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

December 7, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Dec-07 (PDF)

L080 - Tue 7 Dec 2010 / Mar 7 déc 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 7 December 2010 Mardi 7 décembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

HEALTH CARE

HOME CARE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PROPERTY TAXATION

GREEN POWER GENERATION

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ANTI-SEMITISM

PUBLIC TRANSIT

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

WASTE DISPOSAL

FOREST INDUSTRY

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

DEFERRED VOTES

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

SPECIAL REPORT, OMBUDSMAN

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FOOD AND CONSUMER

PRODUCTS OF CANADA

RICHARD ALLAIRE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

FIRST NATIONS POLICE SERVICES

SCHOOL FACILITIES

RIDING OF

CARLETON–MISSISSIPPI MILLS

DISCRIMINATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

MEMBER’S STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWING INDUSTRY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’INDUSTRIE

DU REMORQUAGE

PETITIONS

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

POWER PLANT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

WIND TURBINES

HYDRO RATES

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HELPING ONTARIO FAMILIES AND

MANAGING RESPONSIBLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AIDE

AUX FAMILLES ONTARIENNES

ET LA GESTION RESPONSABLE

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the Jewish prayer.

Prayers.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Speaker: quorum?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Clerk will see if there is a quorum present.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Duncan, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act and the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2010 / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite et la Loi de 2010 modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Mr. Peter Shurman: The pension issue is coming to a head with a vote shortly. It’s not a new issue in this House—it’s not a new one for any of us—and it has implications more than ever now on a variety of levels for people across the province, for people, indeed, across our entire country. There are a variety of solutions that are being proposed, but there’s nothing simple. This bill, taken on its own, doesn’t solve the problem. It addresses a piece of the problem, and this is a problem that is unfolding before us.

If you take a good look at me—and I’ll look right at that television camera so the folks at home can participate—you can see by my boyish good looks that I’m not a day over 55. That’s what it looks like, but it’s not true. I am; I’m past Freedom 55. As I have stated in this House before—

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I know you’re surprised—I’m without any defined benefit pension plan. I have no defined benefit pension plan. I’m not whining about it. It’s a fact of life for people in this House; it’s a fact of life for 70% of people in Ontario, for whom there is no defined benefit pension plan. I share this more as a fact than from some elevated position or as somebody who believes that he is somehow or other entitled, because I’m not any more entitled than the other 70% of people who have to fend for themselves going forward.

The other very important fact that has to be seriously considered is that we’re all living longer. I just said that I’ve passed 55. I’m 63 years old. My first memories of my maternal grandmother, who was the only grandparent I ever met, were when I was five and she was 63. She was a little, old, hobbled lady, with those funny shoes—63 was very old. Today, I’m not very old, and I expect to live another 20 years and, if I’m lucky—or unlucky, depending on how it works—maybe 30.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Don’t you say it; I know what you’re thinking.

We’re living longer, definitely, but are we saving? Are we saving for that greater longevity? The answer is that most people are not. They are not for a variety of reasons, not least because it’s almost impossible to save. First of all, we grew up in a culture where we needed instant gratification, so people spend their money more or less from hand to mouth. And now we live in a culture where a lot of us don’t have that opportunity anymore to buy the things that we want; we’re just spending it on things we need and we’re exhausting it.

This is a national problem; it’s also a provincial problem and it is an individual problem. We are living to 80, to 90, and most people have not had the foresight to think, “I am going to live longer, so I’m going to have to save.” It’s my belief and it is our party’s belief that ultimately the answer to this lies within the private sector, not the public sector. We all know that the private sector has the vision and the creativity to accomplish what government will not. We could always come up with an easy way out.

The example would be, “We’ll just double the benefits of the Canada pension plan.” A lot of people say, “Why can’t we do that? It’s the government’s money.” There’s no such thing as government money. The government’s money is your money, it’s my money, it’s all of our money, and it doesn’t come off a printing press because we happen to think maybe it’s a good idea to double Canada pension plan benefits.

If we were to do something like that—that money comes from you; it comes from taxpayers. And if it’s not you who are the direct beneficiary of a doubling of the Canada pension plan, then it’s you who are paying increased taxes that you certainly cannot afford to make sure that those of us who are going to form the largest cohort age-wise in the province—as of 2017, more people will be over 65 than any other cohort. We don’t have the tax base that can afford to pay us the kind of money that would be required to double the Canada pension plan. It sounds easy, but it isn’t. And we’re forgetting an important question: Where is this money going to come from?

I’m getting the time sign here from my friend, but I have some more to say.

Speaking of the private sector, I must speak to the growing disconnect between the private sector and the public sector as it relates to pensions, specifically with the Ontario teachers’ pension plan. There is a line item in this year’s budget where there was a $500-million contribution from general tax revenues to sustain the fund. Let’s face it: Most businesses are not able to participate or even operate in this way.

Once upon a time in my own life, and probably, I venture, in the lives of most people here who have ever worked in a corporate environment, a defined benefit pension plan was part and parcel of what you did. When I was 18 or 19 and had just gotten out of university, I went to work for a company, now defunct, called Standard Broadcasting. It was a big company controlled by the Argus Corp., which became Hollinger, and—I say this by way of point of interest—the fellow at the top was a guy named Conrad Black; you may have heard of him, a guest of the US government for a little while.

He was my boss, not then but ultimately. The first thing I had to do was fill out an employee card and sign my defined benefit pension plan card. When I was unceremoniously bid adieu from that company some years later, they handed me a great big cheque that was the proceeds of my pension fund to date, but I couldn’t cash it. That was a good thing. It went into a pension fund which forms part of what I’ve saved over the course of my life. Fortunately, I’ve had some foresight. I don’t know if I’ve had enough foresight to not be able to work at this point. Most people don’t; I’ve mentioned that.

My point being that that was then and this is now. We don’t sign defined benefit pension cards anymore unless we’re members of the public sector. The public sector is the new elite; 30% of the population has pension benefits that are in defined plans, and most of those people work in the public sector.

Some small businesses may have a defined contribution plan, similar to what we have here at Queen’s Park. That’s a plan where the business contributes an amount towards an RRSP and the employee gets to match it. We know that the private sector world is moving in that direction, but this is not the case for the public sector. People in the public sector can retire with various factors in their mid-50s. I’ve mentioned that I’m in my 60s; many people here are. Some of us work here—I would say that I do—because we like the idea of public service. Some of us still work here because we have to. And that’s the case across the board in the world of business.

I have a lot more to say, but I have a couple of colleagues who also want to speak. So I’m going to withdraw from the debate at this point and simply say that this bill does not make any provisions for the 60% to 70% of Ontarians without any pension. It simply addresses people who have pensions now. So as usual, the government has forgotten to take into consideration most Ontario taxpayers in this bill. Going forward, we have to make provisions for more pension benefits for everybody out there, and that will be a function of the private sector.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I’m pleased to speak to this on third reading. Of course, the government, with its heavy fist, in its typical ham-fisted manner, marched in the jackboots and imposed time allocation on this legislation, notwithstanding that it’s an important issue for a whole lot of Ontarians.

It’s interesting to follow the member for Thornhill, because I take his comments very seriously. The reality is that people in this chamber do not have a defined benefit pension because they voted it away in 1996. It was a unanimous vote by all three parties. There wasn’t a single member who stood up and voted against the Harris proposition, because it seemed politically attractive at the time. At the end of the day, I don’t think it earned anybody a single vote or lost anybody a single vote, but that’s what happens when you have knee-jerk policy decisions like that one of Mr. Harris’s.

But we do have a defined contribution pension plan. Most of the folks in this province have no pension plan whatsoever—none. They have eligibility for old age security when they reach 65. If they worked, they have eligibility for the Canada pension plan, but even this discussion around CPP is a little bit of a red herring, because a whole lot of folks don’t have CPP.

Who are these people? A whole lot of new Canadians who arrive in this country in their 30s or 40s and who only start working in Canada then, acquiring CPP credits, if you will. A whole lot of those people are underemployed, because many of them are well-trained professionals who aren’t working at the professional level that they should be, something in which the province of Ontario has failed new Canadians miserably. Others are in low-wage jobs. I think of staff at hotels. As you know, there’s an organizing bid and an ongoing struggle with hotel cleaning staff.

The union here is active in advocating for these people. A whole lot of them are new Canadian people. A whole lot of them are women, working very, very hard for very low wages. Here they are: They’ve got the double, triple whammy of starting work in Canada at a later age than most, earning low wages and doing the kind of work—the government eliminated the mandatory retirement age. A lot of help that does a cleaning person in a hotel who is flipping mattresses a dozen times a day as well as cleaning other people’s toilets and bathtubs.

That’s hard physical work, and the reality is that you see very few 70- or 75-year-old cleaning staff in hotels. That’s the reality of it. Here we have this other group of people who have CPP but their CPP amounts to a pittance.

Then, again, although it’s changing now, we’ve had historically the issue of women. In the 1950s, when I grew up, women worked but nowhere near as often as they do now. Women then tended to stay home and work very hard. It’s not that they didn’t work. They worked very, very hard, maintaining their households, caring for their children, taking care of a husband, perhaps taking care of a senior parent—all unpaid work, so not a penny of contribution to the Canada pension plan.

We have a huge number of women in their mature years, in their senior years, who have no CPP eligibility, notwithstanding that they’ve worked hard all of their lives. They might have some modest survivor benefits; if they were single moms, they got nothing. The 65-year eligibility for old age security is not much of a milestone because it’s a very, very modest amount.

In fact, in all of our constituency offices we talk to folks in their senior years who are living on less than $12,000, less than $10,000 a year. That’s a tragedy, because it’s not as if these people were in any way lazy or slothful or indifferent as to whether or not they had a job or an income, or living off the proceeds of crime. These were hard-working people, women and men, who had the misfortune of being in careers or jobs, doing work, where one had no CPP eligibility.

Again, CPP is better than a kick in the head, but the amount that one receives on CPP even at the maximum level is hardly sufficient in the view of the vast majority of people to enable one to live with any level of decency or dignity.

Now we have fewer and fewer workers who are working because we have fewer and fewer workers who are in unionized jobs. This government, the McGuinty government, scuttled at least 300,000 or more jobs—gone. These were the good jobs, these were the manufacturing jobs, these are the wealth-creating jobs, these were the value-added jobs; and they tended to be unionized jobs, like—and I’ll say it again—the 900 workers down at John Deere in Welland. John Deere had been there a hundred years: unionized shops, CAW—Canadian Auto Workers.

A very skilled workforce: Men and women who worked very, very hard and produced some great product, but their jobs are gone. And many of them have replaced those jobs with jobs that are non-union, jobs with much lower wages, jobs without any pension plan whatsoever; or they’re in contract work where they’re effectively self-employed.

I suppose if one’s making $110,000 or $150,000—what do people make here, $120,000 a year or more?—it’s easy to talk about saving money for retirement when you’re making that kind of income. But when your family is living on $25,000 a year—and there are a whole lot of families living on $25,000 a year and less here in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario—it’s not so easy to talk about saving money.

An RRSP means very little to a family that’s supporting itself on $25,000 or $30,000, or less. If you’ve got two or three kids, that money is gone like that; that money is gone in a New York minute. The tax-free savings account is being touted in the economic pages as a real bargain. That’s the one where the feds will let you put $5,000 a year into a savings account or, as I understand it, any other similar investment and let you earn the income tax-free.

Well, I’m sorry, if you’re eking by on $20,000 $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 or even $40,000 a year, the prospect of putting $5,000 a year of after-tax money into a savings account so you can earn a 1%-a-year interest rate isn’t a reality. It’s not an option; it’s not a choice.

We’ve got folks down at Atlas Steel—there are still workers who are ex-workers of Atlas Steel—who were ripped off as a result of a grossly underfunded pension plan and because the pension benefits guarantee fund remains capped at $1,000 a month of pension replacement. These workers, these former workers, who otherwise would have had pensions of, I don’t know, $2,000, $2,500, $3,000 a month—again, not a whole lot of money—are reduced to $1,000 a month. There’s no Nortel buyout for them. There’s no GM buyout or Stelco pension fund buyout for them. These Atlas Steel workers got left out there, twisting in the wind. They got hung and dried.

I suppose what’s most disappointing about this legislation—and New Democrats are going to support it, again, because it’s better than a kick in the head, but not much—is the failure of this government to respond to the Arthurs recommendation that the pension benefits guarantee fund be set at a cap of $2,500 a month. It’s the most modest of proposals. It protects hard-working women and men from the voracious profit appetites of corporations—increasingly multinational corporations—that would rather skim off the top than adequately fund a pension plan.

And what’s remarkable—if the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Mr. Miller, were here, he’d be inclined to tell you about the scenario in Stelco, where the fat cats, the top guys, got buyouts of six-digit and perhaps seven-digit figures. It’s like the old adage: The bosses get the mine and the workers get the shaft, huh? And they got the shaft. People expect their government to come to their assistance, to come to their aid, to support them in scenarios like this.

New Democrats feel that the government has a responsibility to ensure that there’s a legislative regime that supports adequate pensions for all workers. That’s why the New Democrats—Andrea Horwath and the NDP—have advocated for an Ontario pension fund, one which would have all workers, regardless of the size of their workplace—because it’s understandable. It’s very difficult for an employer in a two- or three-person workplace. It’s very expensive for that employer and those workers to participate in a pension fund.

But if you had an Ontario-wide pension fund, sponsored provincially so that all workers and all employers could participate, even the smallest workforce could participate in it—even a one- or two-person workforce; even the family-run, mom-and-pop business could participate in it. What a novel idea.

It has already been noted that people are living longer. It has already been noted over the course of the last weeks and months that this province is making life more expensive. Eighty-six per cent of Ontarians say that it’s harder to get by now than it was two years ago. And in response to that, what does the Premier of this province do? What does Premier McGuinty do? He tells Ontarians, he promises them, that they’re going to enjoy at least a 46% increase in their electricity rates over the next five years. And that’s on top of the tax-grab HST created by Mr.

McGuinty and his government; that’s on top of so-called not-so-smart, stupid, dumber-and-dumber meters that are jacking up hydro rates for almost every hydro user, electricity user, here in the province of Ontario.

Folks haven’t seen nothing yet, because we’re just starting to get into the cold season. That furnace motor’s going to be running hours a day, and the colder it gets, the longer it’s going to be running. If people have had their socks knocked off by hydro rates so far, just wait until January and February coming. Our constituency offices are going to be flooded—as if they haven’t been already—flooded with people whose singular comment is going to be, “I simply can’t afford to pay it. The well is dry, and I can’t not heat my house.

The well is dry.” So Premier McGuinty and the Liberals have made life more expensive for Ontarians and have effectively promised to make it even more expensive over the years to come. Yet they implicitly, in their failure to address the real pension issue in the province of Ontario, are telling people, “Well, if you want to survive through your senior years, save your money.”

It’s easy, once again, for a member of this Legislature making well into a six-digit income to talk about saving your money. For the life of me, I can’t think of how you can tell that mom working at the 7-Eleven, on her feet all day, raising her three kids on a wage that’s barely above minimum wage—and Lord knows, I don’t know how she does it. She does it with a whole lot of sacrifice. She does it by doing without so that her kids don’t have to, and even the kids do without. These are the kids who don’t take money to pizza day at their elementary school.

These are the kids who can’t afford to participate in extracurriculars, sports programs, athletic programs. These are the kids who don’t get to go to dance lessons or piano lessons or guitar lessons. These are the kids who don’t get to go to a summer camp for a mere week, or maybe two.

How does that woman save for her retirement? She doesn’t. She’s probably too busy right now, that single mom raising three kids, working at a 7-Eleven. Or maybe working one of the hotels in Niagara Falls, as I said before, cleaning rooms—honourable work, but darned hard work, you better believe it, and not very well-paying, not well-paying at all—and abusive work. Or maybe she’s working in the service industry, oh, the much-touted tourism industry.

Maybe she’s a server, a waitress, dare I say it, who’s having her tips ripped off by a boss because this government won’t pass the legislation proposed by the member for Beaches–East York, Michael Prue, that would forbid restaurant bosses and bar bosses from stealing their servers’, their waiters’, their waitresses’, their bartenders’ tips. Maybe she cleans other people’s houses. Maybe she works hard and is trusted and respected by people who can afford the proverbial cleaning lady. She doesn’t have a pension plan.

She doesn’t have a defined benefit pension plan, she doesn’t have a defined contribution pension plan and she sure as heck doesn’t have any savings.

So while this legislation provides some modest tinkering, some of which has been sought by the labour movement, it in no way, shape or form addresses the crisis around retirees, seniors and poverty, the crisis around the decline of unionized jobs, the crisis around the movement to eliminate defined benefit pension plans. And increasingly, we’re going to see in workplaces dual systems: Long-standing workers will have defined benefit pension plans; new hires will be forced into a defined contribution pension plan, which, again, is not much of a pension plan at all.

There’s no guarantee of any result, and you’re subject to the vagaries of the stock market. Lord knows; look what the last two years have done to a whole lot of people’s savings, including modest mutual fund holders.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Applause.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: I’m pleased to stand in the House today for third reading of Bill 120, the Securing Pension Benefits Now and for the Future Act, 2010. Of course, I want to thank my colleague the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities for that warm welcome this morning. Thank you, Minister.

This act is just one part of our government’s comprehensive plan. It’s a plan to improve Ontario’s retirement income system, to strengthen employment pension plans and to do this through both modernization and innovation. Our government has been very active on this file in the past few years, and we’re taking significant steps in order to make retirement easier for the people of Ontario.

We continue to work with our federal, provincial and territorial partners to make significant improvements to Canada’s retirement income system. Thanks to urging by Premier McGuinty, the Council of the Federation endorsed the idea of a national summit on Canada’s retirement income system. The federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers are now developing options for reform and are going to discuss these options at the upcoming finance ministers’ meeting of December 19 and 20.

As you’re aware, we’re calling for a modest, fully funded, phased-in expansion to the Canada pension plan, along with tax and regulatory changes, in order to expand the range of institutions that can act as pension plan administrators, and to extend the plan coverage to a broader range of people, which would include, of course, the self-employed.

Such changes could also help lower the cost of providing defined contribution plans. To further this goal, we recently released a discussion paper called Securing Our Retirement Future: Consulting with Ontarians on Canada’s Retirement Income System. It outlines the challenges facing Ontarians and, of course, all Canadians who are seeking a stable, secure retirement income, and the options that are available to them. Through this discussion paper, we’re soliciting even more input from the people of Ontario on reforming the pension and retirement income system.

Furthermore, in May of this year, the House unanimously passed Bill 236, the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2010. It built upon the recommendations from the Expert Commission on Pensions and upon extensive consultations with stakeholders that will help the pension system adapt to the economic changes while, at the same time, balancing the need for benefit security.

The government has been clear from the outset that Bill 236 was the first part of a multi-step process to update and to improve the employment pension system. This is a point we reiterated in the 2010 budget, and we committed to introducing further pension reforms. So Bill 120, the Securing Pension Benefits Now and for the Future Act, 2010, is the continuation of this process.

This proposed legislation builds on the principles of the 2010 budget and recommendations from the Expert Commission on Pensions. It also reflects consultations with stakeholders, discussions with members of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and, of course, input that was provided from the Advisory Council on Pensions and Retirement Income.

A number of the proposed reforms would be phased in so that plan sponsors, administrators and other stakeholders would have time to adjust. Regulatory amendments would be required to implement many of the proposed changes to the Pension Benefits Act.

As you know, the McGuinty government is committed to maintaining an open and transparent process. Therefore, any draft regulations developed would be posted on the regulatory registry for review by stakeholders.

I’d like to take this opportunity to highlight what proposed reforms in the Securing Pensions Now and for the Future Act would accomplish. If passed, and once required regulations are drafted, consulted on and implemented, the legislation would lay the groundwork for modernizing funding rules, including strengthening required contributions. Strengthening funding rules would ensure plans are better positioned to withstand market risks.

The bill also provides for an improved framework for contribution holidays. If an ongoing plan is in surplus, with more assets than liabilities, excess assets may be used to offset contributions for the current service costs of funding ongoing pension accruals. When a plan is using surplus to reduce or suspend such contributions, it’s taking what we call a contribution holiday.

Current rules do not require disclosure when a contribution holiday is under way. The commission stated that information about contribution holidays is essential for an understanding of plan funding, both for the regulator and for all plan participants. That’s why we’re proposing to expressly permit contribution holidays, unless prohibited by the plan document, only if they do not reduce the plan’s transfer ratio below a prescribed level.

The bill would also accelerate the funding of benefit improvements. In its report, the Expert Commission on Pensions noted that current rules permit benefit improvements to be funded over 15 years. It suggested instead that they should be fully identified and funded not just fully, but promptly. To improve benefit security, the government has proposed that benefit improvements be funded over no more than eight years on an ongoing concern basis.

Bill 120 would also clarify surplus entitlement. In its report, the commission observed that employers, active members and retirees have been engaged in conflicts over surplus use and distribution since at least the mid-1980s. Reform is needed to address long-standing debates about surplus entitlement and the costly litigation that often results.

To address surplus entitlement issues, the government is proposing to provide more legal certainty and a binding arbitration process for surplus distribution on plan windup, while continuing to allow payment to an employer where there is entitlement or a surplus-sharing agreement. The government is also proposing to allow payment of surplus from an ongoing plan to an employer where there is entitlement or consent, provided the remaining surplus is no less than the greater of 25% of windup liabilities and twice the current service costs plus 5% of windup liabilities.

Finally, to address surplus entitlement issues, we are proposing to ensure surplus rights are protected after asset transfers related to plan splits or mergers by requiring surplus-sharing agreements if the plan terms differ, if and when a successor plan is wound up. Of course, details would be set out in regulation.

We’re also proposing to modify funding requirements for the multi-employer pension plan or MEPP and the jointly sponsored pension plans or the JSPPs that meet specific criteria. The commission had this to say: “MEPPs and JSPPs should be allowed more flexibility in funding,” and they cited joint governance, risk sharing, the ability to reduce benefits and the absence of pension benefits guarantee fund coverage as legitimate reasons for different funding rules.

Acknowledging these distinctions, this bill proposes to provide a framework for MEPPs that offers target benefits. They would be exempt from solvency funding requirements, provided certain criteria are met, including an unrestricted ability to reduce accrued benefits in their plans.

Also, it proposes to allow target benefit plans that are exempt from solvency funding requirements to reduce benefit levels to the greater of the transfer ratio or going concern ratio when individual members choose to transfer the commuted value of their pension benefits out of an underfunded plan. This would, of course, also require amendments to the regulations.

As you know, this government has been working hard to make the pension benefits guarantee fund, or the PBGF, more sustainable. Since 1980, Ontario’s PBGF has provided pensioners and plan members with a degree of benefit protection when plans are wound up with insufficient funds to cover promised benefits. Generally, the fund provides a maximum benefit top-up of up to $1,000 per month.

The commission recommended that the PBGF be self-financing. Current PBGF assessments are as low as $1 per plan member per year, with no minimum assessment per pension plan. So to place the PBGF on a more sustainable financial footing, we’re proposing a strategy that recognizes the need for participation by all stakeholders. This strategy would increase the PBGF revenue by making assessments more consistent for the covered plans with, of course, similar funding levels and raising assessment levels by making changes to regulations. The strategy would implement stronger funding rules to reduce the risk and size of pension deficits in covered pension plans.

The Securing Pension Benefits Now and for the Future Act, 2010, also proposes to further modernize the pension system in Ontario, as recommended in the commission’s report. If passed, the bill would provide more flexibility. It would provide opportunities for plan innovation by allowing employers to use irrevocable letters of credit from a financial institution to cover a portion of solvency special payments; allowing payment of variable benefits from defined contribution plans; and allowing flexible defined benefit pension plans, as permitted by the federal Income Tax Act.

It would strengthen regulatory oversight as well, by granting the superintendent the power to appoint a new administrator in certain circumstances.

It would improve plan administration by allowing reasonable expenses to be paid from the pension fund, unless prohibited by the plan documents.

Finally, we recognize that the absence of pension reform in Ontario for decades was unacceptable. This bill therefore includes a proposal that the Minister of Finance be required to initiate a review of the Pension Benefits Act every five years, and this is essential for the well-being of Ontario’s retirees and those who are working towards retirement.

We’ve undertaken exhaustive public consultations in crafting this bill. The Minister of Finance conducted a series of round-table discussions on pension reform. On August 26, we posted the draft of this bill on our website and invited stakeholders and the public to provide feedback. We also received feedback at committee hearings.

It’s feedback from people like Ian McSweeney, a partner with Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, who had this to say: “The Ontario government, in my view, is to be commended for its significant efforts to put forward much-needed pension reform in a number of areas in the 2008 Arthurs report; one which intended to promote the objectives in that report, which included better securing pensions to deliver the pension promise, clarifying surplus rules, improving plan administration, reducing compliance costs and strengthening regulatory oversight.”

We also received feedback from people like Derek Dobson, who is the CEO and plan manager of the pension plan for the college system in Ontario, also known as the CAAT pension plan. Mr. Dobson had this to say: “The changes proposed in Bill 120 align with the focus of our pension plan...: long-term sustainability; appropriate contributions for benefits being earned; minimizing contribution rate volatility; ...intergenerational equity ... open communication and disclosure.”

Finally, I’d like to conclude with the thoughts of Betty Ann Bushell. She’s treasurer of the Congress of Union Retirees of Canada. In committee hearings, we heard Ms. Bushell state—she had this to say to us in committee: “This is a legacy issue. It’s up to this Legislature to leave the people of Ontario in a much better position in terms of their retirement and pensions than they are now, and I would urge you to do it well and do it with long-term thoughts in your minds.”

If passed, Bill 120, the Securing Pension Benefits Now and for the Future Act, 2010, would do just that, and of course that’s why I’m asking for the full support of the House to pass Bill 120.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak for a few minutes on third reading of Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act and the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2010. I know that the member from Durham also is keen to speak to this bill—it’s an area that he’s quite interested in—so I will be fairly brief.

The parliamentary assistant went over quite a few of the details of the bill. We are supporting the bill. It’s mainly to do with defined benefit pension plans, as she pointed out in her speech, some relatively minor changes.

The member from Thornhill pointed out that there is still 60% or 70% of people out there who are not saving enough for their retirement income, and that’s a big problem that does still need to be dealt with, either at the national level—most preferably at the national level.

I would like to just briefly talk about this bill in terms of the process, the fact that we did propose some amendments. Unfortunately, we wonder why we do them, as the opposition, at times because our track record of getting any of them passed doesn’t seem to be very good. But we did listen to those groups that came before the committee at committee hearings and proposed some amendments.

One in particular was to do with target benefits. There was an excellent presentation from Buck Consultants, wanting to expand the ability of different groups to be able to participate in target benefit pension plans.

So we in fact moved an amendment that would—the exact amendment was, “I move that paragraph 2 of subsection 39.2(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, as set out in subsection 12(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out ‘one or more collective agreements’ at the end and substituting ‘collective agreements or other prescribed agreements’.” The purpose of that was to expand the target benefit plans to not just unionized groups but any group out there that wanted to form a prescribed agreement.

The Buck presentation talked about how defined benefit plans aren’t working for most private sector employees. The future liability of them is—the reality is, private sector employees are—fewer and fewer are providing defined benefit plans, especially for new hires. Defined contribution plans aren’t working for most employees. A defined contribution plan is what members of the Ontario Legislature in fact have, where they contribute a portion of their income each month, where it’s a defined contribution plan which is invested in RRSPs.

The new sort of idea that’s come out is target benefit plans. They’re a solution to increase pension plan coverage to Ontario workers. That’s why we proposed an amendment that would expand who could participate in target benefit plans, as was recommended by the presentation done by Buck Consultants at committee. Unfortunately, the government voted that amendment down.

We also proposed an amendment to provide more timely information for the plan users. The Canadian Federation of Pensioners, who are hundreds of thousands of people across the province, pointed out that if things go bad in their pension plan, the current requirement is a three-year valuation, and there are six months to do it, so it can be almost four years by the time they find out the bad news, like the 2008 bad news, for example.

They were asking, as many other pension plans do have now, with modern technology and electronic means of doing these things, for an annual valuation. We did propose an amendment to do with that, to bring more timely information to those retired plan members; that was also voted down by the government.

We also proposed, as recommended by one of the presenters, that the too-big-to-fail rules be struck out so that the rules would apply to all companies in the same way and so we would not have special exemptions and holidays on contributions by the large companies, because it has been proven in recent history that it doesn’t matter how big the company is, whether it’s General Motors or Stelco, they can all get in trouble, so there shouldn’t be special rules for the large companies.

I just wanted to get those amendments that we proposed on the record. I just note that we will be supporting Bill 120 when it comes to a vote. Thank you very much for the time to speak.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to speak again on Bill 120 and to follow our critic Mr. Miller, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka. I thank him for allowing me such an inordinate amount of time.

The key here is that pensions continue to be an important part of, I would say, the social security plan of all Canadians and all Ontarians. In fact, the whole issue of pensions has broad implications for not just Ontario. In fact, the expert panel that met prior to Bill 236, the first act, was an admission that pension plans, generally, were in serious trouble.

When you look at it, a lot of the attention being brought to this is at the federal level as well. I commend Minister Flaherty for convening a meeting last winter around this time—in Whitehorse, I think—and also for the current discussions that are going on federally. In fact, some of the discussions that are going on are about looking at the CPP, the Canada pension plan, and trying to fix the system for all people, because I think the most important place to start here, not just on Bill 120, is to realize that about 70% of the people living in Ontario, probably in Canada, don’t have a pension except for the Canada pension and OAS plan, and that’s quite frightening.

If you look, also, widely, most people don’t take advantage of the RRSP, the registered retirement savings plan, which is a tax shelter, if you will, for ordinary Canadians. Also, there’s another part of savings, which is saving for your children’s education: the educational savings plan.

There was an

article the other day about people not wanting to save. I can attest that even in my own family, my own children—all well employed—don’t like to save. Saving for the future seems to be something that they did long ago, and it seems to have run out of style. Now, one doesn’t wonder too long why, because the way the monetary system globally is now, you’d wonder what you should be saving in: dollars or gold? You look at gold reaching an all-time high. There’s uncertainty in the whole equation here.

Governments are trying to settle that discussion down, trying to allay suspicions that there is a monetary crisis. In fact, there is. Today, China upped their interest rate, which is one of the monetary policies that any government has—to manipulate money supply through interest or supply of currency itself. The United States is resolved to this, and Bernanke—I heard him speak last week on a cable show. He was saying that they’re going to expand the supply of money again by another $600 billion, which really deflates the currency that’s in circulation.

What would a person say then? If you’re saving in dollars, would you not want to save in a currency that’s going to be growing as opposed to shrinking? I’m not sure I would want my currency saved in euros, given what’s going on in Europe.

It is tied to some very complex things. I’ve read quite a bit. I understand some of what I read, but it’s a complicated topic. I always looked at it from my constituents’ perspective. What are the three criteria that you look at when you look at pensions? And the actuaries themselves have a kind of formula that looks at pensions. It’s a pot of money that people have set aside. It’s invested generally quite securely and conservatively. That pot of money has got some rules around it. Usually, it’s based on your entitlements or based on a couple of factors—return on equity, which is usually in the range of 5% to 7%.

Really, that isn’t happening today. It also is ranged on the type of organizations you work for—the portability. When you look at General Motors, Nortel, Stelco, all of those legacy companies are basically bankrupt because of pension liabilities.

The third thing they look at is the number of people paying into a plan. Often, companies are outsourcing, downsizing, globalizing, and there’s no security in terms of the organization themselves.

So, plans and who underwrites them when these companies fall off the cliff—we found out in the case of General Motors, the government itself at all levels, US and Canadian and provincial governments, had to come in and fix things up.

It does raise the question, are the rules strong enough? If you look at the current finance bill that’s before us, which will be debated this afternoon, Bill 135 has some language in there that deals with the issue of derivatives and other forms of saving and investing. The reason I bring this up is this bill, which we support, does go a long way to recognizing some of the commitments made by the expert panel. You would know that that basically happened some time ago. The expert panel was pre-Bill 236. It was the first bill that came into effect, and I think it was in May 2010.

This bill, Bill 120, came into effect on October 19 in first reading, second reading on the 4th, and now we’re into the third and final reading and it’s sort of time-allocated.

I thank and compliment the parliamentary assistant. She has worked tirelessly on this attempt to understand this complex issue.

The member from Kitchener–Conestoga did remark on some of the things that Bill 120 does. That bill actually does a couple of things, and one of them I’m concerned about is this whole idea of contribution holidays. That’s quite controversial, because contribution holidays are a case where the plan exceeds a certain amount of actuarial value. That’s risk and reward analysis. I don’t think there should be a contribution holiday. That’s my own belief.

So there are sections in this bill that I think the experts have clearly commented on. I have an

article here from Benefits Canada, and I have another

article here that was passed on to me by the pension benefit law—Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt. It was referred to by several people. I’ve read their papers well.

Anyway, it’s a bill that we support and—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. Further debate? Seeing none, pursuant to the order of the House dated November 3, 2010, I am now required to put the question.

Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act and the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2010. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day?

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 30, 2010, on the motion relating to negotiations with the federal government on a comprehensive new agreement to provide funding, planning, and governance for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper.

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

There being no further debate, on September 28, 2010, Mr.

Hoskins moved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognizes that Ontario receives, welcomes and benefits from the contributions of nearly half of all new immigrants coming to Canada and calls on the federal government to support the integration of newcomers and the economic recovery in Ontario by investing in services for newcomers and therefore asks the federal government to fulfill their commitment under the recently expired five-year Canada-Ontario immigration agreement to spend the outstanding $207 million promised to Ontario’s newcomers and immediately commence negotiations on a comprehensive new agreement that provides the adequate funding, planning, and governance necessary for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The vote shall be deferred until deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: We have no further business, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1001 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s a privilege for me to introduce two individuals in the Speaker’s gallery this morning: Mrs. Alma Fell, who is the grandmother of our page from Peterborough, Jake Fell, and Mrs. Fell’s very good family friend, Ms. Mae Goodwyn.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I ask all members to join me in welcoming the staff, students and volunteers from Walter E. Harris in Oshawa.

Mr. David Caplan: It’s a real pleasure to have the family of page Miguel Agudelo here today: his mother, Lucia Henao, and his father, Miguel Agudelo. Welcome to Queen’s Park on behalf of the Legislature.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I would like, at this time, to welcome a couple of visitors from my riding, Les Armstrong and George Fortin, attending from the riding of Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. John O’Toole: I would like to welcome to the Legislature—they are not here yet, but they are coming—Aubrey and Debra Zidenberg.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Seated in the Speaker’s gallery this morning, I’d like to welcome some guests of mine: Brent Davis, Sam Davis, Lucy Gouveia and Kyle Gouveia, and from my constituency office, Veronika Sonier, Megan Trotter, Craig Bradford and Kim Davis, and Kim’s grandson and my good friend, Kristian Young. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Families don’t need the Provincial Auditor to tell them there is something wrong with their property assessments. Under Premier McGuinty, all they had to do was simply open up the bill. But now, the auditor confirmed exactly what Ontario families have known instinctively: that up to one in eight could be paying more than 20% too much in their property taxes.

I ask the minister, is Premier McGuinty simply too tired to fix MPAC? Or is he resisting change because he likes to rake in all of that extra money from overvalued property assessments?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, we welcome the Auditor General’s report and the recommendations he has made with respect to MPAC.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that MPAC is actually controlled by municipalities. I’ve had a chance to chat with the new chair of MPAC, who is the mayor of Stratford—an outstanding mayor, I might add. MPAC has already acted on the recommendations in many instances.

Again, just so that there’s a complete understanding, the auditor also pointed out that as a result of these discrepancies, many people paid less. This is an ongoing challenge with assessment, and we look forward to the board of MPAC addressing the specific recommendations of the Auditor General.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: That is cold comfort, Minister, to the people who are paying up to 20% more for their property assessments because you just can’t get your act right. Now the minister wants to blame municipalities.

Minister, this falls on your desk. You are the Minister of Finance, and you know the Ombudsman raised similar concerns four years ago. In March 2006, the Ombudsman said, “MPAC is not concerned enough about problems it has encountered in ensuring the accuracy of its information.” I asked you directly four years ago and you said you would fix the problem. You said MPAC has already responded. You said, “We’re moving forward,” and you said you were happy to have the Ombudsman’s report—the exact same answers you just gave me here today.

Minister, are you asleep on the job? Or are you just using four-year-old talking points and not getting to the bottom of the problem?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d rather let the Ombudsman answer the leader’s question. The leader is right: In his 2006 report there were a number of recommendations. According to the Ombudsman in his 2009-10 report, “All ... recommendations have now been implemented.”

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Ontario families know that the McGuinty government has become awfully tired in office. They keep seeing the same scandals come back over and over again.

Four years ago, you were warned of problems at MPAC, and then you went to sleep on the job.

But this isn’t the only circumstance. The minister knows that his smart meters are badly broken, but you force them on families anyway. Fraudsters are driving up the cost of auto insurance, but you raise rates instead of cracking down on the cheaters.

To add insult to injury, you move the dream of home ownership farther away from middle-class families by slapping down your HST on new homes and renovations. Now we see property assessments 20% or more too high, but you won’t fix them, and you’re going to pocket the difference.

Why is it you see Ontario families as nothing more than cash machines for Dalton McGuinty’s runaway spending?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would remind the honourable member about the use of names. We use titles, ministries or ridings.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The other thing the Ombudsman pointed out in his 2009-10 report is that there had been a 90% decrease in the complaints, resultant from the changes we made.

The MPAC board is already in the process of responding to the auditor’s recommendations. We will continue to work with him.

But I have to say, the only thing in this House that’s broken is that leader’s leadership. We don’t know if it’s the Lanark landowners who are asking questions or if it’s the old red Tory wing of the party. We’ve been waiting for an energy plan from that party. They haven’t—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members will please come to order. Speaker Claus has started his list; there’s three on it already.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’ve been waiting for an energy plan from them, and we haven’t gotten one. Now we know why: They’re too busy fighting one another over who’s in charge.

We’ve laid out a plan for a better energy future. We will respond to the Ombudsman’s recommendations on MPAC and build a stronger province as a result of it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister of Finance: Minister, moms and dads in Ontario today are struggling to make ends meet. You’ve hit them with the HST, hydro bills are going through the roof, and many of them would simply love the opportunity to buy their son or daughter a Wii or an iPod this Christmas. But to read the auditor’s report, the McGuinty Liberals, through MPAC, are handing them out like candy.

Where is your sense of outrage? Why aren’t you pounding on your desk saying you’re going to put a stop to the problems at MPAC instead of shrugging your shoulders and looking the other way? This has gone on for far too long. Are you that far out of touch? Have you lost that much gas? Are you that tired that you look the other way when they’re giving out the Wiis and iPods that families are struggling to buy their own kids for Christmas?

Minister, how did you get so out of touch?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just remind the honourable member from Peterborough and the Minister of Community Safety that that list is going both ways on both sides of the House.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We welcome the auditor’s recommendations and I will point out—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I will point out that, in fact, that practice was put to an end almost a year and a half ago, once we became aware of it. I’ll table a letter with the House from the CEO of MPAC saying that those expenses no longer happen as a result of this government’s policy and directives with respect to appropriate procedures.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, I want to say to the minister responsible for Nintendo Wiis and iPods that those answers simply don’t cut it when you have one in eight homes whose assessments are out of whack by 20% or more, and all you do is shrug your shoulders. You wash your hands and you walk away while scandal after scandal happens under Premier McGuinty’s watch—from eHealth, to MPAC, to the OLG.

Premier McGuinty once famously said after eHealth that he fixed the rules. There would be no more sweetheart deals. He said there would be no more expense scandals, but now the auditor found out that almost half of the contracts at MPAC were untendered contracts, were sweetheart deals up to $50 million a year. When will you actually stop talking about making change and make real change? Or do we have to change the government—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have brought about substantial change, and let’s review a little bit of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Honourable members, please come to order. Stop the clock.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Peterborough, a comment like that is not helpful.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, government House leader, it’s not.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s right, two more sleeps.

Please continue.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition is right: We’ve brought about substantial change, and let me tell you where we started.

First of all, we applied freedom of information to Hydro One and OPG, and what did we discover when we did that? We found untendered contracts to Tory friends in the hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of dollars.

We found that not only did that government have relatively minor expense challenges, they also had a box at the Air Canada Centre where a number of his colleagues were entertained quite lavishly. We got rid of that.

I read the Globe and Mail, I think it was Saturday morning, about Niagara tourism, and lo and behold, on page 1, who was the minister at the time who oversaw that challenge? It was the now Leader of the Opposition.

They’ve got no plan, no—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier McGuinty said that the practice of untendered contracts would end, but it keeps happening over and over again. Nobody is ever fired. Nobody is ever demoted. Nobody has any consequences. And as a result, the McGuinty legacy of waste is vast and growing deeper still.

Almost 50% of the contracts given out were untendered contracts. We saw money given out for Wii consoles and iPods and up to $50 million in untendered contracts.

You said it would stop. You said you’d stop it four years ago. The Premier said it would stop. It keeps happening over and over again.

You’ve run out of gas. You’ve lost touch. You’ve lost every opportunity to actually make change. The only way to bring change is to change this government and get rid of the legacy of McGuinty waste.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’ve built a legacy of change, and there’s more change to come. And you know, we started last month.

Let’s review what that leader and his party voted against. We brought in a bill to change lobbyist rules and regulations. That leader and his party voted against it. We brought in legislation and change to help people with their energy bills. That leader and his party voted against it. And we brought in real change to ensure that Ontarians have better health care and shorter wait times. That leader and his party voted against it.

This is a government that reformed what you did. There were no more Walkertons, no more Ipperwashes, no 10 million student days lost in education. That’s the kind of change Ontarians voted for. They’re going to get more real change as we build a better future for this province and this country.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

I think with all this excitement in the House, some of you may be very anxious to get home for the holiday season. I can assure you that the Speaker could help facilitate an early trip home.

New question.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday’s report by the Auditor General provided more evidence of an out-of-touch government with misplaced priorities. When it suits their political needs, this government can approve millions of dollars in infrastructure projects in a matter of mere weeks. But for the husband needing speedy treatment in an ER for his wife or the senior waiting for home care, it’s been seven long years of empty promises.

Given the Auditor General’s findings, does the minister still think that her government’s plan is working?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Yes, our plan is absolutely working, and the auditor himself recognized it.

Let me quote from the auditor’s report. This is on ERs, for example: “Our research indicated that outside Ontario, there has not been much public reporting of emergency department data in Canada.” That’s one thing he said.

On page 8, he said, “Given the adage that ‘you can’t manage what you can’t measure,’ the ministry’s decision to gather length-of-stay data and report it publicly is a good initiative.” On page 3, he said that “the length of time patients with minor conditions waiting in emergency departments almost met the four-hour target....” Page 27: “Most EMS providers acknowledged that the program reduced ambulance offload times, freed up ambulances, and brought emergency departments and EMS providers together to improve offload delays.”

Our wait times in emergency departments are coming down—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For seven long years people have heard the promises of this government, and yesterday, the Auditor General showed them the results: ER wait times unimproved since 2008; 50,000 patients stranded in hospitals with nowhere to go; waiting lists for home care stretching up to 262 days, and in some communities, it’s not available at all.

How can the health minister stand here with a straight face and claim that her government’s plan is working when everybody knows that it is not?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We started measuring emergency department wait times in April 2008. Our baseline: 81% of people who went to emergency departments were seen, and their entire length-of-stay time was within the target. We started at 81%; we’re now at 85%. We’re on our way to have 90% of the patients who come to our emergency departments in and out of the emergency department within those target times.

We’re making progress. We’re not there yet; there is more to do, and we are doing that work. The recommendations that the Auditor General made actually reinforced that our strategies are the right strategies. We’re starting to see results, and the results are impressive. Nearly half the hospitals in Ontario meet the four-hour target for the uncomplicated cases, and over one third of hospitals have met the eight-hour target.

We know we can do better. We’re putting in place the right resources to do better.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The situation across Ontario is tragic. Last year, 50,000 people were left stranded in hospitals because there was simply no place for them to go. They were discharged but follow-up services simply are not available, and some languished in hospitals for up to 97 days more than necessary.

After all the rosy promises that this government has made, how can the McGuinty Liberals have allowed things to get this desperately bad?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I understand that the leader of the third party has a job to do, and that is to criticize the government. I understand that. I wish she would actually look at the facts, though.

The truth is, we have made significant progress. When it comes to funding people through our CCACs, we’ve increased the number of people who are getting care; 200,000 more people now are getting care than when we took office. When it comes to spending in home care, we’ve increased spending by 64%. So we are very much focused on improving home care.

Our initiatives are showing results. The population is growing, the population is aging, and the investments we are making are making a difference. Is there more to do? Absolutely, and we are on track to continue the improvement in our health care system.

HOME CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Minister of Health for my second question: The Auditor General also reported that most regions of the province have a waiting list for home care with 10,000 names on it. That’s 10,000 families that are scrambling to help a relative waiting for support or, worse, visiting that relative in the hospital while others languish in the ER waiting for that bed. After seven years of big promises, is the government ready to admit that their home care system isn’t working?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Far from it; far from it. Our initiatives are working. Let me tell you a story that might demonstrate how this is working. There’s a gentleman here in Toronto named Keith Cooper, a wonderful gentleman. He was a paramedic; he’s now a retired gentleman. He was living in a long-term-care home here in Toronto. Now Keith Cooper is living at home because of the investments in home care. He’s living at home, and he has a personal support worker come and visit him twice a day. The space he took in the long-term care is now being occupied by someone who needs the full array of supports in a long-term-care home.

So bringing people from long-term care back into their own homes, with the right supports, is part of our strategy. It’s working for Keith Cooper, and it’s working for many, many thousands of people across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The auditor reports that our current system is a hodgepodge mess that’s failing patients. In the absence of any standards, each region has its own criteria for how often and how long a client receives home care services. Some Ontarians are forced to wait eight days for home care; others wait 262 days. Does the minister think it’s right for geography to be the main determinant of what health care services Ontarians receive?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We agree with the auditor that funding to CCACs should not be based on the historical spending, but rather on the needs in that community. That is why we are moving to use HBAM. It’s a methodology that reflects the population age structure, the demographics and the need in that community. So we are making this transition. We agree with the auditor that that’s the way to go in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The auditor has pointed to problems that should have been fixed long, long ago, and for seven years, patients have heard this government’s promises, but they’re still waiting in ERs for up to 26 hours, 50,000 patients who shouldn’t be in hospital beds are trapped in them, and families that need home care beds for loved ones are waiting up to 262 days. After seven years of big promises, is the government ready to admit that their home care system is a shambles?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is a government that takes great pride in the work we have done in health care. We have rebuilt a crumbling system. Think back to before we were in office. There was a headline that said that 22 out of 25 hospitals in the GTA were on bypass. That meant an ambulance could not accept any patients. That was a crisis.

We are now moving forward. We’ve got a million more people attached to primary health care. We’re now measuring our wait times, and we’re bringing those wait times down. We have virtually all our surgical procedures now meeting those wait time targets. Because we measure, we know what we need to do next. Our MRI wait times are not where we want them to be, so we’re making new investments in MRIs.

The health care system is far, far stronger now than it was when we took office, and the member opposite really should recognize what the auditor did that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. Ontario families didn’t need an auditor’s report to know that there’s something very wrong in Ontario’s hospitals. One in six patients in hospital should not be there, but because they are, other patients wait 26 hours, sometimes longer, in crowded emergency rooms.

You said the LHINs and the $200 million you spent to reduce ER wait times would fix the problem. The auditor says they’re not. What more will it take to motivate this government to change and fix the mess Premier McGuinty has made of Ontario’s hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said earlier, we are measuring the issues. We have a much better handle on what the problems are than any previous government did, let me tell you. We are leading the country when it comes to public reporting. Your party didn’t even bother to measure wait times; our government is measuring wait times. We’re publicly reporting wait times. The auditor acknowledges and congratulates us for doing that.

We have made strategic investments. Our health care system is far healthier now than it was when we took over, and there are many ways that we can demonstrate that. For a start, access to primary care: When we took office, the number one phone call we received in our offices, and I dare say, the number one phone call you received in yours, was from people desperate to get a family doctor—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: You can study and measure all you want, but the time for action is long past.

The auditor says half the triage diagnoses in Ontario hospitals are wrong. The media just reported that a 40-year-old woman suffocated to death while waiting for treatment in an emergency room. Tragedies like this happen because Premier McGuinty can’t be bothered to fix the mess his LHINs have made of their efforts to coordinate patient flow in hospitals. Long-term-care patients are stranded in hospitals, while other patients can’t even get in the door.

It’s a moment of truth for the Premier’s expensive LHIN experiments: They haven’t gotten the job done. Will you change by scrapping the LHINs and put every last dollar back into front-line health care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The opposition has lots of bluster, but they have no plan. They have absolutely no plan. The only plan they have is to take $3 billion out of front-line health care. Now, they can pretend that they can cut spending and improve care, but they cannot. If they can, if they come up with a plan that demonstrates how they can cut $3 billion out of health care and improve care, I’ll vote for them. I would love to see their plan.

But until they have a plan, until they have a plan to improve health care—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Oxford, member from Simcoe North: tick, tick.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. New question.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday’s Auditor General report confirms there’s something seriously wrong at the Municipal Property Assessment Corp., MPAC. The Auditor General’s analysis of 11,500 assessments showed that an astonishing one in eight were off the mark by 20% or more. Assessments that are as much as 20%, 30% or 40% higher than they should be force some people, especially seniors, out of their homes.

Will the minister admit that MPAC is badly run, and when will he fix it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We welcome the Auditor General’s reports, as we welcome the Ombudsman’s report.

I remind the member opposite that MPAC is in fact controlled by our municipal partners. I know that they welcome the recommendations as well. I’ve spoken with the chair of MPAC, the mayor of Stratford; many of the recommendations of the auditor in this year’s report have already been acted on. I think that’s appropriate.

Again, we’re always looking for ways to do things better, and that’s why we take the auditor’s recommendations seriously and have, in fact, already responded to many of them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: If the minister takes this issue seriously, why doesn’t he take the fact that MPAC can’t get assessments right seriously? It seems the management has no problem blowing thousands of public dollars on expensive meals and fancy gifts. Try explaining that to seniors forced out of their homes because of incorrect assessments that drive their taxes through the roof.

Clearly, MPAC needs to be fixed. Will this minister, will this government, bring forward action to fix MPAC immediately?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes. I can report that all nine recommendations in the auditor’s report have been accepted by MPAC, and a number have already been implemented. It is absolutely essential that we take these recommendations seriously. I acknowledge the challenges associated with the auditor’s findings, and I believe we’ve taken the appropriate steps, and the board has taken the appropriate steps to respond.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Last week, the leader of the NDP was in Sault Ste. Marie speaking about energy. It’s clear from her comments that they have no energy plan.

In contrast, we recently announced that the 27 towers being installed at the Pointe-aux-Roches wind farm in Essex county will be made with 100% Ontario steel from Sault Ste. Marie. Essar Steel Algoma provided over 4,600 metric tonnes of steel plate, valued at over $3.5 million, to build the wind towers that will produce 49 megawatts of clean electricity in southwestern Ontario. Management at Essar Steel said they’re beginning to see new business prospects open up, thanks to Ontario’s commitment to building a clean energy economy.

Would the minister tell us if industry can expect to see more of these types of job-creating opportunities and investments in the green energy sector?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for this question. I can tell him that this government will always stand up for investment in Ontario and jobs for Ontario workers as a result of our growing clean energy economy.

The announcement last week in Essex county is a great example of what our energy plan is all about: steel from Sault Ste. Marie, clean energy for Essex and jobs supported and created from the north to the south of this province.

Just last week, I had the pleasure of joining the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade to announce that Samsung and CS Wind’s new tower manufacturing plant would be located there—towers, by the way, that are going to be made with 100% Ontario steel. Two thousand tonnes is the projected domestic steel consumption of that plant. That’s worth $140 million.

Those who have no plan like the leader of the NDP can oppose those investments. We’re going to stand—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. David Orazietti: Job creation is important, and certainly these recent announcements are excellent news for Ontario workers and for the 3,200 employees at Essar Steel Algoma.

Like most Ontarians, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could oppose new jobs being created by building a clean energy economy. Nevertheless, when the leader of the NDP was in the Soo, she criticized new power generation.

The Brookfield wind farm, the Starwood solar farm, the Heliene Canada solar panel manufacturer, the Essar Steel cogen and the St. Marys Paper biomass cogen are diversifying Sault Ste. Marie’s economy while creating over a thousand jobs.

Even though the NDP opposes the creation of these jobs in Sault Ste. Marie and across Ontario, will the provincial government continue to support these initiatives through its long-term energy plan?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Absolutely, absolutely. This government will continue to support the investment in job creation that comes with making Ontario a clean energy global powerhouse. I agree with the member: I cannot understand how the leader of the NDP continues to oppose those jobs in Sault Ste. Marie, those jobs in Windsor-Essex and this great opportunity for Ontario’s steel industry.

Let me tell you what Ken Neumann, president of the United Steelworkers, said: “More new jobs in Ontario are just what Ontario families need. And helping build a cleaner tomorrow is just what workers want for their kids, too....

“From Steelworkers making wind turbines to electricians installing solar panels, workers can support their families by working in clean energy.”

There used to be a time when the NDP used to support those Steelworkers. They’ve lost their way. We’re standing up for Steelworkers. They’re standing against them. We’re proud to stand with the Steelworkers of this—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. The news media have reported on the expenses of Joel Noden, formerly an executive at the Niagara Parks Commission. Did Mr. Noden ever pick up the expenses of any former Ministers of Tourism for meals, hospitality or even a single expense?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question. There is a long-standing corporate culture at the commission. This issue existed over successive governments. By the way, Mr. Joel Noden was hired 13 years ago.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: When Tim Hudak was the minister.

Hon. Michael Chan: In fact, this issue existed when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Tourism. When the leader of that party was questioned about the complaints he received as tourism minister, his response was, “I don’t have a recollection....” What he meant was that he did not have a plan. He did not have a clue.

On this side of the House we have a plan, a plan that has been in action since February of this year. We have a new chair and we have a new vice-chair. We see changes to the governance structure, the approval process, expenses and to the board and senior—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Surely with all the questions surrounding the emerging scandal at the Niagara Parks Commission, the minister will have been thoroughly briefed. He should know. The question is simple and direct; the minister is compelled to answer. Did Mr. Noden’s expenses ever include the meal, flight or alcohol expenses of a former minister, deputy minister or ministry staff?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question. Mr. Noden was hired by the PC government 13 years ago, and the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Tourism in 2001.

As I have said, the commission has had the same challenges over many successive governments. While the Conservative Party is engaging in partisan games, we are taking action. We are taking action to ensure that our agencies operate in a way that is more accountable and transparent to the people of Niagara and all Ontarians. But as we are moving forward with all this and changes to the commission, the opposition is playing political games. It makes you wonder when someone asks, are they afraid? Are they afraid of what is going to come out? Are they afraid that not being able to recollect complaints—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, the Auditor General reported that less than $510 million, or 16%, of the $3.1 billion allocated to three infrastructure programs was spent by the end of the first year. That means that only an estimated 7,000 jobs were created or saved, rather than the 44,000 that your government projected.

My question is this: How do you answer to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Ontarians that the McGuinty Liberals spent only a fraction of the money that was available to help put them back to work?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: First of all, we’re in the midst of the largest and most significant infrastructure program in the history of the province of Ontario. The program stops on March 31, 2011, and the audit was completed up until March 31, 2010, so there’s a lot of time to go.

The projects that are being completed are 98.9% complete by March 31. There are a very small number that are not completed. What is significant in what the auditor said—“We had a global economic crisis.” In that context, we’re applying $28 billion in infrastructure, with 300,000 jobs created by the end of March 31 and 400,000 estimated by the Conference Board of Canada. Our numbers are—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: What is bizarre about this is that at the same time that you’re unable to get the money out the door to create and sustain jobs, on other projects, projects had virtually no assessment whatsoever. The Auditor General says that some of these projects went forward without recommendations from officials in the ministries. “The haste made it ‘virtually impossible’ for the necessary review work to be done.” So recommendations weren’t obtained from officials in the field; ministerial staff simply decided on the back of an envelope what was going to be funded.

How does the government explain the Wild West chaos that left some money unspent and other projects with virtually no recommendations to support them?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The process was very significant. There was tremendous due diligence that was done at the municipal level, provincial level and intergovernmental: federal and provincial. What we have are the exact words of the provincial Auditor General: “The responsible ministries devoted significant efforts to establish the appropriate systems and processes, and to adhere to ... reporting, and other accountability requirements.”

As well, the federal and provincial Auditor Generals did not name a single project that should not have gone forward. The processes, in the words of the Auditor General, were appropriate—“accountability and transparency.”

There were processes that needed to be improved. Our staff worked with the Auditor General. We’re implementing all of the processes that need improvement. But at the end of the day—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In March 2007, the federal government announced up to $960 million in partnership with the province of Ontario and five municipalities, referred to as the Flow initiative. This initiative would generate a combined investment of close to $4.5 billion in public transit and highway infrastructure projects. As part of the Flow initiative, the province of Ontario has committed to extend the 407 eastward from Brock Road to Highway 35/115.

The opposition has recently begun saying that the province is not living up to its agreement under the Flow initiative to extend the 407 to the 35/115. My constituents in Peterborough are telling me how important the extension of the 407 is to the region’s economic well-being. The Highway 407 extension would provide a faster and easier option for my constituents to get through the Durham region into Toronto.

Minister, can you assure my constituents that the 407 will extend to the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for Peterborough for his consistent advocacy on this.

We know how important the 407 extension is to the communities in the Durham, Peterborough and the Kawartha regions. That’s why we remain committed to completing Highway 407 through to Highway 35/115. We’re going to do it in an affordable, responsible, manageable manner. We’re going to build phase 1 to Simcoe Road, and the second phase will be built to 35/115.

Despite the economic challenges that we’ve confronted over the last couple of years, we’re moving ahead with the extension of the 407. We recognize that it will serve the majority of residents. Projects of this size are consistently built in stages, as was the first part of the 407. It was built in stages; we’re doing the same thing. We’re starting with the busiest

section first. We’re going to get this road built.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Mr. Rick Johnson: Minister, it is good to know that we are proceeding with a plan. This staged implementation ensures long-term transportation objectives are protected so those improvements can be implemented when appropriate.

The Leader of the Opposition has been telling the residents in Durham, including my constituents, that they will make the extension “a priority.” I find that interesting, because when the Leader of the Opposition is pressed for when his plan would be complete, he can’t provide a date. I know that Conservatives don’t have a plan for the 407, but local groups have expressed concern about the Simcoe Road termination.

Minister, can you please inform the House what your plan is?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask all members on both sides of the House that—the noise elevation has gotten a little loud. Even with my earpiece, I’m finding it difficult to hear both questions and answers. I would just remind members that if they want to have conversation amongst themselves, we have side lobbies that are available for both sides to utilize.

Minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have a plan to build the 407 out to 35/115, and that plan does not include selling it off at a fire sale.

The Leader of the Opposition knows, I believe, that this road needs to be built in stages. I think he knows that because that’s exactly what they did; they built the 407 in stages. They understand that that’s how the 407 needs to be built.

We know that they don’t have a plan. We know that because the MPP for Whitby–Ajax is saying that we’re reneging on the Flow agreement, but at the same time, the MPP for Oshawa is asking me about the properties MTO is acquiring to build the 407 to 35/115. If we weren’t building to 35/115, we wouldn’t be buying the properties along that corridor.

On this side of the House, we know that extending the 407 is essential to job creation and to economic growth. We have met with the mayors. I have met with the mayors in the region. We’ll be working with them to make sure that the infrastructure is in place to make sure that it is a safe build.

ANTI-SEMITISM

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Jewish groups are criticizing the University of Toronto for accepting a shockingly anti-Semitic master’s thesis. The Holocaust is a horrible

chapter in human history that claimed the lives of six million Jews, yet this disgusting paper attacks educational programs working to ensure such evil is never repeated.

Minister, this House unanimously passed a resolution from the member from Thornhill condemning Israeli Apartheid Week. What are you doing as Minister of Citizenship to stop the rising tide of anti-Semitism?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I deeply appreciate the member opposite raising this. I too was greatly disturbed and, in fact, disgusted when I read the media reports. I want to say first and foremost that this government remains absolutely committed to fighting discrimination in all its forms. I want to add as well that the McGuinty government denounces all acts of anti-Semitism, which we believe are a particularly vile and pernicious form of discrimination, and we will continue our work to protect the human rights of our Jewish community and of all Ontarians.

I was proud that earlier this year, this Legislature in fact came together to condemn anti-Semitism on our university campuses, and we will continue our hard work on behalf of all Ontarians, including our Jewish community.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member from Thornhill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I wish I could say that this hateful and poorly—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable members—this is an important issue that all members need to be able to hear clearly, and I’d appreciate not having the interjections.

Member from Thornhill?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I wish I could say that this hateful and poorly researched paper attacking programs that use the horrors of the Holocaust to somehow show the dangers of discrimination and racism by Jews was an isolated incident. Unfortunately, it’s only the latest example that we’ve seen. There are too many other cases, including this summer, where anti-Semitic material was found at the Scott Library, not to mention an attack on the Jewish student association. Minister, will you today speak up on behalf of Jewish groups who have been so deeply hurt by this piece of garbage and condemn it, not as an academic paper but for the hate it actually is?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I join them in condemning this attack on Ontario’s Jewish community.

I want to reiterate that, as I mentioned, I was very proud earlier this year when the Legislature came together to condemn anti-Semitism on our campuses and in other fora. I look forward to later today, when there is a gathering of Jewish members from the Ontario community as we celebrate this important time of Hanukkah. I look forward to being able to speak with many members of that community as I’m co-hosting that event that the Premier is attending, along with Monte Kwinter.

I also want to add that the state of Israel is a very good friend of the province of Ontario. I had the privilege of visiting Israel earlier this year with the Premier and a number of members of the Liberal caucus and of this government to improve our ties. So again—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The Premier met today with Toronto’s mayor, Rob Ford. Following the meeting, the mayor stated that he intends to cancel the plans for Transit City without even taking the matter to council. Do this minister and her Premier agree with that assessment?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve been very consistent in our conversations in the public, and very clear in our position that we’re open to working with the new mayor and council and that we believe that council does need to weigh in on these issues. These are issues that are of great importance to all of the city of Toronto and, I would suggest, to the region, the GTHA. It’s very important that council does have a voice on the move-forward position.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is also to the Minister of Transportation. The government says that they respect local democracy, so it’s a pretty basic question and it needs a pretty firm answer: Does the Premier plan to let Mayor Ford scrap Transit City without the consent of the elected city council, yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s interesting, the member opposite yesterday wasn’t so interested in council. Yesterday, she was just interested in unilateral action on behalf of the government. But my answer then is the same as it is now. We are very, very interested in working with the city of Toronto in a collaborative relationship. City council is the elected body that must weigh in on these issues.

These are issues that affect the city of Toronto. They affect the city of Thunder Bay, they affect the contracts that have been signed, and I think that it’s a very serious conversation. Council members are meeting for the very first time today, and I look forward to that conversation with the new mayor, with the council members. I know that the Premier will be awaiting council’s deliberations as well.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Education. When I am in the riding of Brant, I meet regularly with stakeholders in education and talk about how the government has been standing up for Ontario families and their children, and how we are making Ontario even stronger, especially in education: primary, high school and post-secondary.

Since 2003, our government has focused investments in education. As a result, class sizes are down, graduation rates are up, and EQAO results clearly indicate that student achievement has improved. My constituents and Ontarians want to know how students in Ontario achieve compared to other jurisdictions outside of Ontario and even Canada. Are there any international comparisons that indicate how Ontarians are doing inside of all of education across the planet?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it’s a very important question, and I, too, have constituents who have come to me. They’re very, very pleased with the investments that we’ve made and with the performance of students in Ontario.

Since 2003, there have been significant improvements. Our 15-year-old students are among the best readers in the world, and now, today, just released, is a study from the Programme for International Student Assessment, called PISA. The study found that 92% of Ontario students met or exceeded PISA’s benchmark for reading. Ontario is the only province where our students performed significantly above the Canadian average in combined reading.

Giving students the best start has been a commitment of our government. We continue to make investments to support that. It builds on the good news that we received last week from the McKinsey report, yet another report, an independent report—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Levac: It also speaks to the fact that it means that our teachers are doing a good job as well. I want to thank you for that reinforcement, and I’m sure that all of us in this House, including the opposition—it’s a good-news story to know that we are performing on the world stage at a high level.

As a place of diversity, my riding of Brant consists of people from all over the world. There are over 120 countries represented, 85 languages spoken, and they are the key and the strength of our community. Like all parents, my constituents want to make sure that their children are getting the best education possible in Ontario and have that support and opportunity to do so.

Minister, education is an important part of our government’s poverty reduction strategy. Ensuring that every student is getting the support that they need is important. Are all our students doing well in Ontario, or are some doing better? We need to know that in terms of our poverty reduction strategy.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I want to join the honourable member in thanking all of the people in our schools—teachers, principals, support staff and, of course, parents—because it’s a concerted effort that has enabled our students to be successful. Together, we want to make sure that every student is achieving and reaching their full potential.

PISA today recognized Ontario as one of the few jurisdictions in the world where 92% of the students are performing above the benchmark regardless of socio-economic background or first language.

That certainly speaks very well of everyone in our school system. PISA recognizes this achievement as part of our commitment to both excellence and equity, a distinction that few other countries in the world have achieved.

So the honourable member and all members in the Legislature can go to their constituents and tell them we have one of the best school systems anywhere in the world.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Residents of Russell township have collected about 1,375 signatures opposed to a new dump in their community—and that’s about 10% of their population—in less than a month, yet their own MPP has yet to introduce these petitions into the Legislature. I’m just wondering if the minister will do the right thing, stand up for Russell residents and stop this dump from moving forward?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I find that an interesting proposition. What I can assure you is that at the Ministry of the Environment, we ensure that we protect human health and the natural environment. We do that because we look at things when it comes to approvals. There is no request from any proponent in Russell before my ministry.

But I understand that there is a proponent, and I’ve heard this from our excellent member who represents Russell; that a proponent is meeting with the community and sharing with the community what their thoughts are. My understanding, of course, is that this is a municipal issue, because there would be issues of zoning etc., so there is absolutely nothing in front of our ministry.

Our job at the ministry is to protect human health. We do that by looking at the merits, or lack thereof, of an application or a request. I can’t prejudge that if there’s no application in front of my ministry, and I would hope that you would share, as I know the member from Russell has been doing, that there is absolutely nothing before our ministry in regard to a proposed dump other than what we—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The residents don’t want the dump, plain and simple, and they’ve outreached to my office. Perhaps the real reason the Liberal government won’t table these petitions and won’t answer the question is because of yesterday’s damning report by the auditor, proving this government’s total failure in waste diversion.

Now, Ontario PC candidate Marilissa Gosselin has been a very big supporter of the organization. She’s been a leading advocate to stop this dump because she knows, like Russell families, that the McGuinty Liberals can’t meet their waste diversion commitments, and that’s the reason that they’re expanding dumps in Carp and building dumps in Russell. Yesterday’s auditor’s report confirmed that, despite their promise to divert 60% of waste, they’re doing less than 12% in the IC&I.

Given the McGuinty Liberals’ abject failure to divert waste from dumps, why should residents of Russell and Carp have to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I find that interesting. When we took government, people used to take used tires and just dump them in a ditch. That’s illegal in the province of Ontario. We have a program to make sure that every tire is disposed of.

There used to be hazardous waste that used to go into our landfills. That was the legacy of the other government. We put in programs to make sure that waste electronics and hazardous materials are staying out of it.

There was a time when people would take organics and they would actually put them in the garbage. Now some 850,000 tonnes, last year alone, were diverted so they could be composted. That’s the right thing for the environment.

When it comes to the blue box, a million tonnes of materials, just last year alone, were diverted from our landfills.

People in Ontario are doing the right thing. Where we need work is when it comes to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

We want to thank the auditor for his recommendations. We think that they’re very thoughtful. We look forward to making sure that we protect the environment.

FOREST INDUSTRY

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier. Today, Fryer Forest Products Ltd. in Monetville is celebrating its 50th anniversary by laying off each and every one of their 70 workers. Seventy people are going without a job, today; sitting at home. This is a major blow to the French River area.

They’re not asking for a single penny from the treasury, like other companies; they just want access to the forest to provide jobs to 70 families who need them. Instead, Fryer’s equipment sat idle in the bush while it took two weeks for the ministry to fax them an already approved approval to commence harvesting. The ministry signs agreements with Fryer to operate two shifts a day and then they don’t give them access to the forest; they don’t give them access to any logs.

My question is simple: Why is the McGuinty government so bound and determined to throw 70 families out in the cold just before Christmas?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I very much appreciate the question from the member for Nickel Belt. Indeed, as the member knows, we have been working very, very closely with Fryer Forest Products, as it has been an extraordinarily challenging time for them, and we will continue to do our best to work with them.

There are certainly some great challenges but some great opportunities in the forestry sector, as the member knows well. We are very excited about the wood supply competition that’s in place, where we have freed up about 10 million cubic metres of wood and have had 115 proposals brought forward to us that we know will be creating thousands of jobs in the forestry sector. In fact, we have made some conditional offers already, and we will continue to move forward.

The member and I have spoken about this issue on more than one occasion. Certainly I will do whatever I can to continue to work with her and with the company, to see how we can help the community and the company.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: The minister talks about helping the forestry industry, but I have 70 people right now sitting in Monetville and in French River who are waiting for an approval, an approval that is not coming. So they cannot go into the bush, they cannot get any logs, they cannot bring wood to the mill, and they cannot be paid.

The critical issue for Fryer Forest Products is access to wood in a timely manner so they can bring wood to the mill, so they can pay their employees. The government can go on and on, but the reality on the ground in Nickel Belt is that those people are sitting at home because of a bureaucracy, because of a ministry’s delay and because of inefficiencies.

Let me put that into perspective for you: 70 jobs in French River would be 70,000 jobs in the GTA. If 70,000 people were sitting at home waiting for government approval, the government would get on with it; they would help them out.

My question is simple: What am I going to tell those 70 people, those 70 families—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I understand, as does everyone in the Legislature, but particularly our northern caucus members, about the impact of a job loss in any one of our communities and how extraordinarily significant it is and how difficult it is.

Again, as the member knows, we’ve been working closely with her and with the community and with Fryer Forest Products to try to find a resolution to this challenge.

Certainly the access-to-wood issue is one that’s very important to us. That’s also why we’re in the process of moving forward on modernizing our forest tenure system. We want to be able to allow access to many other companies that are having difficulty getting access to wood supply.

To the member, again, I appreciate the question. We will continue to work with her and certainly work with the company to find a positive resolution, understanding full well the huge impact of such a decision.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. There have been some concerns expressed lately on the topic of crown land access restrictions in the north. Yesterday, an example was brought up in the Legislature where northerners are now being subject to access restrictions when attempting to enter certain provincial parks using roads that they traditionally travelled upon.

I know that many people in the riding and across the north would be grateful for an answer regarding this situation. Would the minister please tell the House what the government’s reason is for restricting local access points to specific Ontario parks?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for the question.

I have to say that it was with good reason that the specific access point to Fushimi Lake Provincial Park was subject to an unauthorized motorized vehicle restriction. Had the member from Timmins–James Bay brought this particular case to my attention two weeks ago when I had originally asked, instead of waiting for question period, I would have been able to tell him that the restriction was a matter of public safety. There were concerns regarding snowmobilers entering the park through unauthorized access points, particularly over frozen creeks. I’m certain that people in the House would agree that public safety and liability should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

That said, snowmobile access is allowed to continue through the authorized access point at the main gate to the park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I appreciate the minister providing some clarity on the issue.

Northerners, particularly people in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, take the right to access to traditional lands very seriously. Living in northern Ontario, we grow up enjoying a wide variety of outdoor recreational activities and become accustomed to a certain way of life. While northerners realize the remote tourism industry brings jobs to northern Ontario and contributes to the area’s overall economy, there is a fear that we are moving too far in favour of one side.

Furthermore, northerners heard the allegations recently made by a member of the Legislature against MNR employees who were said to be in conflicts of interest with their roles and planning authorities.

Would the Minister tell the House about what you have to say to individuals concerned about what they have heard lately regarding access to crown land?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Thanks again to the honourable member. Northern residents continue to enjoy unrestricted access to a vast majority of Ontario’s crown land.

We always work to balance the public’s access to recreational opportunities with the need to protect and preserve our wilderness and enhance remote area experiences.

To the allegations about MNR officials benefiting from planning decisions: I’ve had staff look into the matter and we have yet to confirm a specific case of any conflict-of-interest violation. However, if anyone in this House knows of a specific case, I would encourage them to bring it to my attention.

MNR staff do an outstanding job protecting Ontario’s natural resources. They’re often active members of the communities in which they live and work.

It’s important to note that access decisions are made through forest management and land use planning, both of which require public consultation.

I encourage anyone interested in resource management to be involved in our public consultation process.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. Peter Tabuns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, in my statement about climate change, I referred to the UNDP. It was recorded as NDP in Hansard, and I’d ask that that be corrected so it shows United Nations Development Program.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. That is a point of order. The honourable member can correct his record.

M me France Gélinas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, when my leader asked a question about the Bonin family, the Premier said he would like to see the actual hydro bill from the Bonin family. I have the bill here with me—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. I appreciate the honourable member—and we’ll see that that’s forwarded to the Premier’s office.

DEFERRED VOTES

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 120.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members please take their seats.

Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 120. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Bailey, Robert

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Carroll, Aileen

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Fonseca, Peter

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hillier, Randy

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Savoline, Joyce

Sergio, Mario

Shurman, Peter

Smith, Monique

Sterling, Norman W.

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 90; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): 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.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on government order number 21, a motion by Mr. Hoskins respecting immigration.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 90; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL REPORT, OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that I’ve laid upon the table a report of the Ombudsman on his investigation into the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ conduct in relation to Ontario regulation 233/10 under the Public Works Protection Act.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On December 2, 2010, the member for Simcoe–Grey, Mr. Wilson, rose on a question of privilege concerning the distribution of what he argued were election-style pamphlets on the morning of Tuesday, November 30, 2010.

The member purports that the distribution of such documents amounts to a matter of contempt because the material promotes a proposed government program as if it already has the approval of the assembly.

I’ve had the opportunity to review the written material supplied by the member for Simcoe–Grey, the comments made by the government House leader, Ms. Smith, and precedents on similar matters.

Let me begin by correcting the assertion made by the member for Simcoe–Grey in his letter where he states that Speaker Curling “found a contempt of the assembly” on February 22, 2005. The following more complete text of Speaker Curling’s ruling reveals in fact that it was the opposite:

“The wording and the tone of the documents are not dismissive of the legislative role of the House. On the contrary, they indicate that the government had plans and proposals that require not only negotiation, but also the introduction and passage of legislation. In particular, the board letter and press release contain conditional phrases such as ‘intends to introduce legislation,’ ‘we are proposing,’ and ‘legislation that, if passed.’

“With respect to the word ‘guaranteed’ in the documents, I note that it is not used in the sense that passage of enabling legislation was a foregone conclusion, but rather in reference to proposed payments to transfer partners and a proposed provision in future collective bargaining agreements.

“For these reasons, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been established.”

Notwithstanding that the member for Simcoe–Grey erred in his assessment of the conclusion of that ruling, the ruling is apt since its subject was quite similar to the one that we are dealing with today. A review of the pamphlet in question confirms the use of phrases such as “The McGuinty government wants to” and “We’re proposing,” wording that is almost identical to the conditional phrases used in the letter and press release that Speaker Curling ruled on.

The member for Simcoe–Grey also referred to a ruling by Speaker Stockwell on this same subject. In that case, Speaker Stockwell found a prima facie case of privilege did in fact exist. However, a review of the pamphlet that he had before him reveals quite different wording. It contained phrases such as “new city wards will be created,” among others, that Speaker Stockwell found to be dismissive of the House and which could reasonably have left one with the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was a foregone conclusion.

In my opinion, the pamphlet that the member for Simcoe–Grey has brought to my attention is more characteristic of the documentation that Speaker Curling dealt with. I cannot find that the language used is dismissive of the legislative role of the House. On the contrary, the use of qualifying language such as “we are proposing” can only leave the impression that further steps are required before implementation is possible. I cannot find, therefore, that a prima facie case of contempt has been established.

I want to thank the member for Simcoe–Grey and the government House leader for their submissions on this matter.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1149 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome to the House today two visitors and friends of mine, Les Armstrong and George Fortin from the great riding of Sarnia–Lambton, here for the festivities today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from York West, to welcome a group of grade 10 students who have been visiting Queen’s Park today. These are students from James Cardinal McGuigan secondary school and their teacher Mr. Joseph Pulcini. I hope they’ve enjoyed their visit to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. David Zimmer: I’d like to introduce Sandy Liguori, who’s the incoming president of the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association. He’s here along with his director of government relations, Frank Notte.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to introduce a resident of York South–Weston: Rick Ciccarelli, who is here in the gallery.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FOOD AND CONSUMER

PRODUCTS OF CANADA

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize Food and Consumer Products of Canada. Representatives from their organization are here with us today at Queen’s Park, and I want to thank them for taking the time to visit us to share their concerns and updates on their industry.

Food and Consumer Products of Canada is a national association that represents member companies, both small and large. The association works to ensure that companies can innovate and grow while also promoting responsible and ethical practices.

Ontario has a very productive agriculture industry, but it is not enough to simply grow food. We need people who can process the food we grow and get it to markets and consumers. Food and Consumer Products of Canada meets this need and contributes greatly to our economy.

The manufacturing sector of the food, beverage and consumer products industry employs 300,000 Canadians, generates almost $22 billion annually in GDP and contributes more than $100 million to charitable causes.

The industry embraces world-class regulatory standards while also advocating for smarter regulations. These smarter regulations would continue to ensure safety and quality while at the same time increasing efficiency.

I want to once again thank the representatives from Food and Consumer Products of Canada for being here today, and I want to express the support of the PC caucus for this valuable association.

Thank you very much for allowing me the time.

RICHARD ALLAIRE

Mr. Jim Brownell: My riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry is very fortunate to have many individuals who demonstrate a strong passion and commitment to volunteer work. Recently, one of the hard-working volunteers in my riding was recognized with the 2010 Community Action Network Against Abuse Award of Excellence. I would like to congratulate and thank Richard Allaire for his tireless work on behalf of his community. This award of excellence was created to honour an individual who has made a significant contribution in the struggle against abuse.

Richard started volunteering with the Red Cross in 2002 as a volunteer member of the branch council. He then proceeded to become chair of the branch council, and Richard currently serves as past chair.

Richard has a particular interest and desire to address and prevent the issue of child sexual abuse in the community. Richard was a founding member of PrevAction in 2007. This group worked to address the impact of child sexual abuse and acted as a catalyst to assist other organizations in their work to end abuse. I surely hope their work continues.

Richard remains the chair of PrevAction and chair of the education subcommittee. He has also been a member of the board of directors of the Children’s Treatment Centre for the past nine years, has been involved with the Celebrity Walk and Breakfast charity, the Bike-A-Thon Plus, and the dinner and roast.

I would like to thank Richard Allaire for his tireless work on behalf of the community and congratulate him on an award very well deserved.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Robert Bailey: In a little over two weeks, millions of Canadians will be celebrating the holiday and Christmas season. Family and friends will be coming together to spread cheer and goodwill at parties and dinners across the country.

Unfortunately, for many this season brings with it added pressure and costs that simply stretch the budget too thin. There are many Ontario families that cannot afford to put food on the table. They rely on food banks to help them. In 2009, over 375,000 Ontarians used food banks, an all-time high for this province.

In April, I introduced a private member’s bill that provides a simple solution to help families and Ontario farmers. Bill 78, a bill to fight hunger with local food, provides a tax credit for farmers who donate food to the food bank. This will help farmers pay for the harvesting and transportation of the food they are donating.

In September, this bill received unanimous and enthusiastic support on second reading. On October 7, my colleague Ernie Hardeman called on the McGuinty government