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

October 4, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Oct-04 (PDF)

L089 - Thu 4 Oct 2012 / Jeu 4 oct 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 4 October 2012 Jeudi 4 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

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

IMMIGRANTS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MINISTRY SPENDING

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PAUL HENDERSON

PETER PAVLOVSKI

AGRICULTURE WEEK

HUMAN RIGHTS IN TIBET

WORLD TEACHERS’ DAY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ATHLETIC FACILITIES

BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L’ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (TROUBLE

DE STRESS POST-TRAUMATIQUE)

PROMOTING LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR LA PROMOTION

DES ALIMENTS LOCAUX

ENHANCING RED LIGHT CAMERA

SYSTEM ENFORCEMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 RENFORÇANT

LES MESURES D’EXÉCUTION À L’ÉGARD

DU SYSTÈME PHOTOGRAPHIQUE

RELIÉ AUX FEUX ROUGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PRODUCE

SMALL BUSINESS MONTH

ONTARIO PRODUCE

SMALL BUSINESS MONTH

SMALL BUSINESS MONTH

ONTARIO PRODUCE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

WIRELESS SERVICE AGREEMENTS

WIND TURBINES

UTILITY TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

FAMILY SAFETY

POWER PLANTS

DOG OWNERSHIP

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FIRST RESPONDERS DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE JOUR

DES PREMIERS INTERVENANTS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS

PROTECTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RÉGIMES ENREGISTRÉS D’ÉPARGNE

EN VUE DE LA RETRAITE

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’OMBUDSMAN

(SOCIÉTÉS D’AIDE À L’ENFANCE)

FIRST RESPONDERS DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE JOUR

DES PREMIERS INTERVENANTS

REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS

PROTECTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RÉGIMES ENREGISTRÉS D’ÉPARGNE

EN VUE DE LA RETRAITE

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’OMBUDSMAN

(SOCIÉTÉS D’AIDE À L’ENFANCE)

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 3, 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?

Ms. Cindy Forster: On April 16, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing moved first reading of Bill 65, the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012. I’m pleased to be here today to speak on behalf of the New Democrats and our leader, Andrea Horwath, and I want to acknowledge that Harvey Cooper and Dale Reagan, our colleagues from the co-op federation, are in the gallery for the third hour of debate.

I’m going to spend some time talking about the bill, but I’m also going to spend some time talking about people in our community, people who live in co-ops, problem areas in affordable housing and the other, kind of, pitfalls around the whole housing strategy.

The purpose of the bill is pretty narrow: Its purpose is actually to deal with tenant disputes—evictions—in a way that is more cost-effective and quicker, that actually saves co-ops money, that saves tenants money and that moves the process through the system. Every other sector of housing in this province, with the exception of the co-op housing sector, actually uses the tribunal process through the Landlord and Tenant Board. So the bill will actually move them into this process as well.

This bill is a long time coming. It’s been since 2004 that the co-ops have been lobbying to have this bill introduced. There may be some amendments that are needed, but certainly we will have consultation with the stakeholders around those areas.

The benefits of the bill are that the tribunal system would be fairer and less costly for the co-ops. The fee is very modest compared to the lawyers’ fees and court costs they currently incur, and it would reduce losses when members are not actually paying their rent as they’re going through the rent arrears process. Co-op members, of course, wouldn’t have to hire a lawyer. Many times they don’t qualify for legal aid, and so they would actually be able to have a faster, less costly process as well. And there are also benefits for the wider public.

The public cost of administering co-op evictions will be reduced, and the hearings that were really unnecessary in the courts will reduce the backlogs in the court system, so then we’ll actually be able to get real issues back into the courts and the wait-lists there will decrease.

As I said, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada’s Ontario region submitted a substantial brief to the province back in 2004. That’s why we’re finally here today, many years—eight years—later.

In my area in Niagara, I had an opportunity to speak to Betty Ann Baker. Betty Ann is actually the CEO of Niagara Peninsula Homes. It is a non-profit agency that manages co-ops and other not-for-profit agencies—it consults for rental agencies. In my discussions with Betty Ann, she told me that she had a case out of one of the co-ops in my area where the court costs at the end of the day were actually $49,000, an outrageous amount of money. I’m told there has even been one case in the system that cost $100,000.

So the average cost is between $4,000 and $6,000, but $49,000 is really a useless expense just to evict someone from a housing unit. I think the public interest will really be served by using the tribunal system.

The United Nations actually declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives, and nothing could be more fitting for the 125,000 Ontarians who make co-operative housing their homes than for Queen’s Park—all parties—to resolve this long-standing issue; there are about 500,000 people across Canada who actually live in co-ops. I’m sure there will be all-party support for this bill to provide members and co-ops with the same access to this dispute resolution process at the tribunal that others have enjoyed for at least 15 years.

I want to talk a bit now about the overburdened court system in Welland, which probably is mimicked across the province. I often hear in my constituency office about how the court system is struggling. If anyone knows about the struggles, it’s the judges and the lawyers and our constituents who actually try to get access to the courts. I often hear from families, around the Family Responsibility Office, that can’t even get to work on a file because it hasn’t left the courts here in the province because of the backlogs, or how civil cases are delayed and payments are on hold because of burden costs.

I hear from lawyers, as well, who are handling child protection matters. The court is so backlogged that they can’t resolve these important family matters because the courts are overburdened with issues that don’t need to be there any longer. The lawyers, of course, are as frustrated as their clients. There are many reasons for this breakdown. In fact, the Auditor General, in his report in 2010, made a number of recommendations. One of them is court resources. He said, “To be comparable with other provinces, Ontario would have to hire significantly more judges and justices of the peace, as well as providing additional court facilities and support staff.”

While we’re removing co-ops from the backlog and moving them to the Landlord and Tenant Board, neither system is going to function if we don’t resource them properly. So although we’re going to remove this from the courts, we also need to resource the Landlord and Tenant Board to ensure that those processes have enough staff and enough funding to actually move them along quickly.

Now there are some limitations to the bill. Currently, under the bill, tenants actually have the right to an appeal system from eviction. In fact, this bill will remove that appeal process. We believe that members of co-operatives need an impartial process to ensure that the co-operatives meet their responsibility to provide safe and quality housing. The bill will continue to allow some convictions to go to court, but we don’t believe there is a reason to give the courts open-ended eviction power, in view of the problems we’re currently experiencing with that process.

The Landlord and Tenant Board needs the power to determine the subsidy question; these are questions around rent issues. There are limitations in the bill about resolving those as well. One of the limitations will leave co-op members and tenants of non-profit landlords without an effective way to challenge incorrect rents, and we don’t believe that is fair.

We also have seniors living in co-ops. In fact, some of the co-ops have a large population of seniors. I think seniors would have easier access to safe and secure housing if we turned our minds to today’s issues of pensions. In this House, we often hear about the kind of rich defined benefit plans that public sector workers have. We don’t want seniors actually living in poverty, so we believe that we should be protecting these defined benefit plans so that seniors also can live a quality life in our co-ops and in other housing markets when they retire.

Ensure access to better and safe, stable, accessible housing: We need to be doing more for tenants. You know, the government talks about having a housing strategy, but there are no funding targets attached to that strategy. Recently, the government actually failed to stand up against the sale of public housing stock here in the city of Toronto. At one point, the Minister of Housing was opposed to, or not moving forward on, selling that stock—I think the number was 65 units. But the Premier overruled the minister to allow the sale of 65 units of affordable housing stock here in the city of Toronto. This is at a time when we have 170,000 households on a wait-list across the province.

We also need to examine the merits of a housing benefit. In the platform in the last election campaign, in 2011, the Liberals actually talked about the merits of perhaps investigating a housing benefit, but we haven’t seen any of that to date, a year later. New Democrats also talked about having a housing benefit for individuals and families who pay more than 30% of their income on rent. This will be really important to people who live in this province, because one in five persons in this province actually pays more than 50% of their income in rent, and a large majority of them pay more than 30%.

I think it’s very important that we go back and have a look at the housing benefit as part of a way to provide more affordable housing in this province.

There are other ways to improve our housing stock as well, and one of those ways is with vacancy decontrol. I know the member from Parkdale–High Park introduced a bill in the last sitting of the Legislature, but it didn’t pass. We will, at some point, be introducing another bill on that issue. I want to talk about how that actually affects people who live in our communities. Just for information and for the record, all units after 1991 are exempt, so there are 50,000 or 60,000 units across the province that are exempt. But then there are also these loopholes in the legislation. So when a unit becomes vacant, the landlord can actually jack up the rent.

I want to tell you a little story that just came to my attention in my riding. There is this couple—and they’ve allowed me to use their names because this is a very important issue to them—Ross and Joanne Battle. Joanne worked at the hospital; she was a housekeeper. She has a small pension, not one of those large, rich, public sector pensions that everyone talks about—

M me France Gélinas: Private sector pensions.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Sometimes public—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Private sector, yes. Eleanor Clitheroe, yes—that’s a private sector pension.

Anyway, her husband Ross is disabled. He worked as a security guard for many years. He’s in a wheelchair. They live in an apartment building in Welland, in my riding; they live on the third floor. Their elevator breaks down. So he has to have some of the other tenants actually bring him down to the ground floor. They go and they live in a hotel for two or three days while the elevator’s being fixed because he needs to go for dialysis three times a week and he is afraid that he’s not going to be able to get out of his building.

After all this happens and he goes back to the building, they make application to move to a ground-floor apartment in their building. I’m now calling this the “double loophole” in the vacancy control legislation, or decontrol, whichever you want to call it. What’s happening now is Ross and Joanne have applied to move to a ground-floor apartment so that they can always have access to get to the hospital, which he needs to go to on a regular basis.

They’re on the wait-list; they’re now being told that they’re going to have to pay $60 more per month—$720 a year—to move to a ground-floor apartment in a building where they have lived for more than 10 years. So the landlord’s going to get the rent increase on their unit and he’s going to increase the rent on the unit they’re moving to. Now we have two units that actually don’t have rent control on them.

That’s a story about people in my riding, and I’m sure that it is happening in your ridings as well.

We also need to introduce some legislation that actually deals with work orders, and there are many people—I met with ACTO over the last year here in Toronto at one of their meetings. I’ve been around to a number of apartments in my riding and other ridings across the province—there are many outstanding work orders. In fact, in Toronto, one tenant reported an elevator that was out of order for a year in a large multi-floor building. There needs to be legislation that will prevent landlords from increasing rent until those work orders are actually complied with.

There are, as I said, 170,000 households waiting for affordable housing in this province, and that is more than a 26% increase in a five-year period. The government, in 2003, committed to building 20,000 units of affordable housing, but in nine years, they’ve actually built only 16,000 units—far less than they promised to do and over a very much longer period of time. Many households in this province are waiting, on average, two to four years, but in the city of Toronto, some people wait as many as 12 to 14 years. It is really a shame that that happens.

Although co-op housing enjoys a strong, successful history, we need to have more co-op housing in this province. The co-op housing sector is really at a disadvantage when it comes to new development because they don’t necessarily have the resources, financial or otherwise, like municipalities and private developers, and so they often are kind of shut out of the development process because of that. And I think that we need to find ways to actually allow them to come in and develop more co-op units across this province.

The Canadian Labour Congress often spends a lot of time talking about poverty and the lack of housing here in the province of Ontario. Women, unfortunately, form the vast majority of people who are living in poverty in this province. About one in three children are living in poverty, and more than half of single parents—mothers—are living in poverty as well. First Nations and the unemployment rate certainly all affect the levels of poverty here in the province of Ontario. The poverty rate is 29% for racialized women and 23% for immigrant women. Lone senior women are also affected at about a 46% rate. Poverty in Canada costs about $72 million to $84 million to the health care system alone.

Women living on low incomes face serious barriers to finding safe and affordable housing. In many communities, the wait-lists for subsidized housing are long and the housing is poorly maintained. In places like Ottawa and Toronto, of course, the waiting lists, as I said, are much longer. Canada needs to have a national housing strategy and to address the growing poverty inequality.

You know, there’s a myth about poverty among Canadian seniors, that poverty in seniors has almost been eradicated. But based on a Stats Canada assertion that only 6.1% of seniors are actually living with low income, even if the statistic were accurate, it would still represent over 268,000 seniors. But we believe that, in reality, 36% of seniors, so 1.6 million who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement, are also living in poverty. Many of our seniors are living with an income of $1,400 or $1,500 a month on guaranteed income.

So there really is a need to create more affordable housing in the senior sector as well as across all sectors of our society. Many of our seniors can only afford the basic essentials of life, which is, you know, rent for their apartment—for which they’re probably paying 50% of their income—some food and their utilities. Many of them don’t even have enough money left at the end of the day for any social activities. So all levels of government have recognized the need to address the specific challenges faced by seniors.

There’s no comprehensive anti-poverty strategy; there are inadequate levels of support; there are clawbacks; there’s insufficient awareness of the supports that are available; and there’s a lack of affordable housing. The problem of seniors living in poverty will increase as Canada’s population ages. Today there are 11 million Canadians who are over 50 years old, 34% of the population. CARP advocates for us to look at poverty, to consider the income-versus-expenditure equation and to create a national anti-poverty strategy for all ages. They recommend that health care services must be available and accessible to all seniors as well.

At one point, the government committed to meeting modest and limited poverty reduction targets. They failed to meet those targets, and that’s no surprise. I think at the federal level, if I remember correctly, the Liberal government promised to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. It’s now 2012, and it’s actually increased—it’s increased.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: A Liberal government?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes, the Liberal government. That’s right.

So we’re not going to meet any targets without doing some real work. In 2009, the province of Ontario only spent $64 per capita on affordable housing, and that is only half of what any other province, on average, spends on affordable housing across this country.

The New Democrats, in our platforms—our last platform and the platforms before that—have presented solid, costed plans for increasing affordable housing units over a four-year period to make life more affordable for the lowest-income Ontarians, and other countries have done it. Sweden, for example, did the “million-dollar plan,” I think it was called.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Million-home plan.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Million-home plan. They actually built 100,000 units a year for 10 years, and they have no homelessness problems any longer. They have enough affordable housing for everyone who lives there. So if Sweden can do it—it’s a very small country—certainly Canada can do it. But the plan needs more financial investment and it needs targets, and it won’t happen unless we do that.

One of the other ways to increase affordable housing is through inclusionary zoning. Our member from Parkdale–High Park yesterday introduced that again; she tabled a bill yesterday. She had tabled that bill as well in the last Legislature.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Three times.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Three times. So she’s hoping that this time she’ll be successful. This is a really easy, cost-effective way for municipalities to actually increase affordable housing. It would require a little planning amendment, and then municipalities, on a voluntary basis—they wouldn’t have to. If you don’t want to, you don’t have to. But on a voluntary basis, they could require developers to put a certain percentage of affordable housing into their development. It might mean that the developer gets another floor—they get 24 floors instead of 23—and we get 10 affordable housing units, but it really is a cost-effective way to try to achieve some of those goals.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Zero tax dollars.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes, zero tax dollars. So the taxpayers of this province don’t spend a penny. We could build thousands of new affordable units. When I was getting ready to come here—the United States has done a lot of this, and they’ve been able to create all kinds of affordable housing units in many states on a voluntary basis to try to decrease that gap for people.

Ontario has the highest housing costs of any province. Many Canadians are facing housing affordability challenges and are trapped in the cycle of poverty. The reality is that poverty creates social exclusion and inequality by denying access to affordable, adequate and safe housing. Health is also impacted by poverty, and our health costs are soaring because of the need for affordable housing. Because people are paying more of their income on housing, they don’t have the money to actually buy good, nutritious foods.

They don’t have the money to actually go out and buy prescriptions that perhaps they need for their blood pressure problems or their diabetic problems because the cost of rent is so high. That’s the first thing that they need to do with the limited income that they have.

There’s a real disconnect between housing and income. However, when it comes to addressing housing needs, we tend to equate the lack of affordable housing with supply of units and the affordability of those units, which results in a disconnect between housing and income. An inadequate income is one of the main causes of housing insecurity in that people are not earning enough; they’re not making a liveable wage to pay for housing. We often hear in this House that we have too many public sector jobs, that we need to move those public sector jobs into the private market.

But, in fact, when they move into the private market, all it does is it drives those wages down. So now we have more people living with lower wages, trying to make ends meet.

The rising cost of rent coupled with income insecurity increases the challenges of housing affordability for low-income Canadians living in poverty and struggling to meet their basic needs. I mean, just look at what’s happening at a federal level: increasing the age when people can now collect old age security from 65 to 67. So we’ve got those 46% of seniors already living in poverty, and now we’re going to add a new layer of people. They haven’t even determined how they’re going to meet that gap between 65 and 67, but I think it’s only going to increase the income insecurity for a lot of Canadians.

I want to talk about the wealth gap. As the gap between the rich and poor widens, we need a conscious effort to address poverty to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of income, can access affordable housing. Housing is a human right recognized by the United Nations, and it’s a fundamental right. The Ontario Human Rights Commission knows that low social and economic status is a common factor in housing discrimination, but in spite of the law, people still experience discrimination on that basis. It happens here in Ontario, it happens across this country, and it shouldn’t be happening. There is nothing more important than a safe, affordable house for people to live in.

Supportive housing is also important to the housing sector, and I want to talk a little bit about an affordable housing building in my riding. It’s called Canal View Homes, and I talked about this briefly in a member’s statement early on. I talked about a woman named MaryJane Huneault. This building has, I think, 42 or 46 units that are targeted at people with mental health disabilities. The building was built with federal and provincial dollars on the premise that it would always have supports in that particular program, and after 20 years, last year, the supportive housing dollars were discontinued: $150,000.

There were just two people, two staff members there, who supported 46 residents. MaryJane Huneault was somebody who for years had cycled in and out of the mental health unit at our local hospital. Once she found stable housing at Canal View, she never had another admission to the hospital in 20 years. But the government, for some reason, decided that they would cut that funding, and now those 46 residents are actually struggling at Canal View because they don’t have the supports they need to keep them in sustainable housing. So health care costs are then going to rise.

This government, the Liberal government, has also allowed school boards to sell off surplus properties without even looking at them as a potential for affordable housing. School boards have sold them off because they are trying to balance their budgets, but that would be a great way to try and work with the co-ops, for example: provide the property and have the co-ops do the development.

We have one such unit through Community Living in Port Colborne, where 15 supportive housing units were built in a surplus school a number of years ago, but there’s been no such development since. In my riding, for many years, a number of schools sat vacant and empty. One high school recently burned down, the subject of vandalism. It was on a beautiful piece of property right along the Welland River. It could have been developed into wonderful co-op units and space, but before any development could actually occur, it lost its life to fire.

We also need some co-operation, and we need a spirit of co-operation from each level of government. For a housing strategy to be sustainable, adaptable and innovative, we need to work with the federal government and we need to work with other governments and municipalities to try and reduce poverty and to try and increase affordable housing strategies. But there is no spirit of co-operation, Speaker, because one year this government is uploading and the next year it’s downloading.

The changes to the community start-up and maintenance benefit in the recent spring budget—that is going to affect poverty in this region. It’s going to increase homelessness in this region. Depending on who you talk to, the reduction in the total amount of dollars for those benefits is somewhere between $60 million and $120 million to the communities across this province. The money used to support a maximum $799-a-month benefit to a single person for the last month’s rent, to move them from a shelter to a sustainable apartment, or perhaps for an emergency repair or an odd utility bill.

That’s been discontinued; 50% of that funding has been cut. The program, they say, was to provide more flexibility to municipalities, with 50% dollars and by increasing who the funding could actually apply to. So the dollar pie is getting smaller, but the people pie is actually getting bigger, and it is going to increase homelessness in this province.

If you look at what it costs—so, many of these people who become homeless either end up in the hospital, they end up in a shelter or they end up in corrections. Speaker, it costs $1,000 a day to keep someone in the hospital; it costs $300 a day to keep someone in a jail cell; and it costs $1,500 a month to keep someone in a shelter. So I think it was really short-sighted to reduce a benefit for people that would have cost $800 once every two years, potentially, and have them end up in a shelter at $1,500 a month.

The other piece is that the social assistance review is about to come out; it has been in the works for a couple of years. And here we are, reducing benefits to the same people that the social assistance review is about—consultation at its best.

Now I want to turn to the benefits of co-op housing, and there are lots of benefits. It offers benefits that no other form of rental housing has. It gives a democratic voice to residents, allowing them to shape their own environment.

There are 2,100 non-profit co-ops, and 250,000 people across Canada living in them. There are 550 co-ops here in the province of Ontario. They are subject to the legal requirements of government funding programs.

The business and community decisions in housing co-ops are often made by the residents themselves. The members collectively take responsibility for their housing and to protect their purposes. In all other forms of rental housing, tenants have rights, but subject to them, they hold no power in the decision-making of their living, and the distinction is significant. Co-op members working together, operating their housing, develop broader forms of interaction and initiative, and they behave like communities.

I can talk about one of the co-ops in my own riding, and I actually live right next door to that co-op. It is called the St. Charles co-op, and it’s a mixed community. There are co-operative apartments on the beautiful Welland recreational canal; there are co-op townhouses; and then, in that mix, there are private maisonettes. Generally it’s couples or older couples or singles who actually live in these maisonettes, and those are private kind of bungalow—attached townhouses. Then there’s actually a private retirement home.

You’ll often actually see people from the maisonettes moving into the retirement home as they age. But all of these people interact together. There are many functions there throughout the year—July 1 celebrations. They invite each other to their events. I’ve attended many a celebration at St. Charles.

The people who live in co-ops are also very politically inclined. I’ve attended many meetings around election times at a federal level and at a provincial level. They actually hold debates at their co-ops. They want to know what their politicians at a municipal level, provincial or federal level are going to do for them. I’ve had many a co-op member work an election campaign for me. They really are communities. They are friends, they are families, and they’re very politically engaged. It’s a very positive result for people who are able to actually move into the co-op sector from any other form of rental properties.

In some of our co-ops—I would say probably in most of our co-ops—they have rent geared to income, and some of their units are also market rents. In that model, the market rents actually assist the co-op in providing income to do the needed maintenance on the buildings.

I was the vice-chair for about five years of Niagara Regional Housing, which was kind of arm’s length from the Niagara regional council. I worked with Betty Ann Baker, who is the CEO of Niagara Peninsula Homes; I talked about her earlier today. It’s interesting: It’s actually in my area, in Welland, that the first co-op was actually ever built for the Niagara-Hamilton region. We’re talking about an area of around a million people, and the first one was actually established—it was Briar Rose Co-op—in Welland. It was in response to a need for safe and affordable housing.

The Welland riding has moved forward over the years, embracing the value of co-operative housing. It has produced more than 500 units in my riding. One of them includes the Mel Swart Co-op. Many of you will remember Mel Swart; he was a popular and respected politician from the Welland riding for the New Democrats from 1975 to 1988. Usually, things are named after important people after they die, but in fact the people of Welland thought Mel Swart was so great and so important that they actually named it for him while he was still alive. I attended many an AGM with Mel over the years at his co-op.

Betty Ann also talked to me about the SHRRP program, and she talked about the joint federal-provincial program. She viewed that program as kind of a win-win situation for the investment of maintenance for social housing and employment initiatives. Niagara Peninsula Homes was able to maintain and make the necessary repairs to their units by hiring younger workers, many of whom moved into apprenticeship programs. So you can see that, in fact, in the co-op movement, we do more than just build units; we help build lives.

Through Niagara Peninsula Homes, they developed a number of programs that I’ve been involved with over the years. One of those programs was Niagara Presents; I think it’s now called Niagara enterprises. It was actually a way of working with the food producers in the Niagara region and with women who were unemployed to create products that they now sell in the retail market. They have also, in the last couple of years, created a program to assist women who are unemployed or women who have fallen on hard times through unemployment or through domestic abuse or who have mental health issues.

They’ve created a training program through Niagara Peninsula Homes. I was actually able to attend a graduation a couple of months ago. Many of these women who went through this—I think it’s a 12-week program—when they graduated, already had found jobs. It also addressed women who perhaps had been laid off and were underemployed, and it gave them the training and the tools and the self-confidence and self-esteem to actually get back out into the workforce. So co-ops, as I say, are more than just a roof over your head.

There was an evaluation done in 2003, and it was evaluating how residents feel about where they’re living. There was certainly greater resident involvement in the operation of co-operative housing than in other types of housing. More than 90% of co-op residents have participated in the operation of their housing, and 65% to 70% felt that they had the ability to influence decisions, and that they had a greater sense of security and tenure than in the other housing markets.

For provincial co-ops, the evaluation survey showed 92% resident involvement compared to only 4.1% in a mixed-income non-profit rental housing and 17% in a non-profit rental housing. So you can see that people are really involved in their communities in the co-op sector.

The main impacts on quality of life for co-operative residents versus residents in other tenures are increased social support, sense of community, improved relations with friends and neighbours, and feelings of independence and security. The residents who were actually surveyed in the co-operative housing sector said they had an improved quality of life for the occupants compared with other forms of housing, and participation in their housing actually leads to improved social support.

The ratio of involvement of co-ops to condominiums—now, many of us are living in condominiums here in Toronto while we’re sitting in the House doing our work. Only half of condominium residents said that they had gained more friends or strengthened personal supports, compared to 75% of co-op residents. So co-op residents were reportedly more satisfied with the sense of community than any residents living in other forms of housing.

We need to be looking at affordable housing as a contributor to better health. Precarious housing in Ontario—whether defined by level of inadequate or affordable housing, homelessness or under-housing—can be solved in this decade, but we have to have the will to be able to do that. The lack of accessible affordable housing is a pressing problem—precarious. It contributes to poor health for many, and it leads to pervasive but avoidable health inequalities. Health equity suggests that the role of society is to reduce the health disparities gap between those who are advantaged and those who are marginalized.

I just want to take a couple of minutes to go back and summarize. Bill 65, the co-operatives statute amendment, will improve the speed and efficiency of resolution of tenant disputes by taking them out of courts. Additional action is needed to support the viability of co-op housing in Toronto and to deal with the lack of affordable housing across Ontario.

There is a real need for the bill. It has been eight years since it was first being lobbied for the change. It’s been promised since 2007, and it’s certainly time to move on it. It’s the only system that is still in the court system, so it needs to move to the Landlord and Tenant Board. Co-op evictions are costly and they take a long time, and eviction costs can be very expensive not only to the tenants but to the co-op, as well as to the larger community.

There are limitations to the bill; I did speak briefly about them. Currently, there’s an appeal process in the co-op system, and the bill proposes to amend that appeal system. There will be still some issues out of the co-op housing sector that will require the use of the court system, but we don’t believe that there’s any need to give the court open-ended eviction power. There is elimination of appeals by the co-op member. We believe that that actually is unfair and that it probably should be reinstated.

The Landlord and Tenant Board needs the power to determine the subsidy questions, the questions around the rental piece.

There was a report from Chief Justice LeSage recommending that the Toronto Housing Authority should take steps to recommend an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act to allow the Landlord and Tenant Board to assess the appropriateness of rent-geared-to-income decisions, but the prohibition in

section 203 is in direct conflict with the Landlord and Tenant Board’s obligation to fairly adjudicate disputes about tenants and now co-op members—obligations to pay the rent lawfully owing.

Landlord and Tenant Board members routinely make decisions about the correctness of rent calculations for tenants in the private sector, subject to rent regulation provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, including setting rents on above-guideline-increase applications.

We believe that leaving co-op members and tenants of non-profit landlords without an effective way to challenge incorrect rents is not fair. That is one of the limitations of the bill.

I think that I pretty much—so I think I’ll close now, Speaker.

We need to move forward with this one small step to improve the efficiency and reduce the costs for the co-op housing sector around eviction issues, but there are many other initiatives that could improve the quality of lives of co-op members and Ontarians, like continuing to grow the co-op sector with opportunities for community-based developments.

Co-ops are more than just a roof over people’s heads. Co-ops have harnessed the goodwill of members to create self-determining communities in which they can rightly take pride.

I want to thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to speak about this important issue, and I look forward to further debate.

Certainly, the co-op sector is hoping that this bill is going to be brought forward by the government in a very timely manner. They hope that we won’t be debating it for days and days and days, because they actually would like to move on, get the bill passed and move on with their new disputes system. Hopefully, we’ll be able to accommodate them over the remainder of this session and get this bill passed.

Thank you very much for being here, and thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I just want to commend the member from Welland this morning for very thoughtful, very articulate comments on Bill 65, and certainly a continuation of the goodwill that I believe was clearly demonstrated yesterday in this House by the leadoff remarks from the member from Leeds–Grenville, and today, of course, followed by what I thought were very positive remarks from the member from Welland.

I think it’s appropriate that she noted the former member from Welland, Mr. Swart. When you look at the history of the Ontario Legislature, nobody more than Mel, of course, brought forward issues that were very important to the consumer in the province of Ontario. If you look back at some of the newspapers out of Welland and St. Catharines, there are often great pictures of Mr. Swart being in this House with a particular product that he was highlighting that needed to be changed or consumer protection that needed to be changed because there was something amok going on in that particular sector.

I think it’s fair to say he was the ultimate defender of the consumer in the province of Ontario, an individual who made an enormous contribution to the public life here in the province of Ontario, followed by a more colourful member, Mr. Kormos, and now the current member for Welland, who falls in those very distinguished footsteps.

She noted the key reasons in Bill 65 to provide some reform. Currently, most of these disputes are in the courts and get tied up for many, many months in the courts, which is a clear detriment to people who are living in co-ops in the province of Ontario. We all have co-ops in our ridings. Whether you’re in Welland, in Thorold, in Peterborough or Bowmanville or Oshawa, there are great examples of co-op organizations and boards of directors that work so hard each and every day on behalf of the residents in that co-op movement.

The camaraderie on Bill 65 is a pleasure, so we’re going to move this forward, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I want to commend the member from Welland for her one hour—almost one hour—and her impassioned plea on behalf of vulnerable people. I would say it was a broad rambling on the issue of social awareness.

I have listened over the last three days to the minister, Kathleen Wynne, as well as our critic, the member from Leeds–Grenville, yesterday. There really is unanimous agreement on this bill, and I’m surprised the government is kind of wasting time here in the Legislature; they should be getting it into a committee.

I respect the members from the stakeholder groups here this morning, as well. They were here listening to these long speeches. I suspect our position is to agree 100% that this is an efficient way of dealing with disputes, by moving them out of the courts and saving both sides, the landlord as well as the tenant, considerable money. My notes would say that the minister’s technical briefing said it was in the order of between $3,000 and $5,000 each to resolve disputes today, even if you can get to court. So I think sending it to the Landlord and Tenant Board would be a much more efficient way of dealing with disputes, and that’s important.

I think the important thing she said—it’s important that the government members, the few of them who are here—this bill isn’t really about affordable housing at all. It’s got virtually nothing to do with that, really, which is a very important thing. But you did mention, I think, that it was a very good report.

In 2003, I believe, they promised something in the order of 20,000 new low-cost housing or affordable housing, and they haven’t delivered on that promise. Of course, they didn’t tell you all the other things they were going to do. They did promise—they’ve not closed the coal plants after 10 years, either. They promise everything and do nothing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, first I want to thank the member from Welland for putting forward the case very strongly, very completely, setting the context for the issue before us, and I want to thank the co-op housing federation for spending the time—years, I believe—moving this issue forward.

I had the privilege, the opportunity, before I got into political life to manage housing co-ops. You have to know, Speaker, that housing co-operatives provide good-quality housing for a range of people, but predominantly middle-income and low-income working people. They were set up in the first place to give people good-quality housing at a price they could afford.

These are not deep-pocketed organizations. When the member from Welland cited the cost of eviction in the current climate of $49,000—up to $100,000 in exceptional cases—it was very clear to me that it was time to move on. Those sorts of expenses, when an alternative is available that is affordable, that ensures that there’s justice, a fair hearing between the organization, the co-operative and the resident, a fair hearing at a lower cost on an expedited basis—it’s very clear that we have to take this forward.

The opposition has said that this bill does the job; it needs to go to committee. I agree. Let’s move this forward. I don’t see it as controversial. The government introduced the bill. The opposition and the third party both think that it has the merit it needs to actually go through committee and be passed. Let’s go there so that those working families can have affordable and just processes for dealing with these kind of conflicts.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Milloy: It’s a pleasure for me to join in on this debate, and I want to congratulate the member from Welland for her speech today and for her support for this bill. I just want to say, if I may speak as House leader, what a pleasure it is to hear support from all sides of this House.

I’d be remiss not to congratulate the Co-operative Housing Federation and the representatives who are here today, including Harvey Cooper. I think that poor Mr. Cooper has trekked to every constituency office in the province of Ontario to make his case.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Harvey never sleeps.

Hon. John Milloy: He never sleeps, says my friend Mr. Leal. I had a very, very good meeting with him some time ago, and in fact regularly meet with representatives of the co-ops that exist in my riding. I think what’s important when people look at this legislation is to realize that we’re not talking about a small group. The stats are very clear: There are approximately 550 co-op providers, according to the stats I have, representing 44,000 households and 125,000 people.

I suspect that anyone who sat down and looked at this bill for the first time—and indeed when I started to understand the co-op sector through the meetings I had—they would be very shocked, Mr. Speaker, to realize that disputes right now, disputes of the nature that have been talked about in the debate, actually have to go to court. Intuitively, many people would think that they would be dealt with in a similar fashion to what’s happening in the landlord and tenant act.

If passed, as has been pointed out, Bill 65 would allow co-operative boards to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to resolve tenure disputes that are currently provided for under the Residential Tenancies Act. As I say, I think most people would be surprised that it already doesn’t exist. It’s time we moved forward with this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Welland, you have two minutes for a reply.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the members from Peterborough, from Durham and from Toronto–Danforth, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and, of course, the Co-operative Housing Federation for bringing this very important issue back to us year after year after year.

The member from Durham said something right: We don’t have any committees, so how do we actually get this bill passed if we don’t have any committees? Hopefully—I know we have a meeting today—we’ll be getting those committees back up and running, and we can move a lot of these bills off to committee so that we can get them passed.

However, it sounds like there’s all-party support for this bill, so we could do unanimous consent for third reading and just get it over with, right? This is a really important issue. It’s not just about the bill. This is an issue that’s about people; 125,000 people across this province live in co-op housing. The money that we’ll save in court costs, in legal fees and in the real time of the people who actually manage and work the co-ops can be better used for upgrades and repairs and programs in the co-op communities. It’s hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So I look forward to getting this bill passed and moving on to more—not more important issues than this, but to the bigger issues of affordable housing: How are we going to fund that? How are we going to make more affordable units here in the province of Ontario? I’ll be dealing with some of that in my private member’s bill in a couple of weeks.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank Harvey and our friends from the co-op movement. This is a very important and—I think to say it’s a long-overdue piece of legislation is probably an understatement. It has been a lot of work. Probably many lawyers in the public and private sector have made a good living out of this legislative initiative, and I’m very proud to be part of a government that has landed this and brought this home. It is no small feat, and it is extremely important to the fairness for all people living in co-ops.

I am proudly the MPP who represents probably more co-ops than any other MPP in the country, I’m going to take a guess. I live in a neighbourhood in this no-man’s-land between Corktown and St. Lawrence. We can’t quite figure out what to call the neighbourhood. We have about 30,000 more people coming in, a lot of them in this provincial government’s affordable housing initiatives and a new mixed-income neighbourhood. We’re sort of planning a Regent Park there, you know, the great work we have done with our municipal and federal partners in re-establishing mixed-income neighbourhoods and affordable housing.

It’s really transformative, and to people like Diane MacLean and the folks who have initiated those, these were very grassroots. Now, when we’re planning new downtown neighbourhoods, we’re actually taking the spirit of mixing income.

It is a concern of mine and a hope that one day we will get back to more co-ops. When I was mayor of Winnipeg, we saw—under the best intentions of governments of other stripes, but governments of a similar set of values—efforts to continue co-ops. It is hard now, I think, because of land prices and some of the challenges facing co-ops. I still think they are the most underutilized solution to a whole wide range of housing units, and I’m hoping, as we go forward, that those of us from all parties—I know the member from Welland spoke earlier. I think she and I share a set of values and ideas around this, about getting back to supporting the co-op movement in a greater way.

But the way you support people is not necessarily by doing the things that we want in here; it’s by doing the things that people in co-ops want. The Residential Tenancies Act amendments will actually finally put in place a fair dispute resolution system for members and folks who are in arrears, who are persistent in the late payment of rent, whether it’s been illegal or problematic behaviours, and where there is interfering with reasonable enjoyment or there’s wilful damage.

I live in a condo in the middle of a whole lot of co-ops. Almost everything that we have is shared. Having a sense of co-operative values means that we live in the middle of our neighbourhoods, in the middle of our common areas. We don’t have large SUVs in our front lawns. We don’t live in areas where we have pools or a suburban lifestyle where everything we want is on our property. My parents, when we were growing up, moved to the suburbs. There was no main street; there was a shopping mall. Most of us living in central Toronto in co-ops and condos don’t have balconies; we don’t have backyards.

We live in the middle of our libraries, our public services, our schools. We live in shared public spaces which are precious and few, and the civility of those relationships really defines the livability of our experience, because you have to be a bit of a social animal to want to live the co-op life. Seventy per cent of my constituents don’t own an automobile; we have to live in a walkable neighbourhood. The very idea of sharing and familiarity and collaboration is inherent to my constituents.

Bob Rae, a former Premier, now a member of Parliament, and David Crombie are two authors of a great deal of the co-ops in St. Lawrence—the brilliant planning leadership of the former Mayor Crombie in setting height restrictions. Not until Barbara Hall did we have anyone who actually understood how you revitalize and create scale, and understood the importance—that co-ops would naturally gravitate to that kind of standard of space and that kind of spatial organization.

Bob Rae, as a Premier here, leader of what is now the third party, I think led a very powerful vision for co-ops, which we haven’t really seen very often in Canada; it’s very typical in Europe. That legacy is there. This is continuing, I think, in a legacy not just shared by our party but, quite frankly, to be fair, being shared by the third party—that we have shared this idea.

We can’t just build something, get the rules in and then ignore them. One of the things that I am proud of here is the great work that people in the co-op system do, that they continue to have expectations of government, they continue to bring those values to government, and they ask us to put in a set of rules so it’s not us making decisions. I really think that most people out there today feel that government, corporations, the cable company, the insurance companies are telling them how to live their lives. What people actually want is more choices. They want a decent process.

So when we work with people who voluntarily and creatively want government to put in some sort of organizational plan, some set of rules so that they can resolve disputes themselves, that’s a pretty positive thing and a very mature kind of thing, and I think this is a really critical piece of it.

The other thing that often comes up is, are people fairly [inaudible]? Mr. Speaker, I represent the most complicated of communities. When I knock on doors, I literally knock on a door in a co-op where I am looking at an Afghani family where there is one man, his wife, usually another older woman who is described as a cousin—often is a second wife, quite frankly—and five or six or seven children. Women in that area often don’t ever leave their house. They live a very old-world kind of experience. Three doors down, I will meet a young transgender woman who is just going through a sex change operation.

These people get on the elevator every morning. They have the most unusual lives and the most complex lives. It is one of the great joys of being a downtown member of Parliament.

But what is different about simply living in a co-op or living in a condo is that in a co-op, these people have relationships. They get to know each other across incredible social boundaries, cultural and religious boundaries, where you couldn’t even imagine them talking to each other in certain parts of the world. So the idea of having a fair dispute resolution isn’t just about resolving issues when there is a conflict. It’s actually about building relationships and building civil society discourse.

An elderly person who may have grown up in a small rural community in Ontario, who has retired to the city to be close to health care—she may have some health challenges that require greater attention than she can get in her community—or many elderly people who are moving downtown because they’re empty-nesters or because they need to get health care. Sometimes very socially conservative folks are moving into a gay ghetto or a building that is 90% Tamil people who just arrived here from Sri Lanka, escaping what was a near genocide experience of a horrible civil war—kids who are growing up and going to school, who saw their parents shot.

We don’t often talk about the roles that co-ops play in leadership. They don’t only engage these folks; they help them build into leadership roles. I know there’s many of us who represent those areas which have a lot of co-ops. You go to the awards ceremonies and you stand in the room and you look at who’s leading these folks, who’s getting elected—I mean, they’re the most diverse place. If we had that kind of diversity here, it would kind of blow us away. But it’s also the role that they play.

I just want to take a few minutes, because it’s pretty hard to talk about the penalties and rules and make them really interesting, and we are a little bit in the entertainment mode. They say politics is Hollywood for ugly people—referring only to myself.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I was going to say that.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I am a thorn amongst all the roses here. Yes, I have more attractive people behind me, for contrast.

It’s kind of extraordinary to me that all of these things go on in our society, Mr. Speaker, and they’re what actually build our democracy. They’re the things that actually build respect. They are things in which people work together on all kinds of community issues.

The co-ops in my area have launched community garden programs and local food programs. That started because people started talking to each other about their challenges, or they observed that an elderly person wasn’t able to get shopping or afford food or had trouble doing that. People cook together, they take care of each other, and it is really quite extraordinary in what we sort of call the civility of our society.

I always find it extremely discouraging when I hear politicians use the word “taxpayer”—we pay taxes; it’s an activity we do, we in government have the responsibility to be the prudent stewards of the public purse, to get value for people’s tax dollars and to manage them officially—or “voters,” because we’re more than voters. Voting is an important responsibility—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you, Minister.

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, we’re recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It’s my great privilege to introduce two guests today. We have with us Moreen Miller, who is president of the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; and we have with us Ken Lucyshyn, vice-president of Walker Industries in the Niagara area, one of the largest quarrying operations in Ontario.

Mr. Michael Prue: It’s my pleasure today to introduce the family of page Caelius. We have here today Sam Musharbash, who is Caelius’s father; Phoenix Tarantino, Caelius’s brother; Michelina Tarantino, the maternal grandmother; and Amal Musharbash, the paternal grandmother. They are all here today to watch the Legislature, but especially to watch page Caelius.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome Ajax–Pickering’s newest page, Katherine Parker’s, family today—we love her and call her Katie. I’d ask them to stand as I introduce the family. Her mother, Jillian Daffern; her father, John Parker; her grandfather Charles Daffern; Katie’s uncle Paul Daffern and his daughters, Miss Veronica Daffern and Miss Cynthia Daffern; Katie’s uncle Chris Daffern; and a special guest, Mr. Sim Chhabra from the riding of Mississauga–Cooksville.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to introduce to you, sitting in the members’ gallery with my assistant Gaggan Gill, who’s next to Moreen, Karlie Pipher. Karlie Pipher is from my riding. She’s a very avid curler; her boyfriend is Scott Howard—a member of the Ontario champions for seven years in a row, the Canadian champions and the World champion team, Glenn Howard. Welcome, Karlie.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m pleased this morning to introduce 11 recipients of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal in my riding of St. Paul’s. At noon today in room 230, I will be presenting medals to the following outstanding individuals who are here today in the gallery: Courtney Betty; Kathy Biasi; Brendan Caldwell; Peter O’Brian; Susan Poizner; Paulette Senior; Metta Spencer; John Legge; Harvey Manning; Stan Muthulingam; and Lisa Tobio. Many of their friends and family are in attendance today, and I’d like to extend a warm welcome to them as well. You are all welcome to join us at noon in room 230.

Mr. Michael Coteau: In the east gallery today, I’d like to welcome my aunt and uncle, Mr. Cosnel and Dorothy Baptise. Welcome to the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

I would also like to take a moment to welcome Seneca Hill Public School, who are joining us here at the Legislature today.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I am pleased to welcome here at Queen’s Park Alex Lolua and John Grimshaw of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. They’re here today to meet with me, and I welcome them here in the Legislature.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: My friend the Minister of Children and Youth Services announced that some of the folks are down here today to receive their Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medals, including my friend Stan Muthulingnam. But I just want to introduce, all the way from Malaysia, his aunt Sivahambikai Manikam, who’s joining us all the way from Malaysia to see Stan get his medal.

I want to thank Minister Hoskins for the recognition and welcome our guest from halfway around the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just have one. We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from the finance, economic development and tourism committee of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament of South Africa. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you for joining us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Acting Premier. On Tuesday, the Premier broke his code of silence to deliver a contrived theatrical performance for the cameras. His eleventh-hour melodramatic appeal to avoid accountability fooled no one. It didn’t fool the press gallery, it didn’t fool the Liberal caucus and it didn’t fool the millions of Ontarians who are outraged by the government’s cavalier response to squandering $650 million.

The Premier’s piece of performance art was disingenuous because everyone knows it was he—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member needs to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I withdraw, Speaker.

Wasn’t genuine? Because everyone knows it was the Premier and only the Premier who sealed Minister Bentley’s fate.

So I ask the Acting Premier: When will the government finally come to the aid of Minister Bentley and allow the minister to table all of the documents requested by this House?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I think it’s refreshing for everyone here if we look at what the situation is. This summer, the minister went in front of the estimates committee and was asked for documents and spoke about the competing interests.

The member who asked the question will know about competing interests, and I’d like to take him back to his time as energy minister and quote from the Globe and Mail here. January 16, 2002: “Energy Minister Jim Wilson is not able to speak freely about Ontario Power Generation, the main company he oversees as the province’s electricity czar, because he has signed an unusual gag agreement.

“Under the agreement, he is to keep confidential any information the government-owned company tells him should be kept secret.”

It goes on, Mr. Speaker: “The secrecy arrangement is sweeping and also covers information from almost anyone with business dealings with the corporation, such as contractors or suppliers.”

There are competing interests here, and the member knows well about that from his past experience.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Nice try, House Leader, but it was the Ontario Securities Act that prevented me from speaking at the time. Unlike you guys, we don’t break the law over here.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier’s pleas this week were as see-through and contrived as they were insulting. Nothing in this government happens without the consent of the Premier; we all know that. It was clearly his calculation to throw Mr. Bentley under the bus and to make the minister dispensable. The Premier denied Mr. Bentley the opportunity to come clean and table all of the requested documents. In doing so, he once again put himself first.

Ontarians deserve to know what happened. They deserve to know who made the decision to cancel the plants and who prevented the minister from tabling all of the documents. My question to the Acting Premier is this: Will the Premier testify at the committee and reveal how these cancellations came about?

Hon. John Milloy: I think we should let the committee do its work. But let me continue; I find this very interesting.

“Under the deal, Mr. Wilson acknowledged that disclosure of financial and commercial information from Ontario Power ‘may prejudice significantly the competitive position of the corporation or result in undue loss of gain to parties other than the corporation,’ according to an excerpt from his confidentiality agreement quoted in the Ministry of Finance brief.

“‘The corporation will identify such information as commercially sensitive at the time it provides the information to [Mr. Wilson] and will provide such information in confidence. [Mr. Wilson] will hold such identified information in confidence to such extent as may be permitted by law,’ it says.”

This is the exact principle; the member should remember his time in cabinet. This is the exact principle that was before the committee.

Interjections.

Hon. John Milloy: This is the principle that it wrestled with all summer. This is the principle that we’ve—

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

Stop the clock. I do want to make a quick comment, and that is: When the questions are being asked, I’m hearing noises coming from the same side. When the answers are being given, I’m hearing noise from the same side. And then I’m hearing cross-shots that aren’t even germane to the question and answer. Please bring it down.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Acting Premier: $650 million has been squandered saving Liberal seats, yet the Premier and the Liberal caucus have not shown an ounce of regret or remorse. Not a single Liberal MPP or cabinet minister has apologized or accepted responsibility for this scandal.

Two years after cancelling the Oakville plant, the Premier and his government continue to stonewall every attempt to get to the bottom of this mess. A pattern is emerging, Speaker. The Liberal government has become debilitated by its own arrogance. The contempt motion was avoidable, but the Premier was unwilling to negotiate. He thumbed his nose at the opposition, the committee and this Legislature.

Acting Premier, now that we know that it was the Premier who threw Minister Bentley under the bus, as a leadership contender yourself, are you worried that you might be next?

Hon. John Milloy: You know, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the race to the bottom finally reached its finish line. We heard the member who just asked the question—the PC House leader—speak openly about how he might be moving to send the Minister of Energy to jail. Two days earlier, the Leader of the Opposition said the same thing.

The fact of the matter is, this was avoidable, to quote the member back to him. It was avoidable because we came to the table with proposal after proposal to find a way to balance the interests, interests that he was well aware of as a minister himself, interests between the public interests and the rights of committees to access such documentation. We came forward with proposal after proposal.

They were rejected by the opposition out of hand, and then, when we tried to move an amendment, a substantial amendment that would have seen the committee focusing on this very important question, they gagged debate in the Legislature and they would not let us speak, even though dozens and dozens of our members wanted to speak in defence of a fine man, the Minister of Energy.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Victor Fedeli: To the Acting Premier: As we continue to go through the gas plant cancellation documents, we’re seeing more and more evidence of political involvement. It’s a given fact now that crucial Ontario energy decisions are being made by Liberal campaign staff as opposed to energy experts, and while many of the documents point to this involvement, there are no documents turned over from the campaign people.

Why do you continue to protect your insiders and leave the energy minister to bear the brunt of this contempt hearing? Will you turn over all the documents the Speaker has ordered, and this time leave the whiteout in the desk drawer?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the government House leader

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, once again, I think we should let the committee do its work. The fact of the matter is that we have a committee of this Legislature that is going to be looking into the issue of documents; 36,000 pages were provided to the opposition—36,000 pages—and we went forward to the opposition with a way in which they could be provided to them that would protect public interest, public interest which the member from Simcoe–Grey is well aware of from his time as minister, and also acknowledge the rights of committees to ask for these documents.

It was a responsible way forward. It was complying with your ruling, and instead, Mr. Speaker, the opposition—

Interjection.

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

Hon. John Milloy: —dismissed it out of hand and would not sit at the table, roll up their sleeves and find a way in which this could be done. Instead, we’ve seen partisan politics go to a new low in the comments we’ve seen both inside and outside this place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: So let’s talk a little bit about some of the documents we actually did receive. In Karen Howlett’s Globe and Mail story the other day, she correctly details the Oakville sweetheart deal. The Liberals boast about getting the price reduced from $17,000 to $15,000 per month, but many contracts, Speaker, in actuality, are under $10,000 a month. That’s the real price.

So I don’t know. Who do they think they’re fooling, Speaker? Someone made a decision to award a $3.3-billion sweetheart deal. Because the documents are redacted, let me ask: Was it the Premier? Was it the campaign team? Was it the former energy minister? Was it the Minister of Finance? Who was it, Speaker? You asked them to turn the documents over so we can get to the true documents in this scandal.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m very happy to remind the member of who was in favour of the cancellation of these gas plants: It was every single party in this Legislature.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask him to go speak to the member for Halton. On June 1, 2010, he said, in this very place, “The people of Oakville have told you they don’t want the proposed gas-fired power plant ... and I agree with them.” The member for Halton, in a press release of September 14, 2010: “Minister, will you move the Oakville power plant?... I am asking the minister to consider moving this plant.”

The member for Haldimand–Norfolk wrote a letter to the former Minister of Energy saying that “the potential for future alternate generation at Nanticoke to replace that slated for the proposed and disputed Clarkson plant should receive ample consideration.”

And finally, the leader of the official opposition said on September 25, 2011, “We’ve opposed these projects in Oakville and Mississauga.”

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: At the Premier’s Oakville news conference, where he smiled and laughed and shrugged off the seriousness of this matter at hand, basically it was, “So we blew two power plants. It’s only $650 million.” The Liberals cancelled the Oakville power plant and then went to Oakville to take credit for it, a $650-million photo op.

Speaker, we saw hubris when we expected humility. Paying out taxpayers’ money in Oakville to save a seat was wrong, and I would hope that you would admit that. Keeping the documents is wrong, and I hope you admit that. Ontarians need to hear this from their Premier.

Hon. John Milloy: What is wrong is an attempt by this government that was thwarted by the opposition to find co-operation when it came to releasing those documents in a way which would protect the taxpayers. And then, when we put forward a substantial amendment, notice was given to all the opposition parties for an amendment that would allow this committee to undertake important work and grapple with the issue of public responsibility, as well as the responsibility to committees to produce documents. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that they gagged us; they would not allow debate to go forward.

They should be apologizing to the people of Ontario that democracy is not allowed to go forward in this place.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Saturday will be the one-year anniversary since the people of Ontario elected a minority government in this province. Has the government taken any lessons—

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is, has the government actually taken any lessons from their experience over this last year?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: One lesson I’ve learned is what a pleasure it is to work with the leader of the third party. Mr. Speaker, we have our differences, and I mean very profound differences, but we will as a government—and I am proud that a year ago today, Ontarians re-elected a Liberal government in this province. I am proud that they ferreted out the inaccuracies and all of the inconsistencies of both opposition parties, and I look forward to the next election, when Ontarians will give Dalton McGuinty a majority Liberal government because of the work we’ve been doing over the course—

Interjections.

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

I found that comment unacceptable, so whoever it was, I would ask to withdraw. I ask the member to withdraw the comment.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I will withdraw.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll wait for a moment.

I do have a comment to make just before we continue. If the Attorney General and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek would calm down in between questions, because—I didn’t jump up right away, but I’m asking you to relax.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thanks very much, Speaker.

I hate to burst the Acting Premier’s bubble, but people watching the Premier this week as he refused to take any responsibility for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent playing politics with gas plants worry that this government hasn’t learned a thing.

The people of Ontario gave us all a clear message in the last election, and the by-election last month reinforced that message. Why does this government still seem to have trouble understanding that the people chose not to give them the power to do whatever they want whenever they want?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am proud that just this week we passed the healthy homes renovation tax credit.

The people of Ontario have been watching this circus in the Legislature, where the opposition are up to their ears in what I would call a vile besmirch of the Legislative Assembly and everyone associated with it. Parliamentarians will look back at this as a very dark moment in parliamentary history. They will see what this is all about, and that’s why Ontarians want to talk about jobs, and that’s what we’re going to talk about.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we will not fire 55,000 teachers and nurses.

We appreciated the support of the leader of the third party on our budget. We appreciated the ability to get our throne speech passed. We are proud of the fact that October 2 marked the ninth anniversary of a Liberal government in this province, and we will continue to put forward a jobs—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’m very proud of the real results that New Democrats have been able to achieve in this minority Legislature. We brought fairness to the budget, we improved our health system and helped parents who need child care with their busy lives.

But the fact remains that this government has been more interested in helping themselves than helping the people who sent them here. We heard it again today, in fact, just this morning, when the Premier made it very clear that he won’t appear at committee to explain his role in the private power mess. We saw it when the government spent the summer scrambling and failing to win a by-election. We see it as the government creates gridlock in this House, all the while complaining that nothing is getting done.

The people have sent the government a clear message. My question is a simple one: Are they actually listening?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There’s another important anniversary of October 6, Mr. Speaker: It’s one year since we’ve seen a plan from the NDP. The first anniversary is the paper anniversary, and all we hear from—we’ve seen no paper. All we hear is pandering. The NDP: never done pandering.

We’ve laid out a budget that is consistent with our platform, and that budget has been passed. We are going to continue to focus on jobs and the economy, on better schools and on better health care. The people of Ontario know who’s talking about those issues.

Premier McGuinty, just this morning, was at the agri summit—an important industry to this province and an important contributor to gross domestic product. It is a growing industry that is contributing enormously.

Our focus is on jobs; our focus is on a brighter future, with a clear plan to do just that.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. The people who sent us here tell us that they’re getting tired and frustrated with a government that clearly doesn’t seem to get it.

Yvonne, a mother of three, wrote to us to say, “As a taxpayer who has pretty well single-handedly brought up three daughters, I am, and have been for a long time, used to turning over every penny three times before I spend it ... only to now realize that our hard-earned money is frivolously being spent in absolutely ludicrous ways….

“I have been watching the actions in the Legislature a little bit and I cannot stand the way straightforward questions are not being answered.”

Why is the government so unwilling to provide some of the basic answers that Yvonne deserves to hear, Speaker?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yvonne, I hope, will listen to the lack of any plan or any idea of what to do about the future. Yvonne will also be aware that the leader of the third party says she’s going to raise everyone’s pay, give money to all kinds of organizations, balance the budget, and somehow everything is going to be just fine. The leader of the third party says we won’t have nuclear power; we won’t have coal power. The leader of the party has no plan.

So Yvonne, I say to you, if you’re listening today: Look carefully at our plan. We have worked hard over the last year, and the eight years before that, to build a better and fairer society. There are, no doubt, more things to do, Mr. Speaker, but we will continue to focus on jobs, to focus on health care and education. I’m going to do everything I can to convince Yvonne that the best party in this Legislature, the best party to form a government, is the Ontario Liberal Party, led by Dalton McGuinty.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think the point was that Yvonne is saying that actions speak louder than words.

Ann, a senior on fixed income, writes, “I am disgusted and furious [at the government’s] many secret deals. My hydro bill … is becoming unmanageable. One friend I know says she will go back to oil lamps and wood as she cannot continue to pay these bills and they are still climbing.”

A constituent named Nathan writes, “I am frustrated that Dalton McGuinty can, on one hand, claim that we need to close provincial parks … to pay down the deficit, while at the same time making financial mistakes such as … gas power plant cancellation costs that are climbing into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

This is what everyday Ontarians are saying. These are the kinds of emails and letters that we’re receiving daily. What does the government have to say to people like Nathan, who expect a little bit of accountability from a government that has taken so much from them?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, last week I spoke to Betty, who said to me that she’s glad that we no longer have diesel generators in our downtown cities.

I spoke to Andrew, who says he’s glad that our party has put a premium on closing coal-fired plants and has laid out a plan to replace that power in a cost-effective way.

I spoke to Peter, who told me that the only party in this Legislature that has a real plan is the Ontario Liberal Party.

I spoke to Mark, who said to me that the third party ought to say how it’s going to balance the budget without laying people off and to stop pandering to every interest group across the province—no darn plan; never done pandering.

This government will continue to fight for working Ontarians with a strong plan for job growth, better schools and better health care. We look forward to meeting you on the campaign—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not helpful. You can look confused, but it’s not helpful using persons’ names.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how out of touch the government across the way has become. People are feeling the squeeze in tough times, and they don’t see a government on their side.

Marie from Ottawa tells us, “My salary has gone down $22,000, and everything, particularly hydro, is going up. It is not the Ontario I grew up in. I fear for the future of my children.”

The Hartley family adds, “[We are] very concerned about how the Liberals have attacked the middle and working class.”

Peter, from the London area, adds, “There needs to be accountability for this tremendous waste. The ways we could have better used that money are too numerous to count. It’s criminal to abuse power as it appears to have been abused.”

When will people like Peter see the accountability that they expect from their government instead of the hubris that we get from the Acting Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I spoke to Burinder, who can see through the leader of the third party. He said to me that he recognizes that they have no plan to get the province’s finances in order.

I had the opportunity to speak to Mohammed from Toronto, who said to me that governments have to come to terms with the fiscal challenges they’re met with at the same time as they make important investments in education and in health care.

I spoke with Jeanne from Sudbury and she told me what a good job Rick Bartolucci has done for northern Ontario.

We can see through that. You don’t speak any more for average Ontarians than we do. This caucus, this government, represents Main Street Ontario. Our plans are about Main Street Ontario. It’s about a better life, better schools, better health care, and I stand with those Ontarians who can see through that. We look forward to the next election when we’ll have a vigorous debate about all these important issues.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Acting Premier. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Premier of Ontario was a student of Machiavelli who is prepared to sacrifice the reputation of one of his trusted colleagues in order to save his own.

Even as the Premier asked the opposition to reconsider our position on the government’s breach of parliamentary privilege, reminding us that the Minister of Energy is a good man with a good professional reputation, the Premier unceremoniously throws the minister under the bus—all this to protect the Liberal Party’s campaign team and, most likely, the Premier’s own involvement in the decision to cancel the gas plants.

The Minister of Energy must, in his heart of hearts, believe this treatment is grossly unfair to him personally. How can the minister possibly continue to serve with credibility when the Premier has shown him such callous disregard, potentially leading to the ruin of his professional reputation, all in the name of protecting the backroom boys who are apparently calling the shots within this government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I have a tremendous amount of respect for the member who just asked the question, but I quite frankly am very, very disappointed that he would be dragged down to those levels by his colleagues.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are some very serious issues at play here: the issue of solicitor-client privilege, the issue of commercial confidentiality—something that, as we found out this morning, his seatmate knows a great deal about as a minister. It’s about balancing those issues with the rights and responsibilities of committees.

We came forward to the opposition on several occasions to put forward plans so that we could co-operate and find a way to move forward with this, a way to deal with this, a way to charge a committee of the Legislature to look into this very serious matter, and what the opposition did is, they used their majority to go after a member of this Legislature, the Minister of Energy, an honourable minister, to the point where we have colleagues over there, members over there, who are openly speaking about sending him to jail.

The member who just asked a question, an honourable member—stand up and separate yourself from your colleagues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Speaker, it need not have come to this. There were numerous decision points when the government could have done the right thing and consistently chose not to. The government could have released the requested documents to the estimates committee when first asked. They could have released all the requested documents, as the Speaker suggested, instead of whiting many of them out, most likely in an effort to delete the involvement of the government and the Liberal campaign team.

There could have been a public apology or at least some expression of contrition for the breach of parliamentary privilege leading to a potential finding of contempt, or more appropriately, in our parliamentary system of government, a minister—even the First Minister of the government—could have assumed responsibility and resigned.

Will the government House leader, on behalf of the government, now apologize to this House for the breach of parliamentary privilege, and will he now promise to ensure the release of all relevant documents to the finance committee without whiting them out?

Hon. John Milloy: Yes, there were ways to avoid this, Mr. Speaker. The government came forward to the opposition with two separate proposals, asking them to work with us to find a way to balance the various principles that were in play, as came forward from your ruling. They said no.

So what did we do? We came forward with an amendment in this Legislature, an amendment which would have charged the committee, which is right now holding hearings in this matter, to look into these important principles. It is outrageous what the opposition did. As well as musing out loud about sending an honourable member to jail, they stifled debate—they stifled debate in this Legislature through the passage of a closure motion.

Mr. Speaker, they have raced to the bottom, and as far as I’m concerned, they’ve crossed the finish line. That question is unbecoming of a member with as sterling a reputation as member for Wellington–Halton Hills.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, on September 17, the Ministry of Labour announced that it was hiring an additional 18 employment standards officers to protect vulnerable workers such as gas station attendants. Three days later, 19 employment standards officers were told they were out of a job.

Does the government actually plan to make the workplaces in this province safer for gas station attendants like Jayesh Prajapati, or was this just all for good publicity?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Over the last three years, the Ministry of Labour has made very significant progress in dealing with employment standards claims. Because of those investments, we’ve eliminated a huge backlog in claims and upgraded our processes.

We’re now at the point where we’re going to shift our focus to more proactive inspections, and we’re doing that. Over the last year and a half, we’ve added 20 proactive inspectors, and last month we announced another 18. We’ve shifted our staff from dealing with incoming calls and processing the claims, now to providing more proactive enforcement of the ESA.

We know that our government has made some very significant progress in those employment standards in the province and with that temporary task force that we invested in back in 2010 to help reduce the backlog. That’s a very significant thing, and that proactive inspection is what I think the people of Ontario want us to do: to get out of the office and out into the workplaces.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, you can’t do proactive inspections without the adequate resources through the employment standards officers. With each passing day, it becomes clearer that Ontario must do more to protect vulnerable workers like Jayesh Prajapati. Jayesh earned little more than minimum wage, and because he feared he’d have to pay for stolen gas, he took it upon himself to protect himself and to protect his family.

How can this government even pretend to care about the rights of vulnerable workers when it secretly fires front-line workers just a few short days after it publicly announces its plans to protect them?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Speaker, my heart goes out to Jayesh’s family. A man is dead. A woman is now without her husband, a son is without his father, and his family is now grieving, obviously.

Certainly, if any member has any suggestions on how to improve in a meaningful way how we enforce employment standards, my door is always open. As the Minister of Labour, I want everyone to go to work at the beginning of the day and come home safely at the end of the day.

We are the first government to conduct proactive inspections and employment standards blitzes. Based on this incident, my ministry has put in increased staffing with regard to employment standards at gas stations. We have put the resources in. We’re seeing the results of those proactive inspections. I welcome any other suggestion the member may have.

IMMIGRANTS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham is a very diverse community. People from around the world call our community home, contributing to our local economy and enriching our local culture, so I know first-hand of the challenges our newcomers face when it comes to integrating into their new communities and putting their skills to work in the economy.

Recent federal cutbacks to settlement funding have not made overcoming these challenges any easier. That’s why members of my community were pleased to hear that Ontario was taking leadership by developing its own immigration strategy. As a first step, Minister, you announced the creation of the Expert Roundtable on Immigration to consult with stakeholders, gather information and report back to you. I understand that the roundtable delivered their recommendations to you yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell us what their recommendations were and how they will affect the development of Ontario’s immigration strategy?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member from Oak Ridges–Markham for her excellent work in the riding as well.

Yesterday, I was pleased to receive the report of the Expert Roundtable on Immigration entitled Expanding Our Routes to Success. The recommendations addressed a number of issues, including immigrant selection, settlement, integration and foreign qualification recognition. The expert roundtable was chaired by Julia Deans, the former CEO of CivicAction. It included business leaders, academics, economists and immigration experts.

I also want to recognize and thank my parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor West. She concurrently made consultations across the province. Combined, their findings and recommendations will contribute to the development of our long-term immigration strategy. It will also contribute to our ongoing discussions with the federal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I know that the people of Oak Ridges–Markham will be pleased to know of this progress. Our newcomers arrive with an incredible amount of skills, knowledge and experience, and an incredible drive to put their talents to work.

We’re also fortunate to have great organizations like the Social Services Network of York region, which devotes itself to helping people from the South Asian community get settled and find work. This organization provides outreach programs, including weekly meetings, that provide all-encompassing support to newcomers who need to adapt, contribute and prosper in our Canadian society.

It’s clear that newcomers play a vital role in our province. That’s why we need to ensure that they have the support they need to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: How will Ontario’s immigration strategy support our goal of helping newcomers contribute to our economy?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member is absolutely correct: Newcomers are key to Ontario’s future economic growth and prosperity. Recent labour market projections indicate that in the next 10 years, over 625,000 new workers will be required in Ontario. Our province needs skilled immigrants to fill these jobs and boost our economic growth.

That’s why we’re developing a strategy that will focus on how immigration can best support the province’s economy and help immigrants succeed. To achieve our goal, we welcome information and expert advice, including the expert roundtable. It’s critical that we get this strategy right. We’re developing an evidence-based strategy that will help further Ontario’s prosperity and help immigrants succeed. We know that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, you should be ashamed that, as the head of finances, you allowed $650 million of Ontario’s hard-earned tax dollars to be squandered, which resulted in nothing. Let me define “nothing” for you, Minister: Not a single job was created, and no energy was added to the grid. With nothing to show for it, you’ve added even more Liberal scandal money to the provincial deficit. Ontario is in a financial, economic crisis, and it’s obvious by your actions that all of the above could lead to a contempt motion.

Minister, as Ontario’s finance minister, will you take responsibility for giving the Liberal campaign team the green light to add $650 million to Ontario’s deficit for nothing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am proud that Ontario is back from the brink of blackouts and brownouts, the legacy of that government. You can swim in this bathwater as long as you want. The people of Ontario want to talk about jobs. They want to talk about the economy.

I’ve just been informed that General Motors of Canada is adding a new shift at Oshawa and a new shift at St. Catharines, Mr. Speaker. That is what Ontarians are looking for. I remember when that party and their leader called our support of General Motors “corporate welfare.” We reject that.

You can swim in that bathwater all you want; we’re going to talk about jobs and a better economy. You want to lay people off; we want to hire them. That’s what we’re going to talk about, and you just keep swimming in that dirty bathwater as long as you want.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you, Minister. That was a great campaign speech, but my money is still on Kathleen Wynne to win the leadership.

Minister, you’ve lost control of the province’s finances. You’ve allowed scandals to be financed by Ontario’s credit card and doubled the deficit. You’ve presided over billions of dollars wasted at eHealth and Ornge, and you’ve wasted $650 million on gas plants for the seat-saver program. All the while, you have allowed the unemployment rate in Ontario to rise, and 600,000 men and women are struggling to find jobs. Our economy is hurting, and Minister, you’ve been in charge of the finances while health and education dollars are being wasted in scandals.

Minister, will you now please take responsibility for giving the Liberal campaign team the green light to waste 650 million Ontario taxpayer dollars?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Ontarians understand that the world went through a dramatic economic decline, and that’s why the federal Conservative government went from a healthy surplus to the largest deficit in federal history. That’s why the federal Conservative government has added debt all over.

I think Ontarians see through that empty rhetoric. I think they see through the very dirty bathwater that they want to swim in. They want us to work on the economy, Mr. Speaker. That’s what we’re doing. That’s why we invested in General Motors and Chrysler. That’s why we are looking to keep teachers in classrooms and nurses in hospitals. That party wants to lay off teachers, lay off nurses. We reject that.

Yes, it is a campaign speech—a campaign for the government of Ontario under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, who has taught them more than one lesson about what’s right and important for the future of Ontario. That’s what this government’s about and that’s what we’re going to fight for.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I want to make a point here: I’ve been hearing it on all sides, where people, either heckling or when they’re asking or answering a question, are referring to members by their names. There’s a tradition that you do not do that, and there’s a reason for it: It is to become less personal and more focused on issues. I’m going to ask all members to be reminded of not using individual names in this House.

New question.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Faith leaders are gathering in Ontario cities this Thanksgiving week, and the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition is actually here today at Queen’s Park. They remind us that many of our neighbours are suffering. They also raise an extremely important question: Why has the government cut the community start-up and maintenance benefit by 50% and cancelled the home repair benefit when these two supports helped tens of thousands of low-income Ontarians stay in their homes and out of homelessness?

Hon. John Milloy: I first of all would like to welcome ISARC to the Legislature today. I’ve had the pleasure of working with that fine organization for many years as both an MPP and as a minister.

As I’ve said before in this House, I don’t think anyone has a monopoly when it comes to compassion or concern for those who are in need. I was very pleased that with the budget last spring, one of the few ministries that received a substantial increase in its budget was my ministry, as well as that of children and youth services. Although it was a substantial increase in relation to what else was going on across the board, at the same time there are pressures on my ministry, and we’ve had to find ways to do things differently and to make dollars go further.

One of those ways is a new approach to homelessness funding, a new approach to dealing with these housing issues. It is the creation of the community homelessness prevention initiative, which takes a number of programs—some of them under my ministry, some of them under the Ministry of Housing—gives them to the Ministry of Housing and then gives municipalities the opportunity to have a lot more flexibility in dealing with homelessness issues. We have also taken the CSUMB program—and a portion of that funding is going into this pot of money to allow municipalities to have the flexibility to deal with this issue.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again to the Minister of Community and Social Services: This government will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to move gas plants and to protect its own interests, but it won’t help people struggling with illness or abusive relationships find or keep a safe home. Cutting these benefits hurts our neighbours and it won’t save money, because people who lose these benefits will be forced to move to higher-cost shelters and to hospitals.

I ask again, why did the government make these hurtful cuts before even hearing the recommendations of their only social assistance review commission?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’ve told this story before. I remember going to a poverty forum as a candidate in the last election. I went through the NDP platform, and I believe it took me four times to find their piece on poverty, which was a couple of bullets at the bottom of a page, I think, under “natural resources.”

That member has no monopoly when it comes to compassion for the poor in this province, and I am proud of what our government has done, things like the Ontario child benefit; the raising of minimum wage; the raising of ODSP and OW rates; the fact that we’ve seen 325,000 jobs created; job retraining programs; our investments in education—all of it focused on helping those who are in need to come into the mainstream of the economy.

I’m proud of what we’ve done. I’m looking forward to the social assistance review that should be out in the next number of weeks. It’s going to be an opportunity for us to strengthen the system even more.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Our government is making record investments in public transit, including four new LRT lines in Toronto, one of which will benefit directly my riding of York South–Weston. My constituents rely on public transit to get to work and school and to reduce congestion on the roads.

Some of them have called or emailed me recently, expressing some concerns or confusion regarding the use of private-sector partners. Speaker, can the minister inform the House on how the LRT lines will be built and operated?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, I thank the member for her leadership on transit, and under the leadership of the Toronto Liberal caucus, we are investing $8.4 billion in four new LRT lines in Toronto, the largest infrastructure project in Canada today.

We have finalized a partnership with the TTC. Together, we are building a seamless, integrated and reliable transit system that Toronto commuters expect and deserve. This agreement allows the government to work with the private sector to design, build, finance and maintain the new lines. At the same time, this new agreement allows for the TTC to operate the LRT system; namely, the TTC will be responsible for vehicle drivers, station operators and ticket staff; safety and enforcement; and dispatch and control of vehicle access throughout the system.

Importantly, the private sector is responsible for any cost overruns or delays. Despite the fictitious claims from the NDP, this project remains publicly owned.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the minister for that update. I’m glad to see that we are making great progress with our partners at the TTC.

The people in my riding, in York South–Weston, will be pleased to hear that we are moving forward with these new lines, and the people of Toronto want to see transit projects built. The TTC is a mix of subways, buses, streetcars, and now LRTs. Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain how the LRT lines will fit in the existing system?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The new LRT lines will be seamlessly integrated into the existing transit system. That means riders will pay one fare and easily transfer throughout the entire system, just like they currently do, between subways, buses and streetcars.

We are proud to be the only government in the past 20 years to actually build transit in the city of Toronto. Our record $8.4-billion investment in LRTs will improve transit operations for riders, reduce congestion and keep our air clean. We reject the approach of the PCs, who actually filled in a subway under construction and who consistently vote against transit and strategic infrastructure funding. We reject their constant opposition to building new transit. The McGuinty government is getting the job done on public transit.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the Acting Premier. In the estimates committee we asked for documents from the Minister of Energy, the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority, but there’s one glaring exemption from what we’ve received so far: Nothing, not one document, was either written to or from the former Minister of Energy, now the economic development minister.

That speaks to two things: Either the former minister was negligent in not keeping up with a vital part of his portfolio, or the government is withholding 100% of those documents. So the question is this: Is it negligence, or is this government covering something up?

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I withdraw.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you what’s negligent: What’s negligent is stifling debate in this Legislature.

The fact of the matter is that we came forward with 36,000 pages of documents that were provided to the opposition, that were provided to the committee. The story behind those documents: I think members are well aware they have to do with balancing the rights of public interest, the rights of solicitor-client privilege—something recognized as a constitutional right—with the right of committees to examine documents.

At the same time, we came forward with an amendment that asked the committee to look into this very, very important issue, and that member and his colleagues used the opposition majority to stifle debate in this Legislature, to not allow our amendment to come forward, and now are openly musing about punitive action against a distinguished member of this Legislature, the Minister of Energy. I think that member has a lot of apologizing to do.

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader sounds like a broken record defending that government’s broken record. The Liberals say the Minister of Energy is an honourable man, a good man, yet they exploit that very honourability, that very good loyalty that they have presented. They have chosen that minister to be a fall guy. There’s nothing to say other than that.

The truth is, the Liberals could have released those documents sooner. They could have avoided this contempt debacle that they currently face, instead of burying a friend for selfish political reasons. Why does that Liberal government continue to value the energy minister’s political career less than their own political legacy?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to ask the honourable member, why does he stand here and say that someone is guilty until proven innocent? Why does he stand here and prejudge the work of the committee? Not only does he have no respect for debate in this Legislature, but now he and his colleagues are standing up and prejudging the work of a committee that has not even begun. There has been a committee of this Legislature charged with looking into the issues around these documents.

We tried to focus that committee on valuable work, but for partisan, vindictive reasons, they are going after a member of this Legislature, they are prejudging the work of the committee, and as far as I’m concerned, they owe the Minister of Energy an apology and they owe an apology to the people of Ontario for not allowing democracy to continue in this Legislature.

MINISTRY SPENDING

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Last week, the Ministry of Natural Resources unveiled some of its transformation plan, which includes significant cuts to jobs, parks and the long-standing Ontario ranger program.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And there’s the problem. Nobody heard—luckily I did—that it was going to the Minister of Natural Resources. So let’s keep it down.

Continue, please.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Thank you, Speaker.

For the past number of months, northerners have been on edge, worrying about whether the cuts will hit their communities, because in a northern community like Ignace, with a population of 1,000 or 1,500 people, the loss of only a few jobs can have a devastating effect on the local economy.

Nipigon mayor Richard Harvey said that he has had personal assurances from the minister that the MNR office in his town will not be closed. My question to the minister is simple. Can he provide the same assurances that the MNR won’t cut jobs in other small towns across the northwest that are outside of his riding?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you for the question; I appreciate it. Certainly our ministry transformation plan, which we unveiled last week, and the operational changes that came with it are focused squarely on our determination to maintain our commitment to the core values and the core priorities of the Ministry of Natural Resources, including the protection of our natural resources, conserving biodiversity, supporting sustainable development and protecting Ontarians from natural hazards such as fires. Certainly our fiscal challenges have required us to make some tough decisions, but they are decisions based on maintaining those key priorities.

In terms of our magnificent Ontario parks system, we had 334 protected parks last week; we have 334 parks this week. In terms of our youth ranger program, we’re moving to a program that will employ just as many people next summer.

These are the things that are important to Ontarians, and we’re very committed in our ministry to maintaining those priorities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again to the Minister of Natural Resources: People in northeastern Ontario are also outraged with this decision, which once again suggests we are second-class citizens in this province.

This summer, the Premier visited Elliot Lake following the tragic collapse of the mall, and he committed to helping rebuild the community and the local economy. Since the mall collapse, Elliot Lakers have experienced drastic job losses, unemployment and an uncertain future.

Now we have learned that they are closing Mississagi Provincial Park, resulting in further job losses in the community and across the north.

Is this the government’s idea of helping out Elliot Lake and other northern communities?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: As I’ve pointed out, our ministry certainly has fiscal challenges, and we need to recognize that. These were very, very tough decisions. But certainly in terms of our change in designation of parks from operating to non-operating, we were looking at visitation rates being low, we were looking at low campground occupancy and, may I say, some significant capital infrastructure needs for those parks.

Indeed, I will be sitting down and meeting with a number of northeastern Ontario mayors over the next couple of weeks, and I’ve had a number of conversations with others as well. We are very committed to maintaining our core priorities in the Ministry of Natural Resources, ones that you would expect us to maintain, such as protecting our natural resources and conserving our biodiversity, and sustainable development. These are important to us. We recognize how tough it is, but we’re making the most thoughtful decisions we possibly can.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Earlier this fall, a group of innovators in the agri-food industry from across southwestern Ontario were honoured in my riding of Guelph with agri-food innovation awards for contributing to the success of Ontario’s agri-food sector. I know from my colleagues in Peterborough and Sudbury that there have been regional award ceremonies in their communities as well.

Promoting Ontario foods and celebrating local success stories is part of the McGuinty government’s plan for a stronger agri-food industry that creates jobs to help grow the province’s economy. I was pleased to attend the presentation of the Premier’s agri-food innovation awards today. So, Speaker, through you to the minister, can the minister tell us more about all the award winners?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member from Guelph; we all know that Guelph is agriculture’s Silicon Valley for innovation. There were some 50 people who received regional innovation awards this year, and just this morning, I was honoured to be joined by a number of colleagues. I appreciate the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane making a special effort to come out—good to see you there this morning—as well as other colleagues.

I was honoured to join the Premier at the agri-food summit. The Premier presented awards: The Premier’s award for agri-food innovation went to Phil Short of Vineland Station. Short is a fruit grower, shipper and entrepreneur whose company, Vortex Packaging, created a recyclable and stackable fruit basket that has been widely adopted. And I was very proud to present Burning Kiln Winery of St. Williams with the minister’s award for agri-food innovation for repurposing and adapting tobacco kilns to dry grapes, a process that has resulted in award-winning wines, one of which is served daily in the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: This year’s award winners were very impressive. With the eighth Premier’s agri-food summit taking place today, it’s a great reminder that since 2007, 285 producers, processors and agri-food organizations from across the province have been recognized at the annual Premier’s summit on agri-food innovation. It’s very fitting that, as was mentioned by the minister here yesterday, this week is Agriculture Week in Ontario, and the government is gathering with stakeholders to discuss agriculture and celebrate innovation in that industry. Can the minister tell this House what other messages were shared to the summit this morning?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m delighted to share some of the other messages. The most important message is, we want to celebrate our success in Ontario.

Interjection: Lots of good news out there.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: There is a lot of good news out there.

We want to celebrate not only our success, but we want to celebrate our innovations. We want to celebrate that our producers and processors produce and process the best-tasting, most nutritious and safest food in the world. Today, in fact, Premier McGuinty, at his summit on agri-food innovation, offered the $10 local food challenge, asking families to shift—not spend more—simply shift $10 of their local spending every week to purchase Ontario products, and if every family in Ontario did that, we could increase food sales by $2.4 billion and create 10,000 new jobs.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question today is for the Attorney General. In order to justify the $650-million decision to cancel these plants, we’ve heard cries of public outcry, energy inefficiency, load management and use of alternative energy. But there’s really only one reason, isn’t there? Your lawyer has been warning of it all along. The few unredacted documents we could piece together reveal the mad scramble among bureaucrats pitching creative excuses and evaluating the fallout of each; namely, public misfeasance.

We’ve also discovered that the former Minister of Energy asked for legal counsel, a Coles Notes version on tort of misfeasance, which is an abuse of public power and public office, including its defences. Minister, were you aware that your lawyers were giving advice about misfeasance to the former Minister of Energy, and does that make you responsible?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’ll refer this to the House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to have to repeat it again: When it comes to the question of cancelling the gas plants, there was something very rare in this House; there was unanimity. We heard from the Progressive Conservative Party, we heard from the NDP, and we ourselves reached the same conclusion, that we shouldn’t go ahead with them. In fact, I’m told, and I’ve heard during some of the debate before they stifled it, that the fact of the matter was there were robocalls from their own candidate to people about how they wanted to cancel the plant.

The fact of the matter is, we cancelled the plant, then we went ahead with negotiations with one of the companies, and at that point, documents were asked for. We tried to work with the opposition to deal with those documents, to have the committee charged with the work to deal with this very, very important issue of the two competing principles. Mr. Speaker, the opposition have blocked us at every turn.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: That wasn’t even remotely close to answering the question. I usually do enjoy the Attorney General’s answers; he