know we’ll have a chance to discuss this and hear more at the committee, which this House has voted these issues go to. I know that the ministry and the Ontario Power Authority worked very hard to provide information—there are thousands of documents there—and they have done that.

This all stems from some very important issues and challenging issues about whether gas plants should proceed in Oakville and Mississauga. It was the position of all three parties in this House—all three parties in this House—that they should not. So we worked hard; we were able to obtain the relocation of those plants; we were able to obtain new agreements. I understand that the communities to which these plants are going are supportive of having these plants; they have energy expertise and they have workers prepared and ready to work.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again, I’ll address my question to the Premier. The order to disclose those documents could not be more clear, and that’s why the Minister of Energy has been found to be in contempt. You could have saved a good man’s career by taking responsibility for your actions and disclosing all the documents.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

That is not an appropriate comment, and I would ask the member to withdraw.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I withdraw.

Premier, you could have saved a good man’s career by taking responsibility for your actions. Premier, why did you decide to act in your own self-interest and throw the Minister of Energy under the bus? Why don’t you—

Interjections.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: —take responsibility for your own actions and not—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: So the House—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will respond to some individuals in a moment when I have attention.

We’re at a testy moment, and I believe that it’s a test of you, not me, as to whether or not you can withhold your personal comments. I did hear a few personal comments that I would offer a member to withdraw. At this time, I will continue, and now I’m moving into immediately—and I will be very quick to mention the individual by riding. I’d like to get through this.

I also want to make a point that’s very important: The committee has been struck, and questions relating directly to the mandate of the committee will be questioned by me first to give you an opportunity to rephrase, if that’s necessary, to government policy.

The committee has been struck. It is going to be charged with doing its job according to the motion, and I’ll listen carefully—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll finish my sentence: I’ll listen carefully to ensure that anything that should be directed to the committee will be directed to the committee.

Now we’ll finish by asking the Minister of Energy to respond.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Thank you, Speaker. I know the committee will have an opportunity to consider all of these issues. I know that the ministry and the OPA worked very hard on the documents. If there are specific issues about those documents, they’ll address that—they did that.

I think the point is that the documents relate to certain decisions that we made, and governments don’t always make easy decisions. Governments make decisions. We listened to the residents of Mississauga and Oakville. We made a decision not to proceed with gas plants in those two locations, two gas plants out of 17 that we’ve contracted. We made that decision. It happens to be a decision that was supported by both the PCs and the NDP, both of which had been very vocal in their position.

This government made a decision. This government—the cabinet, the caucus and the Premier—made this decision. We stand together on the decision. We always stand together to listen to the people that we’re elected to represent.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday in this Legislature, by a vote of 53-50, your government was held accountable for the politically motivated decisions to cancel two power plants. But to anyone watching yesterday’s events unfold, during your dog-and-pony show of a press conference and during question period, it was evident you don’t understand the severity of your actions. Not only have you failed to produce a complete set of documents, you have failed to answer questions as to why those documents were tampered with, choosing instead to let the blame fall on the energy minister and the photocopier.

You have had every opportunity to take responsibility for the political decisions that you made, decisions that left your cabinet in the dark and your energy minister to find out about your politically motivated decisions in the newspaper.

Premier, how do you expect us to believe your dramatic defence of the energy minister when it was you who put him in that position in the first place?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it’s hard for me to believe my ears. We begin with his question. Yesterday, yes, the House agreed that we should have a committee to look into this matter, and he has the gall to stand up here and talk as if the committee has held the hearings and the committee reached a conclusion. I think we should let the committee do its work. I think to stand up in the sort of spiteful, partisan way that he is and cast aspersions upon the Minister of Energy and other members of this crown and hold these hearings on the floor of the Legislature is beneath contempt.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this was a complex situation, as your ruling put forward. We had two competing interests. The Minister of Energy did his best, and now this Legislature will be looking into it via a committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, I don’t actually think they heard the question. I asked why the Premier put the Minister of Energy in that job in the first place.

Premier, as you spoke yesterday, it was clear for all Ontarians to see the regret in your eyes. You hung your energy minister out to dry until the eleventh hour before finally choosing to publicly support him. I’m appalled that the Premier would be so self-righteous as to stand in a press conference yesterday and pretend to defend Chris Bentley when he has been the Premier’s hand-picked fall guy from the moment he was handed the portfolio.

I’m appalled that this Premier would have the gall to accuse the opposition parties of playing politics when, for the past two years, he has done nothing but play politics, with over $640 million of taxpayer money squandered.

Premier, if you really cared about your minister, would you stand up and take responsibility for your mistakes rather than make your fall guy take the blame? Will you do that today, Premier?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, how dare he? The fact of the matter is, I come from a world where someone is innocent until proven guilty. This member is standing up here in the Legislature, he is presupposing the work of a committee, and he is casting aspersions upon an honourable member of this House, the Minister of Energy.

He fails in his question to make reference to the fact that this government came forward with a compromise position that would have seen this matter looked at by the committee in a way that was fair and reasonable. What he did was, he stood up and stifled debate by moving closure in this Legislature. He would not allow our members to speak, and he would not allow us to move that amendment so that it could have a proper airing here.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone needs to apologize, it’s that member for his attitude and for his approach.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: The government House leader is incorrect. I’m not casting aspersions on the energy minister; I’m casting them on the Premier.

Back to the Premier: You had every opportunity to step in months ago and take responsibility for this scandal on your poor energy minister. If the trembling in your voice and the concern on your face were sincere, it was because you buried a friend, a good man, in a political graveyard for your own selfish interests, and you realized it was far too late to save him.

You were faced with the choice of owning up to your actions and the actions of the Liberal campaign team. Instead, you decided that the minister’s political future was worth less than your political legacy. You pull the strings on that side of the aisle, Premier; you make the decisions. If you had told your minister to release the documents, I’m sure he would have.

So, Premier, if you mean what you said yesterday, will you stand up and tell this Legislature that the energy minister was your fall guy and take responsibility for your selfish actions?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, over and over we came forward with a way to compromise, a way to co-operate, a way to make sure the documents were released, that they didn’t jeopardize issues like solicitor-client privilege and commercial confidences. We came forward to this Legislature with an amendment to the motion which would have allowed for a reasonable charge to the committee to look into some very important issues about balancing public interest as well as the right of committees to see documents.

And all this opposition did, not only this party but the New Democratic Party, was basically tell us to go fly a kite. They stand in this place and they say that honourable members of this House are guilty until proven innocent.

I think they have some apologizing to do to this Legislature, to the Minister of Energy and to the people of Ontario.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier asked for sympathy for his government as they faced a public shaming over the private power mess that they created in Oakville and Mississauga. I think the question on most people’s minds is a pretty simple one: Has the Premier considered showing some sympathy for the families who will be paying the higher electricity bills as a result of their decisions?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Families are first and foremost in our mind all the time. Businesses are important as well, because they employ those families. And we’ll remember where we were in 2001, 2002, 2003 and, unfortunately, on the edge of our seats for several years after. We had brownouts, we had a blackout; we had a system that wasn’t a reliable system. Businesses were regularly asked to turn down their power use, throwing people out of work.

We’ve worked really hard over the past nine years to build a reliable system, to bring on the generation we need, so that when we had the hottest five months in Ontario’s history, Ontario had enough power. It was reliable and it was almost entirely green.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary question?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, families are now paying the highest electricity bills in the country, and they’re wondering when they’ll get some sympathy from a government that’s treated Ontario’s electricity system like an extension of their campaign machine. People deserve answers, and they, like the Premier, know that the energy minister isn’t the only one to blame.

Is the Premier of this province ready to show some leadership, accept some responsibility for these decisions and apologize to the people of Ontario, who will now be stuck paying even higher electricity bills?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I want to thank the NDP for their support on clean air. I know they know, as we all know, that burning coal, which was 25% of our energy use in 2003, not only caused thousands of illnesses but had a $4-billion burden on our health care system paid by taxpayers. That should factor in. I know they know that the billions of dollars of debt accumulated by Ontario Hydro over the years was because the system had very expensive power, which was being paid for by taxpayers’ families as well as ratepayers.

We’ve worked hard over the years to have reliable power, to have enough power. We brought in the clean energy benefit and we’ll continue to have reliance and regard for families and businesses that have to pay the bills and make sure they get the clean energy that they need.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Completing my first series of questions to the Premier, Speaker: He likes to talk about making the tough decisions, this Premier does, but last year, he made the cynical ones and families are now paying the price. People are frustrated that the same government that tells them that times are tough, that tells them that money is tight, that tells them that they understand the struggle to pay the bills, was willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and hand it over to private power interests just to win a couple of seats.

If the Premier wants to protect the integrity of his energy minister, he can now show some leadership as the Premier of this province, step forward and take responsibility for this mess. Will he do that?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We’ve been very clear on this. In the case of Oakville and Mississauga, we listened to the residents. Could we have done a better job of getting the siting right in the first place? Absolutely—bringing together at an earlier stage the willing community and the needs of the electricity system. These were two of 17 gas plants of different sizes that we’ve sited.

But for the NDP to ascribe the motives to the decision makes one ask what their motives were for supporting the decision in the first place. I don’t do that, but it makes one wonder what their motives were, because they supported that decision. The party opposite supported that decision.

I think we should all join together that the reason we supported the decision was that we listened to the residents, the people who elect us, determined it wasn’t the right place for the plant, and worked hard to relocate it. That was our determination; it was the right decision.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is more about the needs of the Liberal Party than it is about the needs of the electricity system.

My next question is to the Premier. As the Premier well knows, yesterday’s vote was to allow the finance committee to find out the real costs of the politically motivated cancellation of the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants. This will give the Premier a chance to make it clear who made the decisions and where the responsibility actually lies. Is the Premier going to be willing to tell his side of the story if the committee actually asks him to do so?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I have every confidence that the Chair of the committee and the members of the committee will organize themselves. The committee will begin hearings, as outlined in the standing order. I’m going to let the committee undertake its work and decide how they want to examine this issue.

Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the third party wants to talk about stifling debate and wants to talk about discussion on this matter, then maybe she should stand in the House in her supplementary and explain why they voted against their principles on closure when they knew that we had dozens of members who wanted to speak on this issue, and, more importantly, a matter which I had made public and shared with her House leader, an amendment that we wanted to bring forward, which would have focused the committee’s work and would have allowed it to come forward with the types of recommendations that would be of value to this Legislature and of value to committees as we move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the people who pay the bills in this province want to have some answers, and it’s clear that the Premier is the one who should be providing them. Documents released from the Ontario Power Authority, the OPA, make it clear that the Premier’s office was controlling all aspects of what was supposed to be an arm’s-length decision. Is the Premier ready to tell the people of this province, the people who pay the bills, that the responsibility was his for this decision?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, it’s always fun to go down memory lane here.

The leader of the third party, Hansard, October 18, 2010: “New Democrats actually have thought for a long time that that plant should never have been built and we’ve said so.”

The member for Toronto–Danforth told Inside Halton: “I don’t agree with the Oakville power plant; I don’t think it’s necessary.”

The member for Beaches–East York, December 2: “I’m glad that the people of Oakville came to their senses. I’m glad the people of Oakville hired Erin Brockovich and did all the things that they did in order to have this killed.”

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, all three parties agreed that these two gas plants should not go forward. The issue before committee, Mr. Speaker, was balancing the public interest, the taxpayers’ interest, with the rights of committee to see documents. That was the amendment that we put forward and that was the amendment that she and her colleagues stifled so that we could not have proper debate here in the Ontario Legislature.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, here’s what people tell me is frustrating them. The government that promised to take the politics out of electricity and lower their rates is cutting sweetheart deals with private power companies that leave them paying the highest electricity costs in the entire country. The Premier, who promised—in fact, keeps promising—to make the tough decisions, is avoiding responsibility for a mess that he created. Is he ready to show some leadership and take some responsibility for this mess so that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, this is a little rich, coming from a party that itself has absolutely no energy plan. The fact of the matter is that all three parties in this Legislature were in agreement that the Oakville and Mississauga plants were a mistake. We’ve admitted that it was a mistake. We cancelled those plants. The minister went before the estimates committee and, as you yourself have ruled, there was a very complex matter: a balance between the public and the taxpayers’ interests and the rights of committees to see documents.

The upshot of that, Mr. Speaker, was compromise after compromise that we put on the table in order to address this issue, and we were told by the opposition parties they had no interest in it. They had no interest in protecting the rights of taxpayers.

Now the matter will be looked at by a committee of this Legislature. I think we should allow the committee to look into the matter and to conduct its affairs and report back, and not prejudge what it’s going to find.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. Even yesterday the Premier was willing to support part of the motion that was before this House, and that was that a committee should be struck to look into this scandal. He just avoided answering a question, a very straightforward question, from the leader of the third party: Will he agree to appear before that committee to answer for his actions regarding the decisions relating to this scandal?

The Premier refused to appear before the standing committee investigating the Ornge scandal, on two different occasions. I would like to know now from the Premier: Will he stand in his place, agree that he will appear before the finance committee and take responsibility for his role in this scandal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: You know, Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the opposition has been nothing short of outrageous. The fact of the matter is that we have a committee of the Legislature, which only recently—less than 24 hours ago—has been charged to look into this matter. I think we should allow the committee to do its work. I also think that we should not prejudge what that committee is going to do or find.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, look at some of the things that have come from across the way. The member for Simcoe–Grey asked the Minister of Energy, “Why are you risking it all—your political career, your legal career, your integrity…?” The member from Simcoe–Grey, in this House, talked about “the public shaming they have already received” about breaking the law.

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. Let us allow the committee to do its work. To stand in this House and prejudge the work of the committee and to tarnish the name of the Minister of Energy is, quite frankly, unacceptable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, since when is it outrageous for a parliamentary committee to expect a Premier to answer for his actions?

I’d like to read from the Premier’s own words yesterday: “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”—these were the Premier’s words. Well, I say no Premier has ever left such a legacy of disrespect for the legislative process; the obstruction of justice; disrespect for this Legislature—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Frank Klees: I will ask now: Will he admit that he is at the centre of this scandal—

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, he wants to stand up and talk about disrespect. The fact of the matter is, this was a very important motion that was debated by this Legislature. I gave full notice to all members of this House that our party wished to put forward an amendment which would charge the committee to come forward with recommendations that would be important—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’ll withdraw.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, we came forward with an amendment which would allow a legislative committee of this Legislature to come forward with recommendations that would help all parties function when it came to balancing the public interest and the committee’s rights to have documents. We told every member of the House that we wanted to proceed with that, and he and his party stood up and moved closure. They stifled debate in this House. They would not allow us to even move this amendment. And he talks about disrespect.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. The Premier’s principal secretary, one of his closest personal advisers, is shown throughout the gas plant documents participating in meetings and steering the ship, but there isn’t a single email from him.

When the former principal secretary is asked to testify, will he tell Ontarians how much money the Premier’s office was comfortable wasting on the decision to cancel the Oakville power plant?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We have a committee and the committee has a mandate, and I would hope that the committee will do its work. I would expect they would do their work.

There is a lot of discussion in this House about the gas plants, about not proceeding with gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville, a decision that both the NDP and the Tories supported. In fact, they were out making a lot of their decision and their determination.

But once you decide not to proceed with the gas plants, everybody knows there’s going to be a cost. Everybody knows, because they both won contracts through a competitive process. We worked hard to negotiate a relocation. We obtained a relocation to willing communities and they will provide electricity to the people of Ontario. That’s what we’re supposed to do once you make the tough decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, it’s not good for the reputation of this Legislature for you to ignore questions and pass them along, questions related directly to your office.

The Premier’s personal policy adviser on energy is also shown throughout the documents participating in meetings and working with the Premier’s principal secretary on the gas plants file, but again, all his emails are missing.

Did the Premier’s personal policy adviser tell the Premier how much it would cost to cancel the Oakville gas plant?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Let’s be very clear: The memorandum of agreement speaks to the cost. The memorandum of agreement and the result of the negotiations—very hard negotiations that we were very worried about if all the documents were public—were concluded on Monday morning, and we know that the cost of it is $40 million.

We know that there’s an agreement for the same 900-megawatt gas plant to go to Lennox, where there’s already an oil- and gas-fired facility, and we know that the net revenue requirement is lower. The cost they’ll get for the electricity in the future is lower because of the consideration of the turbines that had already been purchased. That’s the agreement. That’s the cost. That’s where we are.

PHARMACISTS

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario families are busier than ever, and between work and family commitments, the average family leads a “just-in-time” life. That’s what I would call it. And when a loved one is not well, families rely on their pharmacists to provide them with more than just important medications, but also health care advice when they need it.

Speaker, through you to the minister: How are we ensuring that pharmacists who work so close to home in our communities are best able to provide Ontarians with the help that they need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our government recognizes—indeed we celebrate—the role that pharmacists play as full members of our health care team. The enhancements to the practice of pharmacy we’ve achieved so far would not have been possible without our valued Ontario Pharmacists’ Association partners, and we welcome them today to this Legislature.

In 2007, we launched the first professional pharmacy service, the MedsCheck program, and that allows pharmacists to ensure that patients are taking the right medication in the right dose at the right time.

I’m sure the members opposite would like to know what more pharmacists are doing, Speaker. In 2010, as a result of drug system reforms, our government invested an additional $100 million a year in funding towards more professional pharmacy services.

Speaker, optimizing the role of pharmacists in our health care system is an important part of our plan to improve health care for Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: All of us rely on the advice of local pharmacists to make basic health care decisions, especially when our children are sick or when our parents are using multiple medications. I know that I rely on my pharmacist for advice.

Speaker, through you to the minister: What’s being done to maximize the potential for pharmacists in the health care system so that Ontarians can get the greatest benefit out of their pharmacist’s skills and out of their training?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, an important part of the government’s action plan for health care is our commitment to better utilize regulated health professionals so they can practice to their full scope of practice. That gives Ontarians better access to better care. It improves the services patients get. They get more timely access to the care that they need. In particular, patients in underserviced communities benefit from having expanded access to new and improved health care services.

Every day, about 220,000 Ontarians visit a community pharmacy. They’re highly accessible to Ontarians. They’re often available in the evenings and on the weekends. In recent decades, the scope of practice of pharmacy has evolved from a model based on filling prescriptions to a model based on using all of their education, their wealth of knowledge to provide better care for people.

I’m committed to working with our pharmacists to optimize their role in our health care system by further expanding their scope of practice. I hope to have more to say about this soon.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Your government has made some very poor choices recently with Ontario taxpayer dollars. You had a choice of whether or not to build power plants in Mississauga and Oakville, and you chose to build. When it became clear that you were going to lose seats in the last election in Mississauga and Oakville, you had a choice. You could have risked losing seats or you could have thrown a Hail Mary pass for your campaign team to cancel the power plants. You chose winning seats.

And when this Legislature asked for all the documents about your campaign team’s decision to withhold and cancel the power plant, you had a choice: either comply with the Speaker’s orders or withhold important documents this assembly asked for. You chose to withhold some very important documents. These are all choices you made, bad choices, costly choices.

The question is very clear. They’re very clear. Will the Premier testify at the committee and explain his role in the $650-million scandal?

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Or will he choose to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I remind the members that when I say “thank you,” that’s the end.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: First of all, I disagree totally with the premise of the honourable member’s question, and I think it’s important that we go back to the history of this issue. The fact of the matter is, the Minister of Energy appeared in front of the estimates committee. Requests were made for certain documents and the Minister of Energy rightly pointed out that there were competing interests here. We had the interests of solicitor-client privilege, something that is protected by the Constitution of Canada. We also had sensitive commercial matters because there were transactions going on, and we also, on the other hand, had the right of committees to ask for documents.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent the last several months trying to balance those interests. The fact is that I went forward to that honourable member’s party, as well as the New Democratic Party, with a series of compromises to try to balance those interests, as well as charging the committee that has been—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The only interests they’ve been trying to balance are their own political interests, Speaker. He’d better start telling the truth, because that’s exactly what they’re doing with taxpayer dollars.

This Premier knows Ontarians are angry—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think the member will withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

They’ve lost all perspective, Speaker. The people of Ontario are angry. They’re asking for us to not only have a contempt motion, but they want us to have a confidence motion, because they don’t believe them anymore.

If they can’t have perspective, let me help them, Speaker. If they can’t tell what $650 million could buy for people in Ontario, let me help them out here. Just for five extra seats in this assembly, this is what they could have spent their $650 million on: They could have spent on schools that are needed in high-growth areas like Ottawa, Mississauga, Brampton, and Oakville. They could have kept rural schools open in Peterborough, in Kingston, in Blyth, or they could have bought textbooks for students. The so-called education Premier chose to put his campaign team first rather than Ontario students.

So my question is back to the Premier—the education Premier: How can he look at himself in the mirror after having made this decision? How could he have done this at the expense of tomorrow’s leaders in this province?

Hon. John Milloy: I would have thought by this point that that honourable member would have learned that theatrics and yelling don’t make anything more believable. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the party of Bill Davis, when I look at the party of Norm Sterling—if you want to talk about being thrown under the bus—I think it’s actually quite embarrassing.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me share with the honourable member what the leader of the official opposition said on September 25, 2011: “We’ve opposed these projects in Oakville and Mississauga.” The member from Halton: “I was pleased when” the Oakville plant “was cancelled.” The member from Halton, in a press release: “Minister, will you move the Oakville power plant? ... I am asking the minister to consider moving this plant.” The member from Haldimand–Norfolk wrote the former 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 facts speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker. Every party in this House wanted the cancellation of that plant, and it’s time that the honourable member acknowledged that fact.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I will try again to ask the Premier a question; we will see if we get an answer.

According to the documents, it appears that the Oakville gas plant was cancelled without the input of the Minister of Energy. In fact, we hear that TransCanada “nearly blew a gasket” when they found out the minister knew nothing about the backroom negotiations. So if it wasn’t the minister’s office, who made the decision to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on the Oakville gas plant cancellation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, notwithstanding—

Applause.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Thank you.

I appreciate the support here today, as I do appreciate the support that both opposition parties offered in the strongest fashion with respect to the relocation of these gas plants. Once again I want to thank them. This was a difficult decision, but knowing that we had unanimity in this regard, knowing that we had both opposition parties standing four-square with us in our decision to relocate these plants, made it a little bit simpler.

One of the things I’m looking forward to from the committee—because we provided full disclosure with respect to our costing—is, we’re wondering how much it is that the NDP budgeted for the relocation and how much the official opposition budgeted for the relocation. We look forward to getting that information as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: In October 2010, the Minister of Energy said, “As we’re putting together an update to our long-term energy plan, it has become clear we no longer need this plant in Oakville.” Yet we know that in a meeting which included the Premier’s principal secretary and the Premier’s energy adviser, the decision was made by five people—no public servants. It’s clear these five people did not include the energy minister and did not include public servants who put together the energy plan.

Can the Premier tell Ontarians who amongst his staff made the decision to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on the cancellation of the Oakville plant?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the interest shown in these matters, Speaker, but that’s exactly why we have a committee, and I think we should let the committee do its work.

But, again, one of the things I would recommend to the committee, given the strong and unanimous support that we shared among all three parties for the relocation of these gas plants, given that the government side has provided full disclosure with respect to our costing, and in fact actual costs, it would be good to know how much the official opposition and the NDP budgeted with respect to the costing for the relocation of these plants. We all agreed that it was important and in the public interest that we relocate these plants.

We did the work with respect to costing, but I think the public deserves to know how much exactly both opposition parties set aside in terms of costing for relocating these plants.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, the week before Thanksgiving is designated as Agriculture Week in Ontario, which means that this year it will run from October 1 to 7. I know that agriculture is important to this province as a whole, as well as my riding of Peterborough.

I want to recognize Mr. Steve Brackenridge, the president of the Peterborough County Federation of Agriculture, and his board for the great job they do to promote agriculture in Peterborough. For example, agri-food is a major contributor to Ontario’s gross national product, with Quaker, Tropicana, Gatorade and PepsiCo Foods in Peterborough being good examples.

Ontario farmers produce more than 200 agricultural commodities, the agri-food industry employs more than 700,000 people and Ontario’s agri-food exports are growing at $9.9 billion.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister inform this House how the government is going to acknowledge Agriculture Week in Ontario?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member for his question, and I know all the farmers in the great riding of Peterborough appreciate his ongoing advocacy. He gets it.

I think those farmers would also want to know that since 2003, the McGuinty government has invested more than $100 million to support local, fresh Ontario food initiatives and to encourage local organizations and businesses to promote and carry Ontario food products.

As Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I’ve been doing a number of events this week to celebrate local food, starting with opening my own Ancaster Fair in Ancaster; then, on Monday, to a visit Lindley’s Farm, as well as the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers trade show; a trip to Everdale farm yesterday, urban farming, farming in the city; and Flowers Canada AGM last night; and to cap it all off—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: That was a great response. It was a great harvest of information.

I believe Agriculture Week is important, not just for farmers but for all citizens of Peterborough riding. With Agriculture Week being the week before Thanksgiving, it’s a great opportunity for everyone to reflect on the importance of agriculture—farmers feed cities—and to celebrate farmers and their great contribution to Ontario’s economy.

Speaker, through you once again to the minister, what can the people of my riding celebrate about Agriculture Week?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: This is a great time to appreciate those who produce food in this great province of ours. I encourage everyone to support our agri-food industry and to buy more of the good things that grow in Ontario. Look for the Foodland Ontario label, shop at one of our more than 200 farm markets, and enjoy a visit to a local farm. Local fare is available at a lot of dining establishments. Look for it.

Choose Ontario wines or craft beer to complement your next meal and, of course, as Canada Flowers said last night, brighten up your table with some bright Canadian flowers.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to note that if we could get Ontario families to shift, not spend more but shift, $10 a week in their buying habits towards buying local produce, we could increase the GDP $2.4 million and create 10,000 new jobs.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Premier. Premier, we have heard in this House from your finance minister that your Liberal re-election campaign team was behind the decision to nix the Mississauga gas plant, and yet you allowed your energy minister to take the fall for this scandalous waste and seat-saver decision. But, Premier, we have yet to hear you apologize for throwing a senior minister under the bus. In fact, we have yet to hear any of your caucus apologize to hard-working Ontarians for wasting $650 million to save your political skin and Liberal seats.

Premier, how do you intend to explain to the people of my riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound that you wasted $650 million to save four Liberal seats but have no money for something as essential as a hospital in Markdale that you twice promised to build?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the budget plan we’ve laid out and all of the public accounts with respect to this have been tabled with the people. They’ve been audited by the Auditor General. We look forward to the committee’s exploration of these important matters as we move forward. We will continue to provide full disclosure, as we have. I’ll remind the member opposite that the numbers associated with Mississauga were fully disclosed to public accounts. Those public accounts were signed off on by the Auditor General.

I’d also remind the member that, as we move forward through committee, we will look forward to having the opportunity to discuss these and other matters, matters that are important to jobs in this province, the kinds of jobs that we need in this province, because that, at the end of the day, is what all Ontarians are interested in hearing us debate—not this stuff, Mr. Speaker. They’re interested in jobs. They’re interested in a growing economy. The plan we’ve laid out is the right plan for a brighter future for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Bill Walker: To the Premier again: The reality is that folks in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and across this great province will go without a new hospital, without MRIs, without CT scans, hip replacement, cancer treatment and cataract surgery because you wasted $650 million. Your government is now synonymous with the most shockingly vile scandals in the history of the province, from eHealth to Ornge to nixed gas plants. Your principal victims are Ontario taxpayers, who sacrifice, work hard and entrust you with their money. What kind of Premier allows $650 million worth of political interference over new community hospitals?

Premier, will you keep defending your scandal-plagued legacy or fess up and apologize to the communities that go without new hospitals and essential health services as a result of these scandals under your watch?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it’s interesting. Prior to the election, they said to cancel those gas plants, and then they didn’t put any numbers in their own documents to account for that. What we do know about their plan is that Don Drummond and others pointed out that they did not have enough revenue built in to meet their targets. What we do know is that they have no plan for jobs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You asked the question. Listen to the answer.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They want to continue to cut taxes further for corporations instead of moving back to balance, instead of making the important investments we need to make in education and health care.

We reject their ideas, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to offer constructive plans to build a better future with better schools and health care for all Ontarians. That’s what we’re about. It’s about jobs. It’s about the economy, not about this kind of petty questioning that ought to be dealt with in committee in an appropriate fashion, where the government will defend the decisions—

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

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of Health. In May, when asked about approving changes to hospital services in Niagara, the minister said, “We really need to hear from the community before we can recommend anything.”

In Dr. Smith’s poll, the Pollara poll—he’s the government-appointed supervisor—the communities of Welland, Port Colborne, Niagara Falls and Fort Erie indicated that they want hospital services to remain in their communities. I did a health survey this summer as well, to every household in my riding, and the results are equally clear, Minister. My constituents want access to health closer to their homes. Will the minister listen now that communities have spoken?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. I do want to start by saying thank you to Dr. Kevin Smith for going in, as supervisor, to the Niagara Health System. I think he has done, by all accounts, and certainly in my opinion, a superb job in getting the Niagara Health System back on track, for listening very, very carefully to what communities have told him. He has submitted a report. It’s a report that I’m reviewing carefully.

I do think it’s important that we always keep our eye on what is best for the patients, what is best for the people of Niagara—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do understand that there is not unanimity in Niagara—I gather there hasn’t been, and I’m hopeful that there will be a common understanding of what we need to do to move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: My constituents have started to hear about a reckless plan that will slowly remove services from the Welland hospital. This spring—this coming spring, Minister—we’re about to lose in-patient mental health services, we’re about to lose children’s health, we’re about to lose maternity services and we’re about to lose in-patient women’s health issues. This will be felt in our hospital and it will be felt in our community.

So, in spite of no official decision being made yet to shut down the Welland hospital, it is death by a thousand cuts. Is this minister prepared to assure the people of the Welland riding that access to our health care will remain safe?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Dr. Smith has done a very thorough review of services available throughout the Niagara Health System. He has given us some very good advice in his report. We are reviewing those recommendations carefully.

I had the honour of actually visiting the Niagara area recently. I saw first-hand the construction of the St. Catharines hospital. I also visited a hospital in Niagara Falls.

I know how important health care is to all of the people of Ontario and in the Niagara area. We will be guided by one issue only, the one question only: What is the best thing we can do to provide the best possible care to the people of Niagara?

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Today I’ve got a question for the Minister of Economic Development. Research In Motion has been in the news recently, and I’m sure we’re all familiar with the challenges they’re facing as a company. RIM has helped create a lot of talent in Ontario; they’ve had a tremendous effect on the information and communications technology sector. Their success has led to increased success in the sector overall. Many Ontarians are employed in this sector, and they want to know how the sector is performing as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation: Can the minister please tell us how the ICT sector is performing in Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member’s absolutely right. Our information technology communication sector—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew will come to order; it’s the second time.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yeah, yeah. Something tells me you don’t listen to me.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m not sure what’s so partisan about great news in the information and communications technology sector but, Mr. Speaker, this is good news. Ontario’s ICT sector is now ranked second in North America when it comes to jobs, next to California. We’re the third-largest cluster in North America. Ontario accounts for almost half of all of Canada’s total employment in this sector, and we manufacture close to half of the products in that area as well, which is great news.

The ICT sector contributed $28.4 billion to Ontario’s economy in 2011—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: —and more than 270,000 Ontarians are working in this sector today. We’re very pleased and we’re very proud of the commitment that we’ve made to g