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

April 29, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Apr-29 (PDF)

L076 - Wed 29 Apr 2015 / Mer 29 avr 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 April 2015 Mercredi 29 avril 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

Special report, Auditor General

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Government spending

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Winter highway maintenance

Privatization of public assets

Services for the disabled

Sexual harassment

Teachers’ labour disputes

Agri-food industry

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Senior citizens

Unpaid leave

Special-needs children

Visitors

Correction of record

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Jewish Heritage Month

Organ and blood donation

Carnation Revolution

Testicular cancer

Ontario farmers

Barrie Community Health Centre

Egg Farmers of Ontario

Earth Day

Earth Day

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Bills

Testicular Cancer Awareness Month Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Mois de la sensibilisation au cancer du testicule

Peter Kormos Act (Repealing the Safe Streets Act), 2015 / Loi Peter Kormos de 2015 sur l’abrogation de la

Loi sur la sécurité dans les rues

Motions

Private members’ public business

Order of business

Petitions

Asthma

Off-road vehicles

Student safety

Taxation

Dental care

French-language education

Taxation

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Student safety

Ostomy supplies

Office of the Ombudsman

Terry Fox Day

Credit unions

Orders of the Day

Protecting Child Performers Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des enfants artistes

Ryan’s Law (Ensuring Asthma Friendly Schools), 2015 / Loi Ryan de 2015 pour assurer la création d’écoles attentives à l’asthme

2015 Ontario budget

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 28, 2015, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to require the establishment of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan / Projet de loi 56, Loi exigeant l’établissement du Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and add my remarks today on Bill 56,

An Act to require the establishment of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. It’s

an act that we are in favour of, in principle, although we have some grave reservations about whether or not this government could actually create something like this without scandal and wasting people’s money.

I come from a long line of farmers, and we have, as personal history, very little experience with pensions, because farmers are self-employed and usually pass the farm on from generation to generation, and somehow in that passage, we support the former generation, as I did when I bought my dad’s farm, and we still do that. My mom would not be able to survive on CPP. So as part of when I bought the farm, we make a payment every month, and that’s part of my mom’s pension. Without that, she would have a very hard time making it. So we do have a true, deep feeling for people who have to rely on CPP. It’s not enough. I think we can all agree on that in this House.

There are people who don’t need a better pension system than we have now. They’ve done well for themselves, and that’s all fine and good. But there are people in our society who need help from a pension system. I think that we in this House can all agree that the best way to move forward would be an enhanced CPP. The federal system seems to work well; it does work well. I think we can all agree that that is the best way to move forward. The federal government has made it very clear that they don’t want to move forward on this—perhaps sometime in the future.

Perhaps the federal finance minister would also like to leave that to Stephen Harper’s granddaughter to figure out. That’s the part about pensions that is very important.

The provincial Conservatives keep calling this a tax, as do the federal Conservatives. In its essence, it’s not a tax. But, as an employer, I can see why an employer might view it as such, because there is a point that it is a cost of doing business. If your business is already being stretched to the limit by extremely high hydro costs—or, as in northern Ontario, many businesses need natural gas and they have no access to natural gas—or taxes—so it is an extra cost of doing business. As an employer, there’s no doubt of that.

As a society, we have to look forward, to make sure that as people reach retirement age—as our population ages, there are going to be more people reaching retirement age. It’s our duty, as the Legislature, to look forward to that. Governments are always accused of not looking far enough into the future. They’re just looking for the election cycle. It is a government’s job to look further than the election cycle.

The federal Conservatives have decided, “No, no, we don’t want to enhance the CPP.” So the provincial Liberals have decided to, again, introduce Bill 56. Basically, this is

an act to create an Ontario defined benefit pension plan.

While we support this one in principle—the Liberals have also confused the whole situation by introducing several bills, one a defined benefit, and one a pooled pension, which is not much different to us than current RRSPs. So they’re muddying the situation, in our opinion.

Also, the biggest question is whether this government has the fiscal responsibility to actually administer this plan in the way it that should be administered. For that—one of the reasons why we question that—I’d like to go to Bill 91,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts.

One of the acts that’s being amended—if you’ll give me a minute, Speaker, to find it—I even highlighted it. This is from the explanatory notes from

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts, Bill 91, the budget bill.

In

schedule 5, for the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act: “An amendment to subsection 3(2) of the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014 provides that the act does not apply to the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Administration Corporation and its subsidiaries.”

That’s very important, because one thing this government has been not very good at is actually controlling very high public sector—for example, CEO—salaries or arm’s-length corporations like Ornge. They’ve brought in the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014, and said, “This is our answer. This creates the framework—no hard caps, but it does create the framework.” And here in the budget bill that has just been introduced, they’re exempting the pension plan from that framework. Again, that’s part of the problem.

The best thing to do would be to have this rolled into the CPP, which the federal Conservatives don’t want to do. That way, you wouldn’t have to create another whole bureaucracy and another whole board. To create a successful pension plan, you’re going to need very qualified people, who are, no doubt, worth a lot of money. But, again, this act exempts us from finding out exactly how much money. If this is a public pension plan, it should be open and transparent. But we know the one thing that this government has a problem with is openness and transparency.

My father always told me that if someone has to tell you they’re honest, then deep down, they’re not that honest. And if a government has to keep telling you that they’re open and transparent, they might not be that open and transparent.

In Bill 91, while we’re creating a defined benefit pension plan—what they’re proposing to create. We’re worried that they’re actually not going to have the due diligence to do this correctly, and here they’re starting out by exempting the pension plan from the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act. That’s not a very good start for openness and transparency.

There’s one other issue that is a problem. We’ll create a board and we’ll create the corporation, which is not covered by the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act. But it gets better, Speaker—or worse.

In the bill—Bill 56 to create this pension—under Delegation, “The legislation referred to in subsection 1(2) shall contain rules that permit the administrative entity to delegate the authority to perform any of the administrative entity’s functions or to carry out any of the administrative entity’s powers.” So we create a board, we exempt them from the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act and then we allow this board to delegate powers to another group. This might work very well, or this might become another huge Ornge. That is something we have to find out, going forward.

Because, as you know, Ornge risked people’s lives and wasted people’s money, and here, the government wants to create a tool to actually save money for people’s futures, but the delegation of authority and the exemption of public oversight is not a very good way to start.

The third issue—unfortunately, I can’t quote from the act on this, but it’s an issue that’s really a very serious issue to us. If this bill goes ahead and this plan is implemented as it’s written now, this will be kept in a separate pool of funds, which it should be. These funds will be invested, and hopefully, when people who have paid into this reach the age where they can pull out of the plan, there will be money there. That’s basically how this plan is supposed to work. They know how much they’re going to get out.

But as has been the case with other governments, once you build up this plan and you have a big whack of money in it—and we know how governments tend to need money, from time to time—there is the danger that the government will try to ease their way into this plan to basically finance the operations, good or bad, of the government.

I’m sure that they, on the other side, are going to comment, “No. That will never happen. This is set in stone.” Our example of why this could very well happen is something else that we’ve owned and built up for 100 years and has been set in stone—can anybody help me? Hydro One. It actually makes the government money, and they’re talking right now about raiding it, dumping it and using it as part of the election cycle. If they get $4 billion from Hydro One and they’ve promised $130 billion in transit, selling Hydro One is really a drop in the bucket. The numbers don’t work.

What we really have to be cognizant of, is that they’re going to build up this plan and they’ve shown very well that they’re willing to raid it, because they’re willing to raid Hydro One. Speaker, I’d like to share my time with the member from Welland, but I’d like to end with this. That’s the biggest problem. We support this bill, in principle, but we don’t believe the government actually has the principles to pull it off.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: I think this is the second time I’ve had the opportunity to actually speak to this bill. I spoke to it at second reading, and I spent most of my time during second reading talking about what workers really need in this province. Although we do support the ORPP in principle, if you talk to workers across Ontario, they’ll tell you that what they really need is a good job, Speaker. They need a job that makes more than minimum wage. They need a job that has full-time hours.

They need a job that actually has some health benefits so that they’re not having to pay for those health care needs out of their pocket. They need enforcement through the employment standards branch and through the occupational health and safety branch to make sure that entitlements that they have under the employment standards are actually enforced. So many of them work overtime in this province. They don’t get their vacation. They don’t get their overtime paid. They don’t get their stat holidays paid. And unfortunately, the enforcement isn’t that great.

If they had a decent job with a pension and benefits, they wouldn’t need to participate in this ORPP.

But, Speaker, there’s a lot of pension reform that needs to be done. I know that you talked about it yesterday, the pension guarantee here in the province of Ontario that is only $1,000. That legislation I think came in many, many years ago. Today, it certainly doesn’t cut it, when we have factories closing across the Niagara region and throughout the province—manufacturing, where people had $3,000 pensions or $2,500 pensions. Their company goes under and all of a sudden they see their pension reduced by a third, and then perhaps by another third, and the only guarantee that they have from the province when these companies bail is a thousand bucks—not much to support families.

There are also things that need to be done around part-time workers, even in defined benefit plans and public sector plans across this province. For many years, part-time workers were only able to contribute based on those part-time hours that they were scheduled, regardless of any of the overtime hours that they actually did. So for example in hospitals across this province, if you were a part-time worker working 24 hours a week, normally, but you suddenly worked some overtime and you were working 40 or 50 hours, you were not eligible to contribute on the straight-time portion of those hours.

Many part-time nurses in the province were negatively impacted by that, so they don’t have whole pensions at the end of the day. That was remedied in the last few years, but for many of them, they’ll be negatively impacted for the rest of their lives.

There are also requirements or criteria eligibility in many of the public sector pension plans that you have to work a minimum number of hours in each of two years before you even become eligible. That impacts part-time people, in particular, and that really needs to be fixed as well.

I also want to talk about whether there’s going to be an opportunity—we’re moving into the PRPPs, where people will be contributing into these pooled registered pension plans. What hasn’t been said by the government at this point in time is: Is there going to be any opportunity to use those funds to actually buy into the ORPP? I think there should be.

In fact, there are plans like that out there, Speaker. I know the Service Employees International Union has a plan. A few years ago, the nurses who worked in the long-term-care sector, who were contributing just to RRSPs with matching contributions from their employers, were able to go into that public sector pension plan through the service employees union and they were able to buy back years of service, to a maximum of seven years. There need to be opportunities through this PRPP and ORPP process to let people actually do that, so that they are going to have some defined type of benefit at the end of the day.

The last piece I want to speak to, though, is the issue of just handing this over to Bay Street. We’re saying that everybody deserves a pension and that people who don’t have a pension are the ones that we’re really doing this for. But at the end of the day, we’re doing an RFP out to some third party who is going to earn large administrative fees on these pension dollars.

We had a meeting last week with Great-West Life, for example, about MPPs’ contributions to the non-pension plan. In that case, we heard from Great-West Life that our fees are very little on our plan, depending on which fund you’re actually in. They can be as little as 0.2%, but in many mutual funds and many RRSPs throughout this province, fees can be 2.75%, 3%, 3.5%. So right off the top, you’re handing this over to banks or insurance companies, who are in the business of earning a profit. We know that. We see it with auto insurance. We see that with our banking fees. You have a debit card and you go across the street to another bank, and you have to pay $2 to draw out $100.

That is problematic, certainly, for the NDP, that the most vulnerable people, who we want to protect with a pension plan in this province, are perhaps going to be paying the highest fees to banks and insurance companies. We understand that those companies want to make a profit, but it shouldn’t be off of a public pension plan.

I think that the government needs to turn their minds to what they’re doing there with putting this out of the public realm. We all know that the wages for administering these plans will be very high. Once again, I like to use the word—it will be like winning a lottery, actually being able to administer this kind of plan.

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

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m happy to speak to this. I want to make three points. Number one: Associate Minister Hunter, responsible for this file, has been travelling about the province, talking to all manner of stakeholders, from private individuals to banks to insurance companies and the like. The overwhelming message that Minister Hunter receives from all of the stakeholders, across the board, is that this pension plan, this pension enhancement, is required. It is required. This is what the public wants.

The next point that I want to make: The next question to logically ask yourself is, why is there such an appetite in the public and in our public institutions and financial institutions for this? The reason is quite clear: When you dig into the facts, it turns out that pension coverage is low and it’s getting lower. In fact, two thirds of Ontarians do not have a workplace pension plan.

The second point is, Ontarians aren’t saving enough through voluntary measures. It turns out that there was about $300 billion in unused RRSP room last year, and 88% unused room in the tax-free savings accounts.

The third point is, it has become quite clear that the current levels of the CPP, administered by the federal government, are not sufficient.

It was the position of all of the provinces, Ontario included, that we would have liked to have proceeded by working with the federal government and enhancing the CPP. But for whatever reasons, the federal government, in a cold-hearted way, just rejected any initiative on that front. So Ontario and the other provinces are stepping to the fore to provide the security that Ontarians need and expect.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: We’ve debated this ORPP for quite some time now, and it would appear to me as though all we’re hearing from the government side is a bunch of finger pointing at the feds. I don’t think the feds are doing such a bad job, to be quite honest with you, so I get a little tired of the finger pointing.

We’ve been saying over here, on the PC side, that the ORPP is really a tax. It’s a tax on businesses, an employer tax. I look at that and I’m going, “You know what? Now they’re also forcing employees to, in fact, pay an additional 1.9% of their earnings—1.9%.”

I have a number of questions. This is what we do know: They’re saying they’ve brought this ORPP in to force employees to save more. Well, one of the things that this government is noted for is the fact that on the outside, it sounds good, but on the inside, it’s like, “Give us the details.” They don’t give us all the details. We don’t really know exactly what it’s going to be like.

I understand that from ages 17 to 70 is when you can maybe start contributing 1.9% of your wages, and an employer will do that same thing. So what is that going to look like? I know it’s based on what their contributions are, but how much money is that really going to make?

The other question is—it’s a question of trust. It’s a question of trust. We’ve heard former Premiers say, “I will not raise taxes,” and yet what happened? They raised taxes. They say, “This money is going to go towards helping employees.” Really and truly, I think that what’s going to happen is a lot of this money is going to go toward helping to pay for some of the grandiose infrastructure plans that this government has.

Infrastructure is needed, but I think that that money is not going to be used in an appropriate way, so for that reason, we’re not going to be in favour of the ORPP.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: Mr. Speaker, good morning. I’d like to talk about the CPP. I’m not going to agree with my neighbour next door.

I had the privilege of going to Ottawa to lobby, to try to get them to increase and enhance the CPP. It’s already in place; it’s already there. There’s already money there that is going to last another 75 years. What we could do with the federal government is just increase the CPP. The money is there. We don’t have to get into this Ontario pension plan if they’d just come to the table. That’s one thing that I think is important.

When you talk about what we are going to do with the money—I’m going to give you a couple of examples. We’re selling off hydro, which makes absolutely no sense, and our party has been saying it. People in Ontario are saying the same thing.

But when people say, “Well, you know, it’s hydro; it will never happen again; we’ll never use that money; this is going just to pensions”—does anyone remember, just a few years ago, Dalton McGuinty and the health tax? You remember the health tax that came in and it was going to go strictly to health care? You hear what happened: They used that money—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Maybe if you’d like to discuss things, you don’t have to yell across four rows of chairs. Maybe take it outside. Thanks.

Continue.

Mr. Wayne Gates: The health tax: What they did was they used that money from the health tax—instead of it going to health care, what did they do? They put it in general revenue.

Here’s what has happened to our health care in the last little while: As we see, we have cuts to health care. As we see, nurses are being laid off. As we see, in my riding alone, hospitals are being closed. As we see, there is more and more private health care.

So when you talk about the pension plan, we have to make sure there are safeguards in place so that the money can never be used.

Who is going to benefit from this? I heard one of my colleagues from the Liberal Party say people aren’t saving enough. I’m going to tell you why they’re not saving enough: Because there are no jobs out there that are good-paying jobs. They’re going from week to week to survive, because they have to work for minimum wage.

What we should be doing is focusing on making sure that there are good-paying jobs right here in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m quite happy to speak to the ORPP. As members know, it certainly was a key pillar of the government’s economic plan to build Ontario up. In fact, everyone will recall that it was a central part of the platform we ran on last year, and we won a majority mandate from Ontarians. It was also part of our 2014 budget, which passed the House this past July.

We know that retirement security is top of mind for Ontarians across the province. I know, when I was knocking on doors in Newmarket–Aurora, many seniors were backing this plan, because they knew that it wasn’t necessarily going to benefit them, but it certainly was going to benefit their grandchildren. It is their grandchildren who they are most concerned about.

We’ve heard this study says that, and another study is pro and some studies are con. But in recent weeks, we’ve seen reports from BMO, RBC, CIBC and Sun Life Financial that show that Ontarians simply aren’t saving enough.

I know that our associate minister has travelled the province and held dozens of meetings with individuals and associations, business and labour, and she has heard repeatedly how people are concerned that they may never be able to retire or that they’ll outlive their savings. These concerns were echoed by many of the people who presented at the public hearings for the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

Mr. Speaker, it’s plain to me that we have to make sure that, in future, people are able to retire with dignity. If we can’t get the help that’s needed for Ontarians facing retirement from the federal government by enhancing the CPP, we will have to do it ourselves. I think everyone’s preferred method is to work with the feds, but if they won’t come to the table, we have to find a made-in-Ontario solution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Welland has two minutes.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I want to thank the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, the member from Niagara Falls, the member from Newmarket–Aurora, and, of course, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane who used the first 12 minutes.

There were some good points made here. The member from Niagara Falls talked about the fact that there are no jobs, and that’s why people can’t save. We have so much precarious work in this province. We heard yesterday that the government had committed to creating 67,000 jobs last year, but they didn’t hit that target at all. People don’t have the money to actually save. But, at the end of the day, it’s going to be the most vulnerable people, the people who need these pensions the most, who are going to be impacted. The member from Niagara Falls was right.

There has been an actuarial done federally. I was speaking to Malcolm Allen, the MP from Welland, a couple of weeks ago. He had been at a committee, and he said, “They couldn’t even go far enough in the actuarials to beyond 70 years because they have that much money in the plan.” That would be the best way, actually, to increase income security across this country.

Now, the member from Newmarket–Aurora talked about the banks. He talked about BMO and CIBC. Those people are all about making profits. Here last year, we heard about the Royal Bank, for example, hiring temporary foreign workers to do IT jobs that were well-paid in the IT sector and actually letting people go who were making $40,000 and $50,000 a year, all to earn another per cent for the shareholders for those banks and insurance companies.

We’re not saying that we don’t support the ORPP in principle, but what we are saying is that there need to be safeguards in place to make sure that every penny of that pension plan is actually going to the people who need it most.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills and the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill. We’ve heard a lot about the principles of the bill. This debate is about the bill, not about the principles that surround it, or the lack of principles that surround it.

I’ve heard it mentioned by some disputing or refuting that this is a tax. I will say to you, Speaker, it is a tax and it is a nefarious tax in that—and it’s been well-documented—you will have to contribute for 40 years before you will receive the full benefits of this Ontario pension plan. Anybody over the age of 25 will be paying this tax, but will not be able to reap the benefits of this pension plan.

We also know that the way this plan is structured right at the moment, if and when you ever do receive any money from this Ontario pension plan, there very likely will be a clawback from the federal pension plan, the CPP. That is a Ponzi scheme at its best, a Ponzi scheme that even Bernie Madoff would not have been able to structure and sell: where you demand and collect money from people, but give them nothing in return and actually end up clawing back from other programs.

It was interesting. The member for Newmarket–Aurora was complaining about the lack of co-operation with the federal government and that the federal government was not interested in coming to the table. Well, Speaker, I can tell you—and I’m sure you would agree with me and most other people would agree with this statement: That is the pot calling the kettle black. When it comes to anybody not working with other members, the Liberal Party of Ontario excels to the extreme. Anybody who has ever been to a committee and has witnessed the clause-by-clause or the amendment process knows full well that the Liberals don’t have any idea about working with others. They reject everything out of hand.

Earlier this week, it was announced that a world-class business in my riding lost out on its expansion. Goodyear Canada announced that, due to the unreliability of our electricity system and the exorbitant costs, their expansion will be in Mexico and not in Napanee. This subject was brought up by none other than Liam McGuinty during the committee hearings on this bill. Liam McGuinty, who is with the chamber of commerce—and yes, he is the son of the former Premier—spoke, and he said that we need to consider the broader regulatory impact of not just this bill, but all Liberal government bills. He stated that we have the highest WSIB rates—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s a little loud over there. If you want to have a group session, go outside. Thanks.

Continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Speaker—another demonstration of them working together with others in the House, I guess.

Liam McGuinty stated that with the highest WSIB premiums in the country, the highest electricity rates in the country, the second-highest minimum wage rate in the country and a new carbon tax in hand coming very shortly, along with this ORPP pension plan, this will be devastating and will not just continue, but amplify, the hemorrhaging of jobs and investment in our province. It will have more and more of our jobs leaving this province and new ones not being created here, but being created elsewhere. We saw that with Toyota’s announcement of the Corolla production moving to Mexico. We saw it with the production of GM’s Camaro leaving this province.

Clusters are developing, but they’re not being developed here in Ontario—clusters of Ontario jobs, Ontario manpower—but in Mexico. And this ORPP will just exacerbate and amplify that hemorrhaging of our jobs and our prosperity in this country.

The Liberal government says that people aren’t saving enough. Well, is there any doubt, after 12 years of a Liberal government raiding every purse and every pocket, every wallet and every bank account, wherever it is in the land? Yes, it is tough to save in this province. It’s impossible to save for many people. Taking more money out of their pockets is not going to help the situation. Wake up.

A couple of other things, Speaker. The Liberals are proposing a brand new administration, a brand new bureaucracy to administer this ORPP, this pension plan. I don’t think I’m just being cynical or that I stand alone on this one: Is there anybody in this province who believes that the Liberals can manage anything? Can they manage helicopters? No. Can they manage eHealth records? No. Can they manage gas plants contracts? No. Can they manage getting a hydro bill out to a person on time? They can’t even do that. But now they’re going to suggest that they have the management expertise and competencies to administer a successful pension plan? I don’t buy it; nobody does.

Maybe if we could see them get a hydro bill out on time—an accurate hydro bill—and maybe if I could see them actually get an annual report done and tabled in the House on time, those would give us some cause to believe that maybe they’ve turned a new leaf and are actually taking their responsibilities seriously. But we’ve not seen any evidence of that.

I can just imagine: They’re just going to be totally confused, trying to do a new pension plan and a tax, a cap-and-trade program, at the same time. These guys can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, and now they want to have two major undertakings at the same time. Multi-tasking is not their core competency on the other side of this aisle.

Speaker, I said that this is a Ponzi scheme. For 40 years, people are going to be paying into this and not being able to collect. Those people who do collect will then see their federal pensions clawed back. That is a Ponzi scheme. It is a Bernie Madoff specialty.

We’re seeing the highest WSIB rates in the land, the highest electricity rates, the second-highest minimum wage, the new carbon tax and the new pension tax. When are they going to stop? When are they going to take a deep breath and relax and let people save some money, let people keep some money in their pockets for a change? Let’s get this province back working, instead of creating clusters in Mexico with their policies.

I’m going to vote against this bill, Speaker. I can’t imagine anybody who has any compassion for people voting for it. Anybody who has a sense of responsibility to their constituents; anybody who has compassion for the impoverished and people who are struggling in Ontario—how could they actually vote to take more money? Those few pennies that are left in their pockets and their purses—none of them are safe with this Liberal government. Not one penny, not one nickel, is safe. These guys: Everything is a revenue tool to them. Somebody’s savings—they don’t care. There’s no interest.

If they had any care or compassion about people struggling to make ends meet, they would pull this bill. They’d pull their cap-and-tax bill. They’d start lowering the cost of electricity. They’d start getting accurate bills out to people. They’d start doing their job.

Thank you very much, Speaker. I look forward to voting against Bill 56 at third reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Like our member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, I will not be supporting this bill, because it is a bad idea. It will not help the people of Ontario, as it professes to do. It will tax them. They are being taxed to death right now, and we’ve heard that many times.

We have new taxes being created, such as our cap-and-trade tax for carbon; our hydro bills, paying for green energy, wind turbines and solar panels that produce electricity when the wind blows and the sun shines, which isn’t necessarily when we need power—and we turn off our gas plants and our nuclear plants to buy highly subsidized electricity that we don’t need—that’s a tax.

This pension plan will not provide a benefit for up to 40 years from now, but certainly people will be paying 1.9% of their paycheque to the government for the next 40 years. So will employers, so it’s a penalty for employers as well. Basically, this provides cash for a cash-starved government.

We just had a budget where they defined that the deficit will increase above last year’s, which increased from the year before. Our debt continues to grow and will hit $300 billion at the end of this year, and will grow again next year. They’re very consistent in their performance, in that they spend and they tax, and they impoverish the people of Ontario. This is one more nail in the coffin for the people of Ontario, who are becoming impoverished by this government.

It does not recognize that different people have different needs for pensions. Some people don’t need a pension, because they’ve done very well in planning their affairs and have money and investments in other forms. Some people need a little bit of pension, or more pension, or a whole lot of pension. It doesn’t address the needs of people that vary; there should be flexibility.

Our member from York–Simcoe had the pooled pension idea, which this government is voting on as well, but it will be gutted and nullified by the fact that this one is compulsory and the other one is optional. The other one is the right idea, the pooled pension plan, because it accommodates and provides the flexibility for people to have the pension that they need, not that the government defines that they must have.

There are an awful lot of things that are not in this bill. I think the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane was talking about transparency, and when you look into this bill, you see nothing, because there’s nothing there. It’s a bill that says, “We’re going to tax you, and that’s definite. The benefits will be figured out later”—but they won’t be, for a long time.

Here’s something very interesting, which I just noticed this morning, which is very consistent with the party opposite’s practices for the last 12 years and that have gotten us into the hole that we’re in today. I’d like to quote from the explanatory note: “The Minister of Finance is required to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of the plan and must table the report in the Legislative Assembly before December 31, 2015.”

We’re going to vote on this now. These people want to pass this bill now, and then they want to do a cost-benefit analysis, to see if it will work. You know, Mr. Speaker, that also is consistent with their performance and their business management skills, which consistently follow the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle means, “Let’s not let the lack of evidence or science-based data interfere with our ability to make a decision. So we’ll make decisions anyway on whatever we feel like today.” That’s what we’re doing here.

We’re going to pass a bill that is void—there are only a couple of pages here; it doesn’t say much—and they’ll figure that out later, and they’ll even try to figure out if it pays. Well, it pays them, because they need the money to pay the bills. They’ve been squandering and wasting our money—our taxpayers’ money—for years.

It’s a travesty, Mr. Speaker. We have to vote against this. It’s unfortunate that there aren’t more of us here who would do the right thing on this side of the House, and the people of Ontario are going to suffer for that. I will be voting against it.

At this point in time, I’ll pass it over to my colleague from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m quite pleased to be able to stand up and talk about this bill, and talk about the fallacy behind this and why we can’t support it.

I heard the member from Welland talking about how people don’t have the money. I’m not sure how you can put a plan in force where you trust the government to take money out of your pocket. If you don’t have the money, you’re going to have a lot less in your pocket.

You’re talking about a government here that has lost a lot of trust. You’re talking about taking money out, hoping that, if you’re lucky to have a job for 40 years, it’s going to be there. And what are we going to do with this money? They’re out of money, so they’re going to use this money to build roads. It’s a novel idea.

What would the return be that you would grant to this fund that you’ve created? I was sitting on some of the committees, and we had the OPSEU trust group in, which was averaging a 9% return on their money. Is that what we’re talking about here?

When you have somebody taking money out of an account and using it, and they’re telling you, “Don’t worry; we’re going to give you a good return and put it back,” and they can borrow money at 1% or 2%, what really is the logic behind what they’re doing here?

It’s not at arm’s length. There certainly seems to be a conflict of interest there. I don’t know if I would trust the government, because there have been so many times that I’ve seen this government really lacking the trust-building.

We look at the plan that is going to put about 54,000 people out of work. There’s another group of people—because of the money coming out of the economy; their own study shows that that’s the amount—that will not be able to benefit from this plan because they’re going to be unemployed, and of course one of the rules is that you have to be employed to actually participate in it. So if you’re not working, now you’re in the unemployment sector. That’s another drain on the system and, I guess, maybe another use for this money, because there’s really nothing that says it’s going to be used for infrastructure. It’s available to the government.

We talk about trust again. Yesterday, I heard them stand up here and complain about the federal government. I know the federal government says that the economy now—I think my colleague from Ottawa was talking about, you know, it’s not the right time. Use the science. The evidence is that the economy won’t support something right now, but it will in the future. They’re talking about enhancing the CPP in the future, when the economy is more apt to handle that. I think that is, again, using the evidence they have.

I was a little annoyed yesterday when they talked about trust again. I see the health care funding and how they’ve been blaming the federal government for not providing a fair contribution, and actually taking on a former health minister here who, unfortunately, knows what happened back in the days of the Liberal government, that this government is still suffering from. He went back and cut transfer payments of health care that used to be 35%; he reduced them down to 13%.

Then they have the gall to complain about the federal government that has raised them back up to 26%, which, in the end, allows them to actually remove money from their portion of health care. So here they are, condemning another side.

If they really want to raise taxes—this federal government is putting tax money back in our pockets. Unfortunately, for every dollar they put back, this government takes one and it squanders two.

There’s not a lot of trust, when I look at the scandals and the money wasted. This is another “Give us some more money, because we’re broke—and trust me.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member for Manitoulin-Algoma.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Algoma–Manitoulin. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thanks for correcting me.

Mr. Michael Mantha: You’re very welcome. It’s not often that I get to do that, Mr. Speaker. We’ve had many, many discussions, and this is where I have an opportunity to butter him up a bit. We’ve had many opportunities where I’ve sat with you and we’ve enjoyed a coffee, and I’ve indulged into your vast knowledge of how things operate here. You are a true gentleman when you take authority in that chair, and I highly respect that authority. Correcting you is really a privilege on my behalf, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank you for giving me that opportunity.

It’s always a pleasure to stand on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin and speak particularly to this bill, Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act. Let’s face it: There is some 66%—almost 67%—of individuals across this province who don’t have a pension plan, who would love to have a pension plan, who would enjoy having that security, or knowing that that security is going to be there for them once they reach that age, those glory years when you have that opportunity to enjoy something away from work. However, the reality is that there isn’t.

On behalf of New Democrats, we would most enjoy seeing an adjustment, an increase, to the CPP. We’ve got a federal election that is going to be coming up shortly, and we will be seeing a new leader, a new Prime Minister—hopefully in Thomas Mulcair—who will bring those changes going forward, because we obviously know the present Prime Minister has no intentions whatsoever of doing so.

Again, it’s always a pleasure to stand. This is something that Ontarians need, so I’ll be supporting it.

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

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 56. I have to thank the members of the committee who worked hard on this bill, led by my colleague the member from Etobicoke North. I want to thank all members of this Legislature for their comments and for their input into Bill 56, ensuring that we make this bill the best that it can be. I even actually want to thank the members of the PCs—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Don’t encourage the member from Nipissing, member from Niagara, okay? You’re not in your seat and it’s awful loud. Thank you so much.

Continue.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: —whose amendment we accepted at committee to provide the cost-benefit analysis.

But I have to say I was highly disappointed in the remarks from the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington who talked about this being a Ponzi scheme. I think that that is an absolute disgrace, Speaker, that something like that would be allowed to be said in this Legislature. This is definitely not a Ponzi scheme. We know that a pension for the people of Ontario—they will make their contributions, matched by their employers, and that income stream will be there for them for life. That is what this is about. This is about ensuring that when people retire, having worked in this province, that they can retire with dignity and that they can have that income stream for life.

I want to remind the members opposite about the next generation: 75% of young workers today do not have pension coverage at work. That is a fact that is actually on the decline. When the ORPP is introduced on January 1, 2017, millions of Ontario workers will now have pension coverage. That is the purpose of Bill 56, and I invite all members of this Legislature—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: —to support this important legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The quiet member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The government’s ORPP “is a wide-reaching payroll tax”—I’m reading from Focus on Finance, by the way, Speaker—“that will negatively affect businesses across Ontario and drive jobs out of the province.”

I want to read a

chapter in Maclean’s magazine. Jason Kirby summed up the ORPP, stating that “while the details are still fuzzy, the plan will impose new payroll taxes on those businesses that don’t already offer a workplace pension plan the government deems satisfactory. In short: bigger government and higher taxes.” He goes on to say, “No wonder the Wynne government has to pay companies to move to Ontario.”

Speaker, the CFIB has come out strongly against the ORPP on behalf of their members, stating that 86% of small business owners surveyed did not support the plan. What’s more concerning is that 69% of these owners would freeze or cut salaries and 53% would reduce the numbers of employees if the plan were implemented.

A new survey of businesses from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce also indicated that only 26% of their businesses believe that they can shoulder the financial burden associated with the ORPP, and 44% of their businesses said that they would reduce their current payroll or hire fewer employees in the future.

The chamber is calling on the government of Ontario to reconsider its approach. In fact, Allan O’Dette, the president and CEO of the Ontario chamber, stated, “The ORPP is a blanket solution to a problem that requires a targeted approach.”

For more reading on the ORPP, you can go to fedeli.com, download Focus on Finance and learn all about it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’ve had the opportunity, as the Chair of the social policy committee, for the last five or six weeks to listen to people speak about the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, a plan modelled after the CPP, a plan, frankly, that has to be structured very precisely so that some day it can be folded into the Canada Pension Plan so that people can have substantial, secure—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t know how many times I have to stand up. There are seven conversations going on. I honestly can’t hear the member from Toronto–Danforth. Do me a favour, if you want to have little group discussions, go outside. There are all kinds of comfortable chairs out there. You can sit and talk to your heart’s desire. And the member from Algoma–Manitoulin is a little loud too.

Thanks so much.

Continue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Why thank you, Speaker.

In any event, it’s pretty clear from listening to presenters that the idea of a publicly managed plan, broadly based, with mandatory contributions by employees and employers is the best option that we face in Ontario.

I’ve had the opportunity to talk to retirees who have come to the Legislature, whose companies had promised them great pensions, and those companies went bankrupt, the pension funds were looted and the employees were out of luck. They were really put into extraordinarily difficult positions. If we want to have pensions that are secure, protected and, frankly, are going to be proof from raiding by corporations that have financial troubles, we need a centrally run, publicly owned pension plan.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has two minutes.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Speaker. I’d like to respond to so many of the comments.

But I thought, at first, that the associate minister might have corrected the record of the aboriginal affairs minister when he said, “She’s travelled everywhere and everybody’s in favour of this bill.” Well, that’s not quite the way the record shows. CFIB has spoken against this. The chambers of commerce have spoken against it. Many businesses have spoken against it. It’s not quite everybody who is in favour of this bill.

I know the associate minister has adamantly said that this is not a Ponzi scheme. I’m sure Bernie Madoff told all his customers, “Everybody likes my plan,” as well. “Everybody likes my plan.” He likes to tell tall tales, so tall tales and Ponzi schemes go together quite well.

I want to say, I raised in my comments the exodus of jobs. I referenced Goodyear and the announcement of the expansion going to Mexico. I referenced the highest WSIB premiums, the inability to get a hydro bill out in a timely fashion or a correct fashion, the new carbon tax rate. As Liam McGuinty said, we need to consider the broader regulatory impact that these taxes are having on our society.

Nobody from the Liberal side has bothered to address any of those comments, and it’s because they can’t. That’s why they’re silent. They’ll stand up and stomp their feet that it isn’t a Ponzi scheme, but they won’t address the facts and the meat of the matter.

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

Ms. Hunter has moved third reading of Bill 56,

An Act to require the establishment of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be a deferred vote after question period.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day?

Hon. David Zimmer: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I declare this House recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1005 to 1030.

Special report, Auditor General

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a special report on winter highway maintenance from the Auditor General.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I walked into the chamber today and I saw one of my old friends, Jeff Gatcke from Lansdowne, here. I just want to welcome him to Queen’s Park. Thank you for being here.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m pleased to introduce to the Legislative Assembly today the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the MNA from Brome–Missisquoi, Pierre Paradis.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise and welcome the family of PC policy manager Mitchell Davidson, who are here visiting today. In the gallery are his parents, Bryan and Andrea Davidson, and his sisters Laura and Ashley Davidson.

I was pleased to have Mitch work in my office, and he’s doing a great job in policy.

I’m glad that you could all be here and join us to see him working today. Welcome.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I hope everyone will join me in welcoming Michael Brattman, current president, and Chris Floyd, past president, of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. Michael and Chris are from the great riding of Kitchener–Waterloo. Welcome.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to welcome some of my guests from Scarborough–Agincourt, from the Agincourt Community Services awareness project, funded by the Trillium Foundation. They’ll be coming in very shortly with their group leader, Anna Kim.

I also want to welcome a former colleague, Peter Shurman, from—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ahem.

Ms. Soo Wong: Oh. Anyway, I just want to welcome him.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Thanks for almost stealing my thunder.

I’m honoured to welcome my predecessor, Peter Shurman, the former MPP from Thornhill. He’ll be here all day if you want to chat with him, because I believe he’s staying for the 5:30 reception for Jewish Heritage Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re both stealing my thunder.

Introductions? Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d also like to welcome the Insurance Brokers Association and all their delegates, who are representing all parts of our province here today at Queen’s Park as part of their annual awareness day. I’d like to also acknowledge the president, Michael Brattman, for being here.

Please don’t forget to attend their reception in the legislative dining room this evening at 5 o’clock. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, all of us are invited, and it’s sure to be a great, great evening.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to welcome Rick Orr, who is from Stratford. He’s with the Insurance Brokers Association here today, from my great riding of Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome Greg Robertson, my local broker, here with the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. Also, I think Debbie Thompson, the past president, is here somewhere.

And here for Jewish Heritage Month celebrations is Arthur Lofsky. Shalom, Arthur.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome three individuals from DeafBlind Ontario Services: Roxanna Spruyt-Rocks, the CEO; Karen Keyes, director of client services; and Barb Hooton, the board chair.

I invite all members of the House to the reception hosted by DeafBlind Ontario today, from 1 to 4 p.m. in room 228.

Mr. Joe Dickson: In the gallery this morning, we have guests from Ajax—just east of here, Mr. Speaker. We have the great Van Kempen family, representing Best Buy and the largest realty company in the area.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re welcome.

The member from Halton.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome Helen Watson, who is here from Halton. Helen’s daughter, Carina Watson, is page captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Helen.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome Debbie Thompson, Greg Robertson, Alanna Taylor, and Jeff Gatcke from the wonderful riding of Kingston and the Islands. They’re all here from the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To diminish my thunder twice, as it is the tradition of the Speaker to introduce former members: the member for Thornhill in the 39th and 40th Parliament, Mr. Peter Shurman, who is watching over there.

Point of order, the member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Speaker, earlier I introduced some guests in the gallery and I mentioned that one of them, Mitch, worked in my office. I forgot to mention that he didn’t actually work in my office; he was an Ontario legislative intern in my office—and he was one of the best we’ve had. I just wanted to make sure that I put that on the record.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All members have the right to correct their record on a point of order, and I appreciate the member from Oxford doing so.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. You claim to be open and transparent, but again, you say one thing and do the complete opposite. Under your budget, the moment you sell Hydro One, it is no longer deemed an agency of the crown; so no more oversight from the Auditor General, the Financial Accountability Officer, the Ombudsman, the Integrity Commissioner—all gone. No more disclosure. No more freedom of information.

This is the last time now we’ll find out that you spent $7 million on consultants, including $24,000 for a speechwriter. No more sunshine list. This is the last time we’ll see Sandra Pupatello’s six-figure salary or know that Carmine Marcello made $728,000. All this will be done behind closed doors now, just the way you like it.

Premier, tell the people of Ontario: What are you trying to hide this time?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. I will be as vigilant as always. When I stand, before I get a chance to sit down, if I hear it I’m going to nail it.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just step back and again make it clear that we are unlocking the value of our assets to invest in major infrastructure projects. I recognize that the party opposite is fundamentally opposed to that because they don’t have a plan and they never had a plan. They don’t want to invest in infrastructure.

We’re going to take Hydro One public. It will modernize the company. It will make it more efficient.

The member opposite knows that officers of the Legislature do not have jurisdiction over publicly traded companies. He knows that. But he also knows that a publicly traded company has different mechanisms of oversight. We’re committed to making sure that Hydro One will remain regulated.

As we went through this process with Ed Clark and his group, we made it clear that those protections needed to stay in place. The regulation and the price control, those will stay in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, in the foreword of last year’s budget, you wrote, “In total, the government will invest over $130 billion in infrastructure.” The $130 billion you now tout as the crown jewel of the budget was actually announced last year, except last year’s budget did not need the sale of the GM shares, the $9 billion from Hydro One, the LCBO building, OPG’s offices and all these others to make it work. It only said you needed $3 billion. Now you’re up to about a dozen billion dollars.

What happened? Why does it now take a massive fire sale of public assets just to make your budget numbers work? You say that you’re putting billions of dollars of new money into infrastructure, but you’re quietly shifting existing money—money that was already in the budget—just to reduce your deficit.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There’s a lot of back and forth going on while the question is being put. I’d ask both sides—and forget pointing. It’s an annoyance. All sides have to have my discipline sometimes.

Please finish your question. Wrap up quickly.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, isn’t that money actually going to pay for your government’s financial mismanagement?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, I think that the member opposite is mistaking what his party did with the 407 for what we’re actually doing, because, in the 407 sell-off, there was no future protection for the people of Ontario; there was no protection of that stream of revenue that has gone to a private company; there was no protection in terms of the regulation of that asset; and there was no investment in a future asset for the benefit of the economy going forward. We actually used the 407 as a model of how not to do this, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex, the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek and the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, take it outside.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a long memory.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If I can just say, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of what we said when: In the text of the May 2014 budget, on assets, on page 20, if the member would like to look it up, we said this: “The government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as crown corporations” such as OPG, Hydro One—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Time is up.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order—second time. I’m still talking. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke—the second time.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, I will remind you also: On that same page, it talks about it being limited to $3.1 billion. You’re now at more than $12 billion.

The government continues to show no progress on our debt and deficit, but Moody’s Investor Services told us they continue to “see risks” in the province’s budget, that your “deficits have shown little progress in the past few years, and in fact have increased from 8.1% of revenues ... to 9.2%.” Worst of all, they say that “provincial economic forecasts have tended to overestimate growth.”

You fluffed last year’s budget numbers, and after only four months you had to come back here and confess that you were off by $500 million. We can only imagine how much you fluffed this year’s budget numbers. Is that why you’re selling assets, increasing taxes and raising our hydro bills? Premier, why are you asking seniors and families to pay for 12 years of mismanagement?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite asked the questions: Why are we selling assets? Why are we doing this? Why are we looking at our assets? Why did we, in the May 2014 budget—and I’m going to quote this because it’s important in answering his question, Mr. Speaker. What we said, in the May 2014 budget, on page 20: “The government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as crown corporations such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.”

But, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental question that was embedded in his question was, “Why are we doing this?” We’re doing it because we need to invest in the infrastructure that is needed in the 21st century. That’s the roads, the bridges, the transit projects—all of that will not be done if we don’t make these choices, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Government spending

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If I stuck around here long enough, the Liberals would give me a standing ovation.

My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Her mandate letter says, “You will drive efficiencies and reduce costs to achieve our commitment to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18.” Yet the deficit increased by $400 million in this last year. The only efficiencies Ontarians have seen is the rapid speed of light in bringing in new taxes like the job-killing payroll tax, the carbon tax and the fuel tax.

Since she hasn’t met her mandate letter, can the Treasury Board president now admit that the only way the Liberals will be able to balance the budget by 2018 is to increase taxes and create new ones?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the question, because it is an absolute responsibility of mine to make sure that when we spend money, we get great value for every dollar that we spend. With my colleagues on Treasury Board, we are going through a program review, renewal and transformation, where we are going line by line, program by program, ministry by ministry, to make sure we’re getting the best possible value, the best possible outcomes for people, through that process.

I am enormously optimistic. If you look at our health spending, we went from growing by 6% to 7% a year to about a 2% increase per year, and we’ve done that while continuing to improve services for people.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The minister knows full well that she and her trusty assistant, the finance minister, are not capable of balancing the budget. For the third straight year, we have seen the deficit increase. It’s going in the wrong direction, Treasury Board President.

We have not seen the size, the scope or the cost of government go down. In fact, the sunshine list grew by 14%, with over 100,000 people in Ontario on the public payroll making over $100,000. The government even had to pay Ed Clark $7 million to do the Treasury Board president’s job.

All they have to offer, when Ontarians are suffering and having a difficult time paying their hydro bill, is a beer ombudsman. How does she expect Ontario families to take this government seriously when they’re more committed to having a beer ombudsman than they are to reducing the bills of everyday Ontarians?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite is trying to create a narrative, but she’s not basing it on the facts. If she would read the budget, if she would look at the budget and look at our spending, she would discover that our spending this past year was actually $1.6 billion less than we had anticipated, than we had budgeted for.

We are making those hard decisions. We are doing it in a thoughtful way, in a way that protects the services that people rely on. We are determined to continue to work to transform the way government services are delivered, so that we can achieve the objective and get better services and better government in the end.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Here are the facts, and here is what we call your thoughtfulness, Minister: Teachers are striking; nurses are being fired; hydro bills are going up; taxes have been introduced; the government is selling off Hydro; the deficit’s going up; and your finance minister spends the day after the budget at a brewery. Come on. Those aren’t the priorities of the people of Ontario. They aren’t the priorities of this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’ll make the comment that although the noise started to come from here, there were other comments coming while she was putting the question. It makes it difficult for me to stop one side or the other, so I’m stopping both.

Please finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The minister has failed to live up to her mandate letter. She had to bring in Ed Clark to do a fire sale of assets, and they celebrate over a pint while Ontario families are choosing whether they can heat their home or keep groceries in their refrigerator.

I want to ask the Treasury Board president this: How does she expect us to believe she’s doing her job when they cannot—at all—meet the deficit reduction targets they have promised this House, they have promised the people of Ontario? Yet they failed —

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

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The President of the Treasury Board is doing a fantastic job, surpassing all expectations. As a result of her work, we’ve recalibrated our spending by $1.6 billion, and we’re moving ahead to balance the books.

But don’t take it from us. Take it from someone that they admire. They often refer to Don Drummond; they love the man. Here’s what he said: First, the budget must present fiscal details for that year. Second, it must take “reasonable economic assumptions.”

Interjection.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Third, it must provide “a generous contingency buffer.” Fourth, it should be credible about its revenue projections. Fifth, “spending increases must be modest” and controlled.

He says this, “On the basis of these five tests the 2015 budget’s plan to restore fiscal balance by 2017-18 is credible.” He believes in us, and so should they, because we want to make sure we protect the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. The Liberals insist it’s okay to spend $7 million on high-priced consultants to make sure that they get the Hydro One sell-off “right.”

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, second time.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Let’s be clear: Selling off Hydro One is simply wrong. Ontarians are going to pay the price.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: When the Premier was paying a $24,500 tab for Paul Martin’s speechwriters, what advice did they receive for Ontario families in terms of their hydro bills and how they were going to afford those?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s very important to us, as we make the investments in transit, as we do what’s necessary to be able to do that—to invest in transportation infrastructure, to build infrastructure around the province—that as we make those decisions and we review the assets, we do that in a way that’s responsible. That’s why we brought in people like Ed Clark, like actuaries, like people who have the experience in the private sector, who understand the market. We were very, very clear that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Welland.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —we needed that expertise in order to be able to do the review of the assets that was necessary. We need to get this right.

Again, I point to the 407 and the decisions that were made by the Conservatives. We were determined not to go down that path, but to do this in a way that was responsible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s not just Paul Martin’s speechwriters. The Premier is sending Ontario families a tab for $974,000—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —so she can pay Dalton McGuinty’s consulting firm. The Premier is literally spending a million dollars so Liberals can help Liberals.

The people want to know what this means for them. The people want to know what they paid $7 million of public money for. What did these consultants have to say about hydro bills and how the Premier would make up for—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —the millions of dollars of lost revenue due to the sale?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite asks good questions in terms of how we would make up the revenue. How would we make sure that the asset would be valued properly in the market? What would be the best way for the government to retain de facto control over major decisions? How would we make sure that the regulatory and price controls would stay in place?

That’s exactly why we needed to have expert advice. It’s exactly why the advisory panel has been open and transparent about the use of third parties. There were people who have ability in actuarial services, analytics. There were people who were able to support us in the negotiation in terms of the council on beverage alcohol. There was project management expertise, expert advice on energy regulation.

We believe that having expert advice is the—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The plan to sell hydro off is simply the wrong decision. The Premier has spent $7 million in public money on these consultants. Now the people deserve to know what they paid for. They need to know what these consultants have had to say about reliability. What have they said about rates? What did they say about the billions of dollars in lost revenue?

If the Premier claims to have an open and transparent government, then will the Premier table the reports from these consultants today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows that the decisions about what would be released and what would not be released is made by non-partisan public servants, and those decisions have been made.

But I really think it is quite remarkable that the third party believes that to review assets that are worth billions of dollars—we would do that without expert advice. Now maybe that’s the way they would do it. When you look at their platform, which was very, very thin, there clearly had been no due diligence done on how they would implement anything in their platform.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No. She’s not done.

Thank you.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So our position is that having the expert advice was necessary, and had we not sought expert advice, imagine what they would be saying right now.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. The Premier is telling one story. She says she’s selling 60% of Hydro One and the Liberals will keep 40%, but the legislation tells a very different story. The legislation specifically gets ready for the day when Ontario owns less than 10% of Hydro One.

Can the Premier explain why she’s preparing for Ontario to own less than 10% of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What the member opposite neglects to say is that we are building into this process and into this legislation decision-making authority that would protect the people of Ontario. So any decision of that kind of magnitude would require a two-thirds majority of the Hydro One board of directors, which means that having 40% ownership protects us.

Let me read the restriction on the province’s sale. This is from Bill 91, the Building Ontario Up Act,

section 48.2: “The minister, on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario shall not sell, dispose of or otherwise divest any common shares of Hydro One Inc. if the sale, disposal or divestment would result in the minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario owning a number of common shares that is less than 40% of the outstanding number of common shares of Hydro One Inc.”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I move to the supplementary question, the dialogue back and forth is continuing while someone on that side is putting a question—the talk—and somebody on this side giving the answer—the talk.

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: So the Premier has just set out her case. This Premier has no mandate to sell Hydro One, but that’s not stopping her. She says she’ll keep 40% of the privatized company, but the legislation sends a clear message: The Premier is getting ready for the day when Ontarians own less than 10% of Hydro One.

Why is the Premier leaving the back door open so Ontarians could end up owning less than 10% of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s just be clear that what underlies the question that the member has asked is an assumption that building transit and transportation infrastructure really isn’t that important, because he’s not willing and his party is not willing to acknowledge that they ran on reviewing the assets of the province. It was part of their platform. It was part of their—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It was part of their assumptions. The fact is we are implementing what we ran on and what they ran on.

The Ontario government will nominate 40% of the Hydro One board and will have the power to unilaterally dismiss the board. That means that the government will have de facto veto on the board for a decision like the dissolution of the shares. That’s the reality. We’re doing this so we can build transit and transportation infrastructure around the province.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Premier still doesn’t answer the question as to why the potential is set up in this bill for the province to own less than 10% of the shares. Liberals say they’ll keep 40% of a privatized Hydro One, but it’s clear the Premier has left the door open to owning less than 10%.

The Premier kept Ontarians in the dark about her plan to sell Hydro One during the last election. She doesn’t have a mandate to sell off Hydro One, whether it leaves us with 40% or 4%. It’s the wrong plan and Ontarians are going to pay the price.

Is the Premier trying to keep Ontarians in the dark about what her plan really means for Hydro One and for Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite once again is talking about the dilution of shares. I would just read again what I said. The fact is that the Ontario government will nominate 40% of the Hydro One board and will have the power to unilaterally dismiss the board. Any decision like that, in terms of the dilution of the shares, would require a vote of two thirds of the board. It would require that supermajority vote. So the fact is that that kind of decision would not be made, because we would have 40% of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of not investing in infrastructure, the cost of not investing in assets that are needed for the 21st century—that is the cost that we have to focus on. We ran on a plan to find a way to make those investments that are going to allow this province to thrive. They don’t want to do that in the third party. The party opposite doesn’t want to do that. We said we were going to do it, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is for the Premier. Premier, today’s Auditor General’s report on winter road maintenance reads like a damning indictment of a government that has placed cost savings over the safety of Ontario motorists.

Premier, when you were Minister of Transportation, you watched and did nothing while performance-based contracts your Liberal government introduced to save a few bucks caused winter road conditions to deteriorate across the province, placing the lives of Ontarians at risk.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m being challenged, so the Minister of Agriculture is warned, and the member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order—second time.

Carry on.

Mr. Michael Harris: Premier, where are your priorities? You waste a billion dollars on gas plants to save a few Liberal seats, and then you try to save a few bucks on the backs of Ontario motorists.

Premier, is saving Liberal seats more important to your government than saving lives on our Ontario highways?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin my answer today by publicly thanking the Auditor General and her team for the very thorough review that they have conducted with respect to the Ministry of Transportation’s winter maintenance program.

Speaker, I’ve said many times publicly and in this House that there is no more crucial responsibility that’s part of my mandate than to make sure that Ontario’s highways remain, as they have been for the last 13 years, ranked amongst the first or second most safe in all of North America.

But just because we’ve taken significant steps—which I can highlight in the supplementary answer—since the internal review we conducted in 2013 does not mean that the work has ended. We will continue to work with our area maintenance contractors. We will continue to deploy additional resources, and I will personally work as hard as I can to make sure that going forward we continue to improve this already improving program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, back to the Premier: An apology perhaps would have been more appropriate.

I want to thank my colleague from Leeds–Grenville for actually asking the auditor to do this important report.

Premier, for five years, this government knowingly risked the lives of Ontario motorists to save a few dollars. For five years, you’ve pointed the finger at contractors for uncleared roads that were the direct result of your government’s flawed cost-cutting contracts. You knew it, and did nothing about it.

Premier, I’ll give you a chance to be honest with Ontarians today. Why did the ministry, a ministry you oversaw, continue awarding obviously flawed contracts when you knew it was jeopardizing the safety of Ontario motorists?

Interjections.

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

Since I brought it to your attention several times, the member from Nepean–Carleton—while the question is being asked—is now warned. The deputy House leader is now warned.

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member for his question. I will also say that I do thank the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for asking the auditor to conduct this review.

It is important to remember, Speaker, that in 2013, before the request that the committee put forward to the auditor, the Ministry of Transportation conducted a comprehensive internal review with respect to our winter maintenance program.

As a result of that review, since that point in time, we have deployed 105 additional pieces of equipment through two winters, winters 2013-14 and 2014-15: 55 pieces of equipment, mostly for northern Ontario, for truck climbing and passing lanes, and 50 pieces of equipment in southern Ontario for ramps and shoulders. We’ve retained a director of maintenance. We’ve added 20 new area inspectors—that’s one per area—to help us assist in the oversight of this program.

Again, as I said in the original answer, that does not mean our work is done. When you have the track record, as we do, for having the safest highways in North America consistently, first- or second-safest for 13 years—

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: —it means the job is going well, but we—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Why has the Premier created a loophole in her budget bill so that she can spend the money from the Hydro One sale on anything she wants instead of legally requiring the money to flow into the Trillium Trust for transit and transportation infrastructure?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Finance is going to want to speak to the details of this, but let me just be clear: The reason that we put in our budget and our platform a review of assets, the reason that we are going forward with the partial sale of Hydro One, the reason we sold GM shares and the reason we sold real estate is so that we can invest in infrastructure that is needed in this province.

That money is going into the Trillium Trust and that money is then going to be used to make those investments. That is what we ran on, that is what we are doing and that is what you will see on our balance sheet.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: The Premier can make the same argument again and again, but what it boils down to is this: The Premier has opened a loophole in her own legislation so she can spend her Hydro One money on anything she wants. The idea that any money is earmarked for transit or infrastructure is Liberal spin. There’s nothing to back it up in this bill.

After eHealth, after the gas plants, after the Sudbury bribery scandal and after four OPP investigations, it’s a bit rich for them to say, “Just trust us.” Nobody in the province trusts you.

Will the Premier admit that her promises about the Trillium Trust are just Liberal spin, pure and simple?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: In the 2013 economic statement, we introduced the Trillium Trust to dedicate it for the benefit of reinvesting, dollar for dollar, every net proceed that we get from the sale of shares, the sale of land and the broadening of ownership of our various crown corporations. We’ve made that commitment. We stated it in the 2013 economic statement. We stated it in the 2014 budget, which we introduced twice before this House. We stated it in the 2014 economic statement. We stated it again in this very document for 2015, recognizing that this is a dedicated fund for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

That does not change. That is exactly what we’re doing—the point being, the opposition, members on both sides, have no plan, no idea and have yet to put forward any alternative by which to fund these opportunities that will be to the benefit of Ontario for future generations to come.

Services for the disabled

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Attorney General and the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

In Ontario, we have close to 200,000 residents living with either total or partial vision loss. That’s close to 200,000 residents who face challenges being fully active and independent members of society, people who often struggle just to get around in their daily lives.

Fortunately, we have a number of organizations in Ontario dedicated to providing assistance to visually impaired Ontarians. The Lions Foundation of Canada Dog Guides, for example, is based out of Oakville and provides trained canine companions to help guide them safely around their communities.

As I’m sure many of you know, today is International Guide Dog Day. When individuals in this province need specialized care, this government has been able to provide it.

Could the Attorney General enlighten the House on the Blind Persons’ Rights Act and how it ensures that the people of Ontario have the proper services provided for them?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais remercier la députée de Halton pour cette question, qui est très appropriée aujourd’hui.

Yes, today is International Guide Dog Day, and I will gladly tell this House how this government is ensuring services for Ontarians who need them.

The Blind Persons’ Rights Act is an important piece of legislation that applies to guide dogs used by blind persons. The act makes it an offence to deny a blind person accompanied by a guide dog access to accommodation, services or facilities.

The act states that a person with a guide dog should not be discriminated against with respect to accommodation, services or facilities, or the charges for their use. The Blind Persons’ Rights Act is a very important piece of legislation that ensures blind persons are properly accommodated in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I would like to thank the Attorney General for that update. It is encouraging that our government took steps in 2007 to amend this legislation, giving the visually impaired a stronger tool.

Unfortunately, there are still barriers that prevent people with disabilities from fully integrating into society and into the workplace. In Halton, organizations like the Canadian National Institute for the Blind have made great efforts to break these barriers down. The CNIB provides community-based supports, teaches critical life skills and offers counselling and training services to keep our visually impaired residents active and independent. But more can still be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Just by way of explanation to bring clarity, we always go to the minister with a question. You don’t direct it. They have to direct it. Just to make sure everyone knows that.

Attorney General.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Au ministre du Développement économique, de l’Emploi et de l’Infrastructure.

We must open up employment opportunities for people with disabilities. We must work with our business community to improve compliance. I’m looking forward to working with—

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

New question.

Sexual harassment

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, as you know, earlier this year justice of the peace Errol Massiah was found guilty by the Justices of the Peace Review Council for judicial misconduct due to sexual harassment, for the second time. In 2012, he was found guilty of judicial misconduct for sexually harassing female staff in a Durham courthouse.

Yesterday, the Justices of the Peace Review Council recommended that Massiah be removed from his position as a justice of the peace. Do you intend to accept that recommendation, Minister?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, the recommendation was made by the Justices of the Peace Review Council, which is independent from government and is mandated to receive and investigate complaints about the conduct of justices of the peace.

I will not be commenting on the decision but, as required by law, I will convey the hearing panel’s recommendation to cabinet, and cabinet will consider the hearing panel’s recommendation at the first reasonable opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, I can’t believe you need even two minutes to think about this. For five years, Massiah has been collecting a salary of over $120,000, and for five years, the only thing that he has been doing is figuring out ways to avoid this review panel.

In 2012, when Massiah was found guilty of judicial misconduct for his treatment of female staff, you paid his legal fees to the tune of $123,000. Yesterday, he had the audacity to ask you to pay his fees again.

Massiah has been on administrative leave since 2010.

Minister, you have an opportunity to show some leadership, both as the Attorney General and as a cabinet minister who will defend against workplace harassment. Stand with the victims, fire Errol Massiah today, and turn down his ridiculous request to pay his legal fees.

Interjections.

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

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Justices of the Peace Review Council is an independent body that investigates complaints about the conduct of justices of the peace and determines appropriate sanctions where necessary. On this side of the House, we respect this process, and we have not yet received any recommendations from the Justices of the Peace Review Council on the payment of legal fees.

I will be waiting for these recommendations. If recommendations are made, I can assure you that we will review the council’s recommendations carefully. As I’ve said, we have not yet received recommendations from the committee.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Premier, elementary school teachers have called your latest central offer offensive, not least of all because your government appears to be flip-flopping on class sizes. Teachers with the Catholic board have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a strike. Secondary school teachers in Peel region are just a few days away from joining Durham and Rainbow district educators who are already engaged in job action.

While your government continues to dismiss their concerns and cause chaos in our schools, families and students are—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development is warned.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: —undoubtedly paying the price.

How many more students need to miss class before the government finally takes responsibility for the havoc it is causing in our schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want kids in school, I want teachers and support staff in school, and I know that’s where they want to be. I also know that in order for us to reach an agreement, we have to go through the collective bargaining process. I would have thought that that party, above all others, would have understood that a strong collective bargaining process was what was necessary.

We have a new process in place. There’s a local component, and there’s a central component. The central component of the bargaining process is ongoing, and those decisions and those agreements have to be reached at the table. That’s where we’re going to have the discussions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’m just wondering if the Premier remembers Bill 115.

While the Premier continues to skirt responsibility for the mess her government’s cuts are creating in our education system, New Democrats have been standing with teachers in Pickering, Oshawa, Sudbury and Manitoulin. Families and education workers across Ontario are outraged by Liberal cuts to education, forced school closures and broken promises to keep class sizes manageable.

Ontarians know that the provincial government holds ultimate responsibility over our education system. When will this government finally stop dismissing the concerns of Ontarians and answer for their clear plan of education austerity?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: People come from all over the world to see our publicly funded education system. Our kids compete with students from all over the country, all over North America. We’re at the top in terms of literacy rates, in terms of the ability of our students. We have one of the best-educated workforces in the world.

I know that having a strong collective bargaining process is necessary. That’s why, when I became the leader, we worked with the union leadership, with the federations to set up a new process. They had input into that process, because we had actually learned from a process that had not worked as well as it should have.

That process is taking its course. It’s tough. It is tough bargaining; there is no doubt about that, because we have said and we know that there is no new money to put into compensation. That makes the bargaining tough, but it’s a collective bargaining process at—

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

New question.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, as you may know, I don’t come from a community with a large agri-food sector, but I know that my constituents understand the importance of the agri-food sector to our economy, and they benefit from it every single day as they purchase the wonderful foods that our agri-food sector produces.

Minister, the Premier’s Agri-Food Growth Challenge is an opportunity to show our province—and the world, I would say—the important contribution our agri-food sector makes to our economy and our quality of life.

As we know, expanding trade can be a key part of developing and strengthening Ontario industries at home and abroad. Building relationships with foreign governments and businesses helps Ontario showcase and increase our exports. China is one of those key partners, Minister. The Chinese market is growing rapidly and is currently Ontario’s second-largest agri-food export market. In 2014, agri-food sales to China reached $832 million.

Minister, could you please inform the House on the trade mission to China you participated in, and how opportunities for our agri-food sector in the Chinese—

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

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Speaker, néih hóu. It’s good to be back. I’m working on my Cantonese.

Thank you to the member for Etobicoke Centre for the question. Ontario agricultural commodities and products are known worldwide for their quality and safety. It is why, more and more, countries like China are looking to Ontario.

While in China, Minister Chan and I aimed to build on the success of Ontario’s agri-food exporters while introducing a new group of companies to this important market. Our delegation was made up of a diverse range of over 20 businesses and organizations, representing a broad cross-section of Ontario’s agri-food sector.

Throughout our time in China, Minister Chan and I were able to help businesses and organizations identify and act on new export opportunities, with the goal of seeing immediate results, and build relationships with Chinese government and business leaders, setting the stage for continued growth over the long term

Mr. Speaker, promoting increased trade and investment in Ontario’s agri-food sector will help meet—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Thank you, Minister. It’s clear that your trade mission to China represents an important step forward for our agricultural and agri-food sector.

I know, during your time there—or I understand, at least—that you and Minister Chan and the delegates were able to promote trade opportunities in Ontario to over 300 Chinese agri-food companies and government officials who participated in seminars, round tables, and other meetings of the like.

I understand that these actions, obviously, not only build relationships, but also support new businesses and organizations in identifying and acting on export opportunities. This is really where the rubber hits the road for the agri-food sector here in Ontario.

Minister, could you please inform the House of some of the agreements secured in China and how they will benefit Ontario’s agri-food sector?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank my good friend from Etobicoke Centre for the supplementary.

Our mission has resulted in increased exports for Ontario products in China, and new investment opportunities for Ontario agri-food companies. I’d just like to give you the list of our signed deals in China.

A new deal will see $2 million worth of Ontario maple syrup heading to China, doubling our annual maple syrup exports.

Both Pillitteri and Vineland Estates have reached new agreements that will bring more Ontario icewine to China. The investment will establish a new vineyard and a new winery in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Ontario’s Vineland Estates winery announced a new wine retailing and distribution agreement. The agreement will see more than $1 million of the winery’s products sold in China in the coming year.

This mission represented an important step forward for Ontario’s agri-food sector. It allowed new businesses and organizations to build on the momentum—

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

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. We all know Gerry Lougheed called Andrew Olivier on December 11. We all know Pat Sorbara called Mr. Olivier on December 12. But what we didn’t know was that Pat Sorbara called the deputy director of HR in the Premier’s office of public appointments and human resources on December 10. That was just one day before Gerry Lougheed offered Mr. Olivier appointments, jobs, or whatever.

Premier, was Pat Sorbara organizing a job or appointment for Andrew Olivier in exchange for stepping down?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It feels like a little bit of déjà vu at the moment. I think it was very clear, as we’ve discussed this matter in the House, that there’s an independent process that is going on outside this Legislature, and we should respect that process. I don’t know what changes now that the official opposition is asking the same questions again.

The Premier has been very forthcoming. The Premier has said that she’s going to co-operate with the investigation that is taking place, and at an appropriate time she will do it.

We in this House should not be engaging in those types of discussions, and we should let our independent investigative authorities do their work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: My question, back to the Premier: You’ve stalled the OPP investigation for over three months. You’ve allowed Pat Sorbara full access to all the Sudbury bribery scandal documents since the story broke. This new information was only provided because of a freedom-of-information request.

Premier, you’ve been hiding the truth since the story broke. Why was Pat Sorbara calling your office responsible for public appointments the day before Andrew Olivier was offered a bribe?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville.

I’m going to ask him to withdraw. There are moments in which I’ve made it clear, when this has been going on, that there are things I do not accept. This is one of them. Would you please withdraw?

Mr. Steve Clark: Withdraw.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker. Again, I think the member opposite is just trying to throw up a tale here. I think the facts are very clear, that there’s a process that is taking place and we should respect that process.

I want again to remind all the members in this House that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The members from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and Prince Edward–Hastings.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —we have a principle of presumption of innocence. In this instance, no criminal charges have been laid; for that matter, no charges have been laid.

I want to remind the members opposite, again, what the Chief Electoral Officer said in his report: “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.” Speaker, I remind members opposite again that none of us are either prosecutors or judges. We should respect their role, we should respect their responsibilities and let them do their work.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you have said to this House and you have said to the public that you will be meeting with the Ontario Provincial Police this April in order to go through the interview process that they need to go through in regard to the Mr. Olivier scandal. Can you confirm to this House if you’ve already met with the OPP? Will you be meeting today or will you be meeting tomorrow, which is the last day of the month?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, as I’ve said, I’ll be meeting with the OPP before the end of the month and, as I’ve said, I’ll co-operate completely with the authorities outside of this House, where the investigation is taking place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, what is really hard here for the public to accept is a Premier who says that she is progressive and that she wants to govern from the progressive centre, and here she is trying to stymie an OPP investigation. There is not a citizen in this province that would have the ability to say to the police, “Sorry, I’m busy, can’t meet with you today. Sorry, I’m busy, can’t meet with you next month. Sorry, I’m busy, maybe some time in April.” That doesn’t cut it for anybody in this province. Why should it cut it for you?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Will you confirm that, in fact, you will be meeting with the OPP today or tomorrow?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, this Premier has been co-operating with all agencies, as the Premier has been very clear. She will be meeting with the OPP. The time has been determined.

But to say that this Premier has not been busy is a bit naive on the part of the opposite member. This is a Premier who is one of the most activist and progressive Premiers that we’ve ever seen in this province. This is a Premier who has been working hard to make sure that we are building Ontario up. This is a Premier who has put forward a budget that ensures that we are building our talents and skills, that we are building infrastructure in this province, that we are making sure that we have got public infrastructure and transit infrastructure across the province.

Those parties have no plan, Speaker. They’re doing nothing but being obstructionist. We support this Premier. We support her plan and—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Senior citizens

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors affairs. Speaker, the minister often reminds this Legislature that Ontarians are aging rapidly. In the next 25 years, the senior population is expected to grow to a staggering 4.5 million. Data from Statistics Canada indicates that life expectancy for women in Canada is 84 years, compared to 80 for men. It is clear that as seniors age the proportion of women increases dramatically. It is also important to note that since most workers retire at 65, Ontarians now enjoy almost 15 to 25 years of retirement living.

My riding of Kingston and the Islands is one of Ontario’s—indeed Canada’s—primary retirement destinations. Seniors are impressed by our high-quality health care, housing, transportation, culture and community services.

Can the minister please share with us what measures are being taken to deliver important services that address these key demographic shifts in our community and province?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thank you to the member from Kingston and the Islands for the question.

Speaker, believe me, we are very much aware that women in our province are living longer than men, and we continue to be very mindful of this very rapid shift in demographics. In fact, in 2014, there were 42% more females than men over the age of 75 living in the province of Ontario. As well, currently, women represent some 72% of all Canadians living with Alzheimer’s disease.

In 2013, we launched Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors, developing and delivering programs and initiatives that support senior-friendly communities, create better access to health care and increase quality resources for women and seniors. The well-being of our seniors is taken very seriously by—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you to the minister for his response.

Recently, I attended the Walk for Memories, an event held by the Alzheimer Society

chapter in my riding. Through funding allocated by the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat, the Alzheimer Society of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington is able to host meetings to promote the Finding Your Way wandering prevention program. These meetings allow seniors, families, police services, cultural groups, and health and community agencies to plan strategies for increasing awareness and education on dementia in the Kingston and the Islands area.

Approximately 3,000 seniors—almost 10% of the seniors in my community—live with dementia, and most are women. Programs like Finding Your Way are essential to seniors in Ontario.

It is clear to see that steps are already being taken to transform our programs and services to improve health. How can the action plan for seniors continue to implement these changes?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thanks again to the member from Kingston and the Islands.

I want to highlight that the progress we are making speaks to the mandate letter I received from Premier Wynne. It is perfectly in line with the goals we have set out in Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors. Since 2013, we have put in place some 12 plans, programs and legislative initiatives, all in order to assist our seniors. For the first time, our seniors living in retirement homes can enjoy a very secure and safe living environment.

The member has mentioned the Finding Your Way program, supporting our people with dementia. We give $11.5 million annually to support 265 elderly persons centres, supporting older women, people with dementia and isolated seniors.

Speaker, let me say that Ontario seniors have our firm commitment to continue seeking innovative ways to provide them with the best quality life—

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

New question.

Unpaid leave

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Premier. My constituent Art Boon is a decorated World War II veteran. He risked his life to help liberate Holland from Nazi occupation. Holland has invited him back to join in the 70th anniversary celebrations of that momentous event.

He needs his son Rick to care for him. Rick is a teacher; he needs an unpaid leave to accompany his father, but his request was denied. So far, over 2,000 people have signed a petition demanding the school board change its decision, but they appear unwilling to budge. I’ve spoken twice with the family. They tell me that without Rick at his side, it would be extremely difficult for Art to attend.

Will the Premier look into this matter before the Boons’ plane leaves on Friday?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to say to the member opposite that at about 6 o’clock this morning, when I was running, I saw a Sun box and I saw this story on the front of the Sun.

I don’t know the details. What I do know is that this is a school board decision. It has to be made at the level of the school board. We need to let that play out at the local school board. But I have to say that, just on the face of it, as I looked at the story on the front of the Sun, as I ran past, it seemed to me that it’s something that should be able to be worked out at the school board level, and I hope it can be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: It has always been my hope that the school board would change their decision, but that hasn’t happened. I fully respect our school board’s role in the matter, including the responsibility for personnel decisions. But this is not a matter of personnel; it’s about the public interest.

It’s in the public interest for his son, a teacher, to recount this experience to his students for years to come. It’s in the public interest for Art to attend this event.

Does the Premier agree? My constituents want to know if the Premier, as a former trustee and Minister of Education, thinks the board made the right call.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I will say to the member opposite is that I will have a conversation with the Minister of Education about that, and I will ask her what she knows, if anything, about the situation.

But the fact is that the decision does need to be made at the school board level. There’s no doubt that it would be a terrific experience for this young man, but we respect the school board process. My hope, again, I say to the member opposite, is that it can be worked out at the school board level.

Special-needs children

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question this morning is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier. As you know, there’s a preschool program for challenged children with special needs at the John McGivney Children’s Centre in Windsor. Families from as far away as Leamington rely on this one-of-a-kind program.

A change in the provincial funding program leaves the McGivney centre with a financial shortfall of $360,000. The families who rely on this unique program cannot afford to pay this higher cost.

Will you do the right thing, Premier, and step in and save this valuable and unique preschool program at the John McGivney centre?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the question. I’m very happy to follow up with him and chat about the specifics of the case he’s raising. I thank him for the question as well, because as the member, I think, knows, we are in the midst of launching our Special Needs Strategy that will make it easier for families and children with special needs to access programs in the communities that they live in, that that can be coordinated through a central body, that they receive great care from the local services and agencies.

Part of that is also enhancing the screening program to make sure that we can get earlier screening done for children who need support. We’re very happy with our investment and our strategy going forward. As I said, I’m happy to answer specifics of the case. Perhaps we can chat after question period.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Back to the Premier: Sometimes programs and services are so unique that they don’t follow generic standards. The preschool program at John McGivney is such a program. It is special. It is designed for special children. Without this program, they cannot and will not receive the same care and attention if relocated to a regular program in a regular daycare centre. They won’t thrive and inevitably they will be lost in the system.

Premier, if you have any semblance of compassion in your heart, will you commit to visiting this centre, seeing first-hand the needs of these special children, and meet their families? You’ll see that there can be no better investment in our communities, no more humane investment in our communities, than investing in the programs that are delivered through the John McGivney centre.

Will you step up and save the program in Windsor at the John McGivney centre?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: When I was a parliamentary assistant to the then Minister of Children and Youth Services, it was my job to consult with families. It was my job to consult with service providers and researchers on the issues and opportunities facing families with special needs.

I can tell you, there is a tremendous amount of compassion put in by our government to develop this wonderful strategy that’s evolving now. It’s about making sure families have the right information, that they get the diagnoses they need, that kids are supported through transitions. We’ve invested more than $468.6 million annually to support children with special needs. Whether it’s speech language and others, we have tremendous programs through that.

I’m always happy to talk about specific cases. I can’t talk about specific families, as you know, in the House. But we are very proud of the work we’re doing. I’m very proud of the work I did to build this strategy and I’m very proud of our government, which has invested heavily in children with special needs and their future.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Associate Minister of Finance on a point of order.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, I would like to welcome in the gallery today, and those watching, members of my team: Michael Coe, my chief of staff; Drew Davidson; Marilyn Preston; David Gordon; Clancy Zeifman; and my legislative assistant, Tiffany Blair. I thank them so much for all their hard work and dedication.

Correction of record

Mr. Granville Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. Last week, I alluded to Maplefest as being last Saturday. In fact, it’s this Saturday at 9 a.m., and there’s still time. Hopefully, some of that maple syrup will end up in China.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services on a point of order.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to welcome Debbie Thompson, a broker and past president from the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, who’s from my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. Thanks for being here today, Debbie.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’m not sure if it was mentioned this morning, but Peter Shurman is actually with us for question period—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s another member I’m going to have to put on my list for stepping on my introductions.

Deferred Votes

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

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

Bill 56,

An Act to require the establishment of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan / Projet de loi 56, Loi exigeant l’établissement du Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario.

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

The division bells rang from 1141 to 1146.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On February 17, Ms. Hunter moved third reading of Bill 56. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Fraser, John

Gates, Wayne

Gravelle, Michael

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Paul

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Clark, Steve

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Todd

Walker, Bill

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 65; the nays are 23.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1150 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Cheryl Perry, founder of Testicular Cancer Canada, from Kitchener, to the Ontario Legislature. Welcome, Cheryl, and thank you for all the work that you do.

Members’ Statements

Jewish Heritage Month

Mrs. Gila Martow: By proclaiming the month of May as Jewish Heritage Month, the province of Ontario recognizes the important contributions that the Canadian Jewish community has made to Ontario’s social, economic, political and cultural fabric.

While Jews share a religion, they belong to all races of humanity and can be found in almost any country in which their freedom to practise their faith and celebrate their her