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

March 25, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-25 (PDF)

L060 - Wed 25 Mar 2015 / Mer 25 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 March 2015 Mercredi 25 mars 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les régimes de pension agréés collectifs

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Housing Services Corp.

Privatization of public assets

Government’s agenda

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

By-election in Sudbury

International trade

Public sector compensation

Privatization of public assets

Tobacco control

Horse racing industry

Pan Am Games

Farm safety

Hospice care

Hospital funding

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Ken Ross

Youth services

Austin Riley

Wind turbines

Grain Farmers of Ontario

FoodShare

Almonte General Hospital

Sanctuary Refugee Health Centre

Franklin Horner Community Centre

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Bills

Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Amendment Act (Anti-Fracking), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en pétrole, en gaz et en sel (anti-fracturation)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Health promotion

Petitions

Energy policies

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Hydro rates

Hospital services

Student assistance

Credit unions

Winter road maintenance

Lyme disease

Taxation

Dental care

Water fluoridation

Orders of the Day

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Adjournment Debate

Housing Services Corp.

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les régimes de pension agréés collectifs

Mr. Sousa moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to create a framework for pooled registered pension plans and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 57, Loi créant un cadre pour les régimes de pension agréés collectifs et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Sousa.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Etobicoke Centre.

I’m pleased to stand today in the House for second reading of Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2014. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to implementing innovative retirement savings tools. We’re doing this to help ensure that Ontarians are able to enjoy their retirement years. The Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2014, would make it possible to offer individuals a new type of retirement savings vehicle. It is one that is voluntary, low-cost and tax assisted. It’s called the pooled registered pension plan or PRPP.

If passed, this bill would make possible an important new retirement savings option. It would make it easier for Ontario employees and the self-employed to save for retirement at a low cost. If passed, this would be a key step toward improving retirement income security.

Mr. Speaker, you may know that many of today’s workers are not saving enough for tomorrow, and that gap is worsening over time. Today’s younger workers are faced with an undersaving challenge: the challenge of saving enough for a secure retirement. Canada’s retirement income system worked reasonably well for existing retirees; however, Ontario’s workers today face a number of key factors that contribute to the undersaving challenge.

First, workplace pension plan coverage is low. Indeed, in 2012, only 34% of workers in Ontario had a workplace pension. In the private sector, only 28% were benefiting from membership in a pension plan. The reasons for this vary. Many employers have found that workplace pension plans are costly and difficult to administer. This is particularly so with small and medium-sized businesses. It is also particularly true with defined benefit plans.

Other employers have seen their plans hit by low long-term interest rates and poor investment returns. Some 16% of workers didn’t even participate in a workplace pension, but they did contribute—at least some—to an individual or a group Registered Retirement Savings Plan, or RRSP.

As you know, RRSPs have tax benefits as an added incentive. In 2012, however, there was approximately $730 billion in unused RRSP room in Canada, and that figure includes $280 billion in Ontario alone. All in, this means that approximately 50% of Ontario workers did not contribute to either a workplace pension plan or an RRSP. That’s not good news.

People are living longer. Average lifespans have been increasing in our province for some time, and this trend is likely to continue. Ontario men currently aged 65 can expect to live, on average, close to another 20 years.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): That’s good news.

Hon. Charles Sousa: That’s good for you, Mr. Speaker, I know.

By 2035, they will live, on average, close to 25 more years. For women aged 65, life expectancy is currently 22 more years. This will rise to 25 by 2035.

Those over age 65 are a segment of our population that is growing. Over the next 20 years, the number of seniors in our province will almost double. That means there will be more than four million seniors in Ontario.

Increasing life expectancy, frankly, is a sign of higher living standards and healthier living, which is a good thing. But it also puts pressure on personal savings. It’s putting pressure on the capacity of workplace pension plans to ensure lifelong income. That is because retirement can now potentially last for decades.

So why is this government concerned about this undersaving challenge? Not only does it compromise hard-working people being able to relax and enjoy a well-earned retirement; it has the potential, frankly, to compromise our shared values, goals and prosperity as a society as well. If a growing portion of our population face inadequate savings when they retire, they’ll spend less in the future. This will reduce future economic growth, which will, in turn, put pressure on our publicly funded services like health care and education. That’s why we need to take action now for the future.

Here’s a little background on the retirement income system in Canada. There are three key elements. The first element includes publicly funded supplements for seniors. These supplements include Old Age Security, the guaranteed income supplement and provincial top-up programs. These benefits are based on residency and income eligibility criteria. The second element is the Canada Pension Plan, the CPP. It’s a mandatory pension plan; a program for the employed and the self-employed. The CPP is funded by employer and employee contributions as well as investment earnings generated by the CPP Investment Board.

The third element is a workplace pension plan and other tax-assisted retirement savings. These include, for example, defined benefit pension plans, targeted benefit multi-employer pension plans, defined contribution pension plans, Registered Retirement Savings Plans, deferred profit-sharing plans and, once available, pooled registered pension plans as well.

Experts recommend that people aim to replace 50% to 70% of their pre-retirement earnings to maintain a similar living standard in retirement. Yet, as a society, we are confronted by this undersaving challenge. In fact, analysis by my ministry, the Ministry of Finance, has found that more than 35% of households in Ontario may well be undersaving for retirement. To help with this challenge, in addition to implementing the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan in the 2014 budget, we’ve committed to introducing this legislative framework to allow for pooled registered pension plans.

The challenge we face in Ontario is recognized as well by the federal government in Canada; certainly by the ministry of finance federally, which has recognized that we do have challenges before us. The aging demographics that we’re faced with are going to put more pressure—and if we don’t look at providing a greater infusion of funding today, there are going to be more requirements on our social assistance programs later.

We know that many who do not have workplace pensions, which includes almost half of Ontarians, cannot survive on CPP alone, which is about $10,000 on average.

So today, implementing the PRPP, moving forward on this initiative, acts as yet another supplement, another ability for us to provide greater opportunities for Ontarians and for workers to provide for their long-term security.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to share my time with my colleague the member for Etobicoke Centre, who will speak to the House further on details of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the members on the opposite side as well.

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

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s an honour to follow Minister Sousa in introducing this piece of legislation. Before I start to speak a little bit about the PRPP, I just want to share a quick story.

When I got elected this past June, I got advice from many people. One of the pieces of advice I got was from someone in my community who said, “Yvan, never forget that you’re here to represent the people of your community, the people of Etobicoke Centre. You should be working hard to improve their quality of life now but also into the future.” That, to me, is what this bill is about. It’s about securing the quality of life of Ontarians into the future. That’s why I’m pleased to stand here in the House and give further details for second reading of Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2014.

Many of the folks watching at home may be wondering, what exactly are pooled registered pension plans? As mentioned earlier, PRPPs are a new type of voluntary, tax-assisted individual retirement savings vehicles. As new, low-cost retirement savings vehicles that are professionally managed and portable from one workplace to another, they’re intended to make it easier for employees and self-employed folks to save for retirement. PRPPs are vehicles for the self-employed to be able to invest their retirement savings at low cost.

Simply put, PRPPs are savings plans designed to provide retirement income for individuals who pay into them. Individuals have their own individual accounts into which contributions are made. Contributions are locked in and benefits at retirement are based on accumulated contributions and investment returns. Similar to other tax-assisted savings vehicles such as RRSPs, which many people are familiar with, individuals would not pay income tax on their PRPP contributions and investment returns until they withdraw their funds.

The thing is that PRPPs differ slightly from RRSPs in a number of important respects, and I’d like to highlight what those are. Individuals’ accounts are, first of all, pooled for investment purposes—that is different. Contributions are locked in until an individual reaches retirement age. The third thing is, legislation requires that PRPPs be provided at low cost and administrators are held to a higher legal standard of care.

Similar to registered pension plan contributions, employer PRPP contributions are tax-deductible, which is of great benefit both to the employee and to the employer who is making those contributions. Those contributions are not subject to employer health tax, employment insurance premiums, Canada Pension Plan contributions or workers’ compensation premiums.

What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that more Ontarians who are employees or self-employed will have access to another voluntary savings vehicle.

After two years of federal-provincial-territorial collaboration in the development and design of PRPPs, the federal government implemented PRPPs for sectors under federal jurisdiction, such as employees in the banking, interprovincial transportation and communication sectors. The federal legislation also applies to people employed or self-employed in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

The federal Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, or PRPP Act, and associated regulations came into force in December 2012. The federal PRPP Act enables corporations such as banks and insurance companies to be the administrators of PRPPs, and sets out rules for establishing and administering those PRPPs.

Let me touch briefly on some of the key characteristics of the federal PRPP legislation.

First of all, licensing and registration requirements: Administrators would be required to obtain a licence and to register PRPPs before making them available to employers and individuals.

Secondly, administrator duties: Administrators would have a fiduciary duty to plan members.

Thirdly, voluntary participation by employers: Employers would choose whether to offer their employees a PRPP as a retirement savings tool. Again, this is giving options to employers to help contribute to the retirement savings of their employees.

Automatic enrolment of employees: Where an employer elects to offer a PRPP, enrolment of employees would be automatic unless an employee chooses to opt out within a 60-day period. So employees are offered the PRPP by employers who choose to do so, but again have the option of opting out if they don’t see it as being to their individual benefit. So there’s a lot of flexibility there.

Portability between workplaces: Employees would be able to transfer their PRPP assets to a new workplace PRPP, allowing them to easily consolidate their retirement savings account; again, offering employees flexibility with their retirement savings.

In terms of setting contribution rates, PRPP members’ contribution rates would be determined by the administrator.

Voluntary contributions by employers: The employer would determine whether or not to contribute to their employees’ PRPPs; again, offering the employer flexibility, just as we’re offering the employee flexibility.

Locked-in contributions: An individual would not be able to access his or her PRPP retirement savings, subject to certain prescribed exceptions, until the age of 55.

Low cost: PRPPs provide professional investment management at a low cost to plan members by pooling the funds of all individual accounts for investment purposes, as well as limiting the investment options provided to plan members. Again, this facilitates a low-cost plan and therefore greater returns for plan members.

It’s easy to offer. PRPPs involve fewer administrative responsibilities for employers than a traditional pension plan. Again, keeping administration down and keeping the cost down maximizes returns for employees, and therefore retirement savings.

Now, let me clarify, Mr. Speaker: Legislation must be passed by each province before PRPPs can be made available to individuals employed in provincially regulated sectors and self-employed individuals working in the provinces. As a result, PRPPs will not be available to the majority of Ontarians until legislation is passed by this House and proclaimed in force, and once supporting regulations have been made.

The purpose of the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2014, which we’re speaking about today, is to provide a legal framework for the establishment and administration of PRPPs in Ontario to benefit employees and self-employed folks in our province. It would apply to individuals employed in provincially regulated employment, to the self-employed in Ontario, as well as to individuals employed in federally regulated industries in Ontario whose employers do not offer PRPPs.

As someone who has been self-employed and who has run my own business, I can see this is something that would be highly beneficial to me and to many folks across Ontario who don’t have as many savings options for retirement as those who are employed and are offered plans by their employers.

Given the desire to harmonize PRPPs across the country, the proposed legislation adopts many of the key features of the federal PRPP legislative framework that I was referring to earlier. To date, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have passed legislation establishing PRPP frameworks that largely mirror the federal government’s model. Consistent with the approach taken by other provinces, Bill 57, which we’re talking about today, largely adopts the federal framework, including the key features of the federal model that I discussed earlier.

But this proposed legislation includes Ontario-specific features as well, where provincial law and/or processes are required to apply, or where additional provisions are required for added clarity or consistency with Ontario’s minimum pension standards legislation. For example, valuation and division of a member’s PRPP funds on marriage or spousal relationship breakdown would be consistent with Ontario’s Family Law Act and the Pension Benefits Act, as would the definition of “spouse.” This is an example.

In practice, we might expect PRPPs to work as follows—I want to walk through this, because I think that a lot of folks aren’t familiar with PRPPs and I’d like to talk just a little bit about how this might work in practice. Employers who choose to offer PRPPs to their employees would be responsible for selecting and entering into a contract with a third-party PRPP administrator, such as a bank or insurance company, that is qualified to provide the service. The administrator would then be responsible for managing the PRPP investments that are made by employers and employees, and for communicating with plan members on matters related to their PRPP.

If an employer chooses to offer a PRPP, an employee would be automatically enrolled in it, but the employee, as I mentioned earlier, can choose to opt out. So, again, it’s a program that is flexible to employers and flexible to employees. Those who wish to participate can do so, but those who do not wish to do so do not have to.

Employee contributions to the PRPP would be made through automatic paycheque deductions. The employer would be required to deduct and remit the employee contributions to the administrator. Again, it’s a relatively straightforward process; something that many employers are doing already and that employees are accustomed to having done. It’s seamless, and something that would be relatively easy to implement and easy for employees as well.

Individuals who do not participate in the workplace PRPP, such as self-employed individuals, for example, would be able to enrol themselves in a PRPP of their choice. In this case, an individual would contact the PRPP administrator to join a plan, and would make contributions, again, through an automatic payment plan with their financial institution, like so many of us do on a daily basis with our financial institutions, with our banks, to make payments and make savings contributions.

Again, as someone who has been self-employed and who did look at savings options, I have to say that there were a limited number of savings options here. I’m excited about this piece of legislation because I know there are a lot of folks out there in Ontario who are self-employed; in fact, that number is growing. Offering this provides them with an option that is much needed to address some of the issues that Minister Sousa talked about in terms of addressing the retirement savings gap.

Each administrator would be responsible for designing its own PRPP. A plan administrator could choose to offer one or multiple PRPPs, depending on the marketing strategy and whether it sought to tailor its PRPP for specific employers. Administrators would have the option of including different investment options to reflect the varying risk profile of the people who are contributing, of its members. A default option would be applied to members who did not make a choice or an investment option within a specific time frame. Again, this is for ease of implementation and for the convenience of contributors.

In order to administer a PRPP, a corporation would be first required to obtain a licence to operate as a PRPP administrator. To do so, the corporation would need to satisfy conditions that will be set out in regulations; again, making sure that the highest standards are met in the administration of PRPPs.

Our government recognizes that increasing retirement savings in the province is a complex challenge that requires a multi-faceted approach. Establishing pooled registered pension plans is just one step in our plan which will encourage investment in voluntary retirement savings tools.

In the last few months I’ve had many conversations with people in my community who talked about the retirement savings gap, and many people acknowledge that retirement savings gap. In fact, I have a community with one of the largest percentages of seniors in the country. I meet with many seniors who have been the beneficiaries of savings plans or have put money away, but I also have met many seniors who struggle to make ends meet. This is one tool in the tool kit that we’re introducing to make sure that the people who could be putting aside money today—people like myself—do so, so that when we are seniors we can provide for that quality of life that we enjoy today and that we deserve.

When I started speaking, I started by sharing the advice that I got from my constituent who talked about the fact that I should be here to ensure that we’re improving the quality of life of people today but also into the future. This bill, to me, is an important component of doing just that: of helping to secure the prosperity of Ontarians into the future. That’s why I ask the members of this assembly to support this Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2014.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much for the opportunity to weigh in on this, Speaker. I’m actually quite pleased to hear this discussion on a PRPP, the pooled registered pension plan, as opposed to the ORPP, the Ontario registered pension plan, that the government has been touting all along. One of these is a red herring of sorts, and I can only imagine why they’re trying to promote two conflicting pension plans at the same time.

One would lead to speculate that the ORPP is nothing more than their continued battle with the federal government and it’s some kind of a game that’s being played with the taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ emotions. Sadly, that’s all I can imagine that the whole Ontario registered pension plan program announcement is all about.

This PRPP, the pooled registered pension plan, is something that our members have been speaking about—Julia, if I knew your riding I would mention it.

Mrs. Julia Munro: York–Simcoe.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —that our member from York–Simcoe has been touting for quite some years now. I am very eager to hear the member speak very shortly for a very considerable amount of time to tell the public our party’s

interpretation of the pooled registered pension plan.

Again, I believe this conflicts quite drastically with the ORPP, the Ontario registered pension plan, and I’m looking forward to carrying on the debate.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: You know, Speaker, we tend to be confused here on this side of the House as well. You’ve got the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan that you brought forward; now you’ve got this one. There are so many options right now for pension plans. Constituents, people who invest in their retirement, need education and awareness. Throwing this into the mix is probably going to give people all kinds of choices, but the fact is, what are the benefits; what are the pros and cons to all this?

I talk to a lot of people with regard to contributions to financing for their retirement. It’s a very confusing process. Bringing this into the whole equation—I would hope that, should this carry on and pass through the House, there’s going to be some real education.

We have questions about how this arrangement is actually going to affect the banks and insurance companies, the management piece. Is that where it’s going to? Is that the direction this particular pooled registered pension plan is going, and who that benefits, giving the banks and the insurance companies authority to do that?

So there are questions about this bill. We would like to know about the effectiveness of this bill and how it’s actually going to translate into helping people with retirement pension plans.

The other thing, Speaker, is, the Minister of Finance talked about how very few people plan for their retirement, and there are many reasons for that. Some of them have precarious work; they have low-income jobs. There are also the bills of everyday life. I had a constituent, a senior, just recently contact our office. He was paying $1,800 a month for a hydro bill. It’s outrageous—and this is a senior trying to make ends meet. He planned for his retirement, but if we don’t have affordability in everyday life, it doesn’t matter how much we save; it’s going to be taxing on everyone.

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Good morning, Speaker. I’m going to take a different slant on this pension plan. I have two girls who are 46 and 42. Neither of them has a pension through their work. They will not be able to access this pension, I don’t believe—I hope that they will. I won’t be around to find out. But as I went door to door, very clearly the seniors were concerned about their children and grandchildren, hoping that they would have a better pension to live on when they become seniors.

I believe that we are doing this for the children and grandchildren of the future. It’s very important that we do this. People are living longer, and that’s a good thing. However, they need more money to live, and I believe that this is the way to go. Many people do not have registered pension plans to contribute to anymore; there are fewer and fewer companies that offer them. Because my girls are hard-working Ontario citizens, I believe that people like them deserve to have a good retirement with a high quality of life. This goes also for my grandchildren.

When I grew up, I said I was going to be a teacher in grade 9; I became a teacher. There were three choices, when I was growing up, of what you could be, as a woman. Things have changed a lot. Kids now move from job to job, from career to career. They are much better at taking risks than my generation was. So I believe that there will be very few of them who will have pension plans where they work. The great idea is that these are transferrable, and I hope that we do get more from the CPP, but I am hoping that this is an answer for our seniors.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s a pleasure to rise, and I’m glad to see this bill, which was proposed and first put on the table by our member from York–Simcoe, is being brought forward, because it is an important bill. It allows them to move ahead with the federal bill that’s there and allows them to provide something—it allows employers and employees to opt in, and it’s also portable, which is important as people move from job to job.

I hear the talk too about some of their other plans. The registered plan—I think that’s a foolhardy plan, because it’s a mandatory plan that really is on the backs of some of our small businesses that can’t afford it. This is a much more opportune way of doing things.

Some of the red herrings I’ve heard: The RRSP room—if you look at it, there are many people who are very well set up for retirement who don’t contribute fully to their RRSP because for tax implications it doesn’t make sense. So the large number that’s sitting there I think is a number that maybe misleads, really, the need for some of our pension plans, especially the registered retirement one.

Also, I too see our seniors and how they are concerned about their grandchildren and children, because they see the taxes and the payroll taxes, and the costs that have gone up under this government. What used to be a good pension just a few years ago no longer is enough to pay for your hydro bill, to pay for the increased cost of living in this province. That is the real concern. Are they going to have the money to pay off the debt of everybody who is born in this province? We’re talking over $20,000 of debt for every new child who enters the world, and under this government it will soon be $30,000.

That is something that you’re going to have to have money for in retirement, to pay back part of this debt.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Etobicoke Centre has two minutes—the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the comments made by the member from Etobicoke Centre, the member from Nipissing, the member from London–Fanshawe, the member from Barrie and the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry as well.

Let’s be clear: We are providing a supplementary plan. In the 2013 budget that was introduced, we delinked the notion of having CPP enhancement alongside PRPPs, recognizing that we want to provide greater opportunity of choice and deliverable services for those companies that want lower-cost opportunities. Certainly, the PRPP is a much lower-cost delivery system that we want people to try to take advantage of.

We’re working closely with other provinces and the federal government as well. In fact, some of the other provinces are starting to proceed further, as is Ontario, on this very issue, because it’s critical for us to have some of the portability features that come from a PRPP to be able to be utilized. As a worker would migrate to and from various provinces, they would then be able to also transfer their PRPPs alongside.

The members opposite who claim that this is somehow in conflict or is diluting the challenge before us with respect to the savings challenge and the pressure that’s going to be upon us in the years to come are putting their heads in the sand, Mr. Speaker. They’re not looking forward, they’re look behind. Because you’ve got to realize that the demographic changes that are ahead of us are going to be put under great pressures. The fact that there are unused programs right now—50% of Ontarians don’t take advantage of, or are unable to take advantage of, a workplace pension.

What we’re offering is a supplementary plan, yet another vehicle to enable them to have greater choice. That’s what we’re doing here today. I appreciate that all of us need to work together for the benefit of our young workers who are going to be most susceptible to this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to rise today and join in the debate on the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. When I learned of the government’s intention to pass this act, I had two reactions. My first reaction was that I was both surprised and pleased. I’ve been the critic for retirement security for some time, and have been advocating that Ontario allow PRPPs for some time as well. As a matter of fact, in April 2013 I introduced Bill 50, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, requiring the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill in the assembly to allow for pooled registered pension plans.

Of course, in the budget of that year, in fact, that was indicated. So two years later and I’m getting my wish. I’m delighted; I’d actually like the Liberals to grant me a few more, but I’m very pleased to have this today for us to debate.

I think PRPPs are indeed good and necessary. Obviously, the federal government realized this some time back and passed the legislation that would allow the provinces to implement PRPPs, establishing the minimum standards that all federal PRPPs would have and that PRPP administrators must meet. Each province is responsible for enacting its own PRPP enabling legislation. Quebec has already launched its version of voluntary retirement savings plans. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have also passed legislation. So we’re catching up here in doing this.

I’d like to thank the federal government for taking the lead on PRPPs and passing legislation allowing provinces to offer this new savings vehicle. If you look at the bill itself, you will see that much of it is related to hooking into the federal legislation in order to provide this new savings vehicle. I’d also like to thank our provincial government for recognizing the value in PRPPs and co-operating with the federal government on this issue. It is obviously something we all agree on how important it is that Canadians not only save for retirement, but also have a choice in how they are saving.

The federal Conservative government has been a leader when it comes to offering Canadians choice with their retirement savings. Not only have they introduced legislation for PRPPs, but also the tax-free savings accounts that have proven to be popular and useful savings vehicles. I applaud both governments on their foresight in allowing Canadians to save their money as they wish.

I think that it’s really important in the world of acronyms to take a few moments to explain what the “pooling” refers to and what the “registered” is, because obviously “pension plan” is the other part of the acronym.

The notion of pooled is one that has gained greater and greater popularity and greater understanding and acceptance as people realize the complexity of making investments, and the fact that there are many places where the pension plans are, in fact, pooled. But they are pooled for that particular group that they are talking about or that are included. The pooling, then, reduces the cost.

Obviously, if you are phoning or emailing or however you’re communicating with a financial adviser on a one-on-one basis, that’s going to be much more expensive than a company that is set up to accept the files, the accounts of hundreds of thousands of people. One press of a button has it all taken care of in a pooled setting. So the notion of pooled, I think, is something that people need to understand, and why it’s to their advantage to do that.

The second is that it’s registered. What does that mean? It means that your name is on a little pot of a growing amount of savings. While it’s part of the pooled, there’s your name on your savings, and I think that’s extremely important.

The other principle that distinguishes this from government Bill 56 is that it’s voluntary. I think it should be emphasized that this proposal is a voluntary undertaking by the employee and the employer. It’s interesting—I’m going to digress for just a moment and come back to that—in Quebec, where I mentioned this has already taken place, nearly nine small business owners out of 10 favour the government phasing in voluntary retirement savings. We see that those who have gone before us have picked up a tremendous element of support.

We regard PRPPs as an essential addition to retirement saving options. They are similar to a defined contribution plan; however, employer contributions, as was stated, are voluntary. A PRPP pools contributions together to achieve lower investment management and administration costs, and in that way you can see that the bigger the pool, the more efficient the administration can be and the lower the costs will be for that administration. It also means that as that pool is larger, it offers greater investment opportunities for the actual pooling.

That is, again, a very important concept, because the smaller the group, the harder it is, first of all, to keep those costs of administration down and efficient, and it also means there is less opportunity for them to be in the marketplace of investment.

Probably two of the most valued demonstrations of that are with CPP, out on the world stage, able to take a significant amount of money. We’re looking at—I’ve forgotten, but in the neighbourhood of $150 billion. I don’t think we’re going to have that in a pooled registered pension plan, but the greater the pool, the greater the opportunity that can be made on behalf of the registered owners of that to be in that bigger investment market.

PRPPs, as others have explained, are a vehicle for both employers and the self-employed person. Self-employed people have always had a certain difficulty in establishing something that they could afford. The PRPP supplier takes responsibility for the employee relationship, and when an employee changes jobs, he can move his PRPP to the new employer—assuming, of course, that the employer is a member of a pooled pension. But the withdrawals, then, are restricted until retirement.

A portable pension plan is a convenient pension plan. I think this is particularly important for the generations coming behind us. I remember when people looked at someone who was in the same business for his working life—and I say “his” because it likely was a him—as a feature of the dedication and the commitment and the loyalty that that person had to an employer. Today, people change jobs in two to five years; they move, on average, every five years. So we’re looking at an entirely different dynamic in terms of the users, the potential beneficiaries, of a pooled pension plan.

It’s driven by the economics, by the technology, all the things that make people look for new opportunities and new challenges in their working life.

So the notion, then, that people are only going to stay in their job for a short time is the reality. It’s important for the younger generations to have access to a portable pension plan that is their own, rather than to be tied to a company pension. If a younger person has five to 10 jobs from the ages of 25 to 50, it doesn’t make sense to have a patchwork of pensions. Rather, it makes much more sense for that person to have a consistent PRPP that they can take with them to a new job. So I think it’s important to see the PRPP system as one that is easy for employers to offer and easy for employees who want to contribute.

People might ask, “Why not just encourage more savings in RRSPs or group RRSPs?” Pooled pensions offer a strong alternative to RRSPs. Economies of scale would make PRPPs considerably less to administer than is possible through the RRSP process, so there is going to be a fee advantage to offer in the PRPP. Large-scale investment is also possible with the pooled plans because of, as I mentioned a moment ago, the large pool of contributors.

I’ve personally spoken with representatives of Ontario’s financial industries and banks. They see PRPPs as an attractive product they want to offer. They know how difficult it is for people to be able to feel comfortable about saving, to understand what the choices are and to look at some of the obstacles that they may have.

I think one of the most difficult things for people is seeking advice. Where should they go? I can imagine that the viewers who provide advice say, “It’s me. I’m here.” Thankfully, many of them are there, and many people take advantage of their expertise. But I think that there’s still an apprehension on the part of many people that, “I don’t have a lot of money. I think only rich people go there. I wouldn’t know what questions to ask.” And those are the kinds of obstacles that are practical and real, and something like a PRPP would help to allay that concern.

It comes back to the point I made at the very beginning: It’s voluntary and easily understood. Then they may embrace that and move on to a tax-free savings account or something else that they’ll find useful to them as well. PRPPs are designed to make saving easier and will certainly encourage people who aren’t doing so.

Business stakeholders have long hailed the PRPP as superior to standard pension plans because it’s voluntary for employers. If an employer should choose to contribute to an employee’s PRPP, their contributions are deducted as an expense. That means that they are not required to pay Canada Pension and other applicable payroll taxes on the contribution. So there’s a huge benefit to encourage people to provide this as a vehicle for their employees.

Unlike with a Registered Retirement Savings Plan, contributions to a PRPP also do not count as taxable income to the employee. In times of economic uncertainty, it is obvious that a PRPP can benefit both employees and business owners. It’s definitely a win-win situation. I know that many employers are looking forward to the opportunity to offer PRPPs to their employees.

Back in 2012, when this was first being generated by the federal government, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business surveyed their members. The survey found that 80% of small business owners do not have a retirement plan in place for themselves or their employees, but 34% would consider participating in a PRPP if it was available, and 30% were open to it as an option.

Clearly, with PRPP legislation actually in place, more people would have the opportunity to save for retirement. I think that my little digression into the nine out of 10 Quebec businesses who now see the benefits is a demonstration of how quickly it can be assumed there would be take-up on this.

As I mentioned at the beginning, Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, is mandatory. This is voluntary, and I think it’s important to understand the difference. Many people, because of the public hearings going on on Bill 56, have introduced some concerns—many concerns, actually—on the Ontario pension. What they point out is that, frankly, Ontario families are struggling; so are Ontario businesses. They look at the kind of deficit that the government is carrying, they look at the cost of servicing the debt, which is almost as great as—I think the cost is the third most expensive item after health and education.

The businesses and associations that I’ve spoken to have certainly expressed a great deal of concern over the details of the ORPP, and so I think we need to look at what some of those concerns are. It’s certainly not just my opinion, but the sentiments of Ontario’s small businesses and associations, including hundreds of local chambers of commerce across the province that have created a coalition to deal with this new proposed pension plan. Between red tape regulations and payroll taxes, the government seems to be on the lookout for ways to make running a business difficult in this province.

They are looking at energy costs and other initiatives that have deeply affected the way in which businesses are able to operate, if at all. The manufacturing sector is a perfect example of this, as many businesses are packing up and finding more affordable places to do business or introducing layoffs, including Caterpillar, Heinz, Stelco, Kellogg’s, Kraft, John Deere, GM, Hershey’s, Siemens, Campbell’s Soup, Sears, BlackBerry, Ford, General Mills and Unilever, just to name a few. When businesses are struggling, the government should be trying to create incentives for businesses to stay in Ontario and thrive. Instead, the Liberals continue to make it difficult to do business in Ontario.

In a statement from this past summer, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said, “Manufacturers are facing tough economic times and rising energy costs which are hurting their ability to compete globally.” Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals wanted to help our economy, they would make Ontario a more friendly place to do business. Instead, years of waste and mismanagement have forced upon both Ontario residents and their businesses increased costs, such as the global adjustment cost on energy bills. This surcharge is a result of over a decade of Liberal failures in our energy sector, including the microFIT program.

Such projects have only increased costs for families and businesses and have done nothing to help Ontario’s economy.

Charging more for energy when all our neighbours are becoming more competitive is the wrong direction and forces business to move outside Ontario. Soon we will be seeing a carbon tax, putting even more pressure on business. The ORPP will surely be yet another challenge for businesses by increasing costs, and businesses have been vocal about the danger of increasing costs eventually leading to decreasing the number of jobs. This is a danger Ontario can’t afford.

Our province already has half a million people out of work, and we risk seeing even more people on the sidelines not working and therefore not paying into a pension plan. The ORPP will be doing more harm than good. I want to emphasize this because of the fact that this is in contrast to the voluntary nature of Bill 57, the registered pooled pension.

The response to the ORPP from the CFIB includes the following:

The ORPP unfairly targets small business owners and their employees.

The 1.9% contribution rate for the employer and employee is far from modest and is actually a massive 40% increase to the current pension CPP payroll premiums that businesses pay.

As the ORPP premiums will be charged on income up to $90,000, those earning between the current CPP limit of $52,000 and $90,000 will have a brand new tax that did not exist on that income before.

The ORPP will be administered by a new arm’s-length agency. We’ve seen other agencies of this government, and they have severely eroded the trust of the general public and small business due to their lack of transparency and accountability.

The ORPP is expected to collect $3.5 billion annually in contributions. The fact that many public sector pensions currently have billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities does not instill confidence in those who would be paying into the fund.

Employers will have to remit to the ORPP separately from CPP, and obviously this will create an enormous increase in red tape. It severely undermines the government’s ongoing efforts to be a leader in cutting red tape.

As the ORPP is a provincial plan, it will significantly undermine the competitiveness of Ontario’s businesses.

In a 2014 policy submission, the CFIB explicitly supported PRPPs over the proposed Ontario pension: “CFIB is pleased that the province of Ontario is holding consultations on implementing a pooled registered pension plan since, from a small business perspective, a PRPP is a much more favourable option than mandatory increases in CPP premiums or mandatory contributions to a new Ontario pension plan. CFIB has publicly supported the ... PRPP as a voluntary, low-cost and administratively simple retirement mechanism.

If properly designed, the PRPP has the potential of expanding pension coverage by attracting employers, employees and the self-employed, who currently do not offer or contribute to a pension plan.”

Because the ORPP is being introduced at this time and employees will be forced to pay into this new mandatory pension plan, those who would like to contribute to PRPPs might not have the ability to do so. There’s a certain amount of questions about the way in which one appears to be in competition with, as opposed to complementary to, the other. This creates a certain problem in terms of, as others have mentioned, the logic of offering two at the same time—one that is built on a voluntary principle and the other one built on a mandatory principle.

The question remains in terms of how one will impact on the other, but certainly the question of providing people with a voluntary system, an opportunity to make choices, is something that people value. Even when we look at the issues around what constitutes a complementary or a comparable plan to the Ontario registered plan, it demonstrates again that people want choice.

I think that the PRPP speaks to that motive of choice, of making responsible decisions and having the government provide the opportunity for people to extend their retirement savings in this regard.

According to my understanding, Bill 57 would be under the regulatory authority of FSCO. This is the provincial body that regulates the insurance sector, pension plans, loans and trust companies, credit unions, the mortgage brokering sector, co-operative corporations in Ontario, and service providers. That is the regulation or the government role with regard to PRPPs.

With regard to the Ontario registered plan, they are talking about an arm’s-length organization with no political interference, but I think that people have some skepticism about arm’s-length experiences with this government.

Certainly, when you think about eHealth and Ornge and the various other scandals and police investigations that are taking place, it’s questionable in many minds about the value of these arm’s-length organizations, particularly when they look back at the Ontario budget: “By ... encouraging more Ontarians to save through a proposed new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, new pools of capital would be available for Ontario-based projects such as building roads, bridges and new transit.” I think that is a clue as to what the government plans to do with your money.

I think it might be appropriate, then, at this point, to have a look at what happened in Quebec when it set about to do the same thing. It has shown that the result for the Quebec Pension Plan has been lower returns on investment, which, again, presents a potential problem here in Ontario. The result of lower returns on investment is an inevitable contribution rate hike. Currently, the Quebec Pension Plan requires a contribution rate higher than that of the CPP.

More hikes will likely be coming as well due to funding shortfalls because of low returns on investment, again, because investments are benefiting the province rather than the retirees. If you look at the quote I gave from the budget, the Ontario pension plan is unabashedly being organized to provide new pools of capital, and this is what happened in Quebec. The raison d’être for Quebec’s pension is to make investments that satisfy the government’s priorities rather than maximize the rate of return for retirees.

If you look at the Canada pension, which the government is fond of comparing itself to, it exists for no other reason than the pensioners, and that is what pensions are for—they’re not for a tax-free opportunity to collect money from the pockets of the people of this province.

The raison d’être for Quebec’s pension is to make investments that satisfy the government’s priorities. The Caisse, Quebec’s pension fund manager, routinely partners with Quebec companies to take over foreign companies. In 2012, the Caisse invested $1 billion in CGI, the world’s fifth-largest independent provider of computer, communications and information technology services to facilitate its purchase of UK-based tech provider Logica for $2.8 billion. The Caisse also increased its stake in the Quebec engineering firm Genivar to help the company buy British-based WSP. Back in 2000, the QPP partnered with Quebecor and contributed over $1 billion to take over Vidéotron.

It’s no coincidence that the Caisse invests heavily in Quebec companies yet has had to increase contribution rates to make up for low returns on investment. In 2008, it faced a shortfall of $40 billion. In the 2011 Quebec budget, increased contribution rates were promised as a way to make up for this shortfall. According to the budget, the steady-state contribution rate—i.e., the rate needed to secure long-term financial stability—is currently at 11%. With the current contribution rate of 9.9%, the benefits paid by the plan will exceed contributions as of 2013.

In the short term, the plan will then have to draw on investment income and, as of 2023, tap its reserve to fund benefits for retirees. If there is no adjustment to the plan, the reserve will be depleted by 2039. It gives you a sense of the fact that when they go from their real job, a pension plan is for pensioners; it is not for make-work projects, infrastructure projects.

I would hope that this government would learn from that political experience in Quebec and recognize the dangers of making it for political means rather than positive returns for retirees. However, it’s kind of questionable when you look at that quote I gave you from last year’s budget. So how can anyone say there is no link with an Ontario pension and transit infrastructure? The budget makes it quite clear that there is, in fact, a connection—a close one. Clearly, no lessons are being learned from Quebec’s past mistakes, and I think it’s really important to look at that instead of encouraging investment through vehicles such as the PRPP.

In the few minutes that I have left at this time, I want to draw your attention to the comparable, in a different jurisdiction, and this would be in the United Kingdom’s NEST. UK pension reforms were introduced in 2008 by the former Labour government which made it mandatory for employers to offer a workplace pension that both employers and employees contribute to. The National Employment Savings Trust, NEST, was established in 2010 as a national pension scheme open to any employer who wanted to use it to satisfy his workplace pension duty.

Employers already using a qualifying pension scheme are not obligated to use NEST, but they are able to offer it to their employees alongside the existing scheme.

Since its inception in 2012, NEST has been growing. From 2013 to 2014, the number of employers offering NEST increased from 347 to 4,692. Membership increased from 80,000 individuals to over a million members, and assets under management increased from £3.8 million to £104 million. The opt-out rate stands at 9%. Those are the figures that this program offers in the UK.

NEST offers their members a variety of funds to suit investment and retirement needs. These funds include standard retirement date funds—which means if you look at where you are, your age, your decade, you have common goals with other people, generally, at that age, and that would be the kind of retirement option, then, that you would seek in looking at the range of investment needs—and other funds for people with personal beliefs or preferences about how their money should be managed. It once again goes back to the theme of “voluntary.” What would suit your particular pension needs?

The NEST pension scheme is run by NEST Corp. NEST Corp. decides how the scheme is run and how they invest contributions. NEST Corp. is accountable to Parliament through the Department for Work and Pensions, but it is not part of the government; they are run independently and work for pensioners. As they say, “We’re here to make money for you, not us.” What a great idea.

NEST invests in a variety of companies to get the best returns, many of which are located outside the United Kingdom. Some of the top 10 companies include Apple, ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft, Royal Dutch Shell and Nestlé. Some 8.5% of the shares in NEST are UK companies, 17% are European, and nearly 55% are North American. NEST invests in the best interests of its pensioners. Sometimes, the best investments for a particular fund are found outside the province or country.

Similarly, our own Canada Pension Plan invests heavily in foreign assets. According to a 2013 CBC report, “The fund behind Canada’s largest single-purpose pension was worth just over $170 billion by the end of September 2012, up from some $152 billion in 2011, partly on the strength of investments that include overseas real estate and infrastructure, according to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.”

NEST is not a perfect comparison to our made-in-Canada PRPP scheme, but there are many elements of NEST that I think we can look at and see that it provides a pretty solid comparison.

I think it’s important that NEST is portable. Employees can bring it from one workplace to another, and move within the UK, and still have access to their pension plan. Much in the way that this one is modelled, it would allow for people right across the country—so they can move and still have access to their pension plan.

Furthermore, NEST offers a diverse array of funds to suit the investor—again, I think this is contemplated with the PRPP model as well—so that investors have a choice in the type of funds they wish to invest in, which would make NEST an attractive savings tool for some people who might not already be saving.

Lastly, NEST invests in funds that best serve its pensioners, unlike the ORPP, which will be investing solely in our province and not diversifying investments. The first rule of thumb on saving is not to put all your eggs in one basket.

Portability and choice of investment would create an ideal scenario for Ontarians who wish to invest, who might not already be doing so. I believe that by making investing easy and portable, and by offering choice, NEST provides a good example of what Ontario’s PRPPs can do to encourage people to save for retirement.

Mr. Speaker, are we close?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You’re getting close.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Are we there?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): No, you’ve got three minutes.

Mrs. Julia Munro: As I mentioned earlier, businesses are very keen on offering PRPPs. I hope the government has noted, from the stakeholder consultations, some of the reservations and concerns that have been raised by business about the Ontario plan.

Going back to the original conversations with regard to the need for a pooled registered plan: In 2012, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce submitted a letter to then-Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, calling on the government to introduce legislation to implement PRPPs: “We hope you believe, as we do, that PRPPs will help strengthen the retirement income system in Ontario.”

Again in 2012, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business submitted a letter to Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, urging him “to move quickly to implement pooled registered pension plans in your province. We further ask you to avoid increasing Canada Pension Plan premiums at this time....”

PRPPs “address some of the problems with current pension tools by promoting lower fees and by shifting the administrative burden from employers to financial institutions. In addition to lower fees, employee plans will also benefit from the fact that, unlike contributions to employee RRSP plans, employer contributions” to pooled registered plans “will not attract additional payroll taxes like EI, CPP and WSIB premiums.”

A little more recently, this year the Ontario chamber and the Certified General Accountants of Ontario partnered to consult employers on pension reform. They found that employers are firmly in favour of PRPPs and are much less supportive of enhancing government-managed programs.

“I don’t think we need to, or should, mandate additional retirement saving, but I am in favour of the kind of universal coverage with opt-out choice that the Quebec version of PRPP provides.” That is a quote from Dean Connor, president and CEO of Sun Life.

Before I move on—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to thank the member from York–Simcoe. We will continue debate when this issue is brought back to the floor.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s now 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure, on behalf of Michael Coteau, MPP for Don Valley East, to welcome the family of Danielle Peters. Danielle is a student in Don Valley East and is the page captain today. She’s joined by her mother, Joy; her father, Derek; and her sister, Emily. Please join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a number of guests to introduce this morning. First, on behalf of the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, our page captain today is Kari Peltonen. Accompanying us today is Kari’s mother, Marie. She will be in the members’ gallery this morning.

As well, a guest of my own: I would like the House to join me in welcoming Robert Gutwein, president of Hansa Haus German Canadian cultural club, making his visit in the east members’ gallery. Willkommen.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome Anne Boucher, who is in the west members’ gallery. She’s here shadowing me, believe it or not, from the University of Toronto, but she’s also a resident of the city of Timmins. Welcome to Anne.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Ian MacMillan and Madiha Ahmad from my constituency office. Welcome.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m absolutely delighted to welcome a dear friend today, Mr. Bill McBain, who’s here with the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Our page from Thunder Bay–Superior North, Kari Peltonen, is one of the captains here today, so that’s great. Joining Kari is her mother, Marie Peltonen. Marie, welcome. It’s great to have you here. Let’s welcome her.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s not an introduction, but today is Agnes Macphail’s 125th birthday—the very first woman MP and one of the first woman MPPs. I just want to say: Happy birthday, Agnes Macphail.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: It’s my privilege today to welcome the mother of our page Alycia Berg from Cambridge. Her mother is in the members’ gallery: Bonnie Berg. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I would like to introduce Mr. Derek Burchell-Burger, who will be expanding his culture here in Ontario. He joins us from South Africa.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce Natasha Pelletier, who is our page captain today—a page from my riding of St. Paul’s. Her parents are here today watching question period: her mother, Luba Katic, and her father, Eric Pelletier.

Mr. Tim Hudak: None of us would be here without the hard work and the extraordinary dedication and leadership of our local riding association executives, so I’m proud to introduce six members of my team that are doing a Join Tim Hudak at Work Day today, suffering through that: Justin O’Donnell, Colin DeVries, Geri and Evert Ras, Wilma McNall and Boyd Haan. Folks, welcome to Queen’s Park. Thanks for joining us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to welcome the Heart and Stroke Foundation board members, volunteers and senior leadership who are here with us today at Queen’s Park, including Michael Barrack, Ontario board chair; Navdeep Bains; Tom McAllister; and Mark Holland. They’re with us today for Heart at the Park. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I didn’t bring my entire association to work today, but I do have a good friend and supporter, Stefan Wiesen, who has joined me at Queen’s Park today. I’d like everyone to welcome him.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I would be remiss in not introducing her: She often hides herself in the office downstairs, and she has finally made it up here to the Legislature. I want to introduce my executive assistant, Claire Prashaw.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park today members of the Heart and Stroke Foundation staff: Colleen Hill, who is the manager of Heart Healthy Children and Youth in Ontario, and her colleague from Windsor Denise Smith, the health promotion specialist for southwestern Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the east members’ gallery today are members of the Ontario Waterpower Association, which is headquartered in the riding of Peterborough. President Paul Norris and colleagues are there. I would recommend that everybody take the opportunity to visit the reception from 5:30 to 7:30 in the legislative dining room

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on a point of order.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear pins in recognition of Heart and Stroke Foundation Day at Queen’s Park, known as Heart at the Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is requesting unanimous consent to wear the ribbon for the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Do we agree? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, there has been much speculation, but few hard facts, about your selling off of Hydro One. It’s very worrisome how secretive you have been throughout this process.

Hydro One is the property of the people of Ontario, and they have every right to know your party’s schemes to sell their assets to dig you out of the fiscal mess that you and your Premier have created.

Your leader constantly talks about running an open and transparent government. Now is your chance to live up to her words. Minister, when do you intend to reveal to the people exactly what you plan to do with Hydro One?

I think the question implies something terrible about the timing. The reality is, Mr. Clark has been working on this now for 10 months. He has a team of very experienced, sensitive, responsible people who are looking at all of our assets to see how they can be repurposed so that we can fund the infrastructure and fund the projects that the members on the other side continually ask for.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier and other members of cabinet have made it very, very clear that decisions with respect to our assets and our repurposing of assets will likely be included in the next budget.

They stand up and ask for transit. They are asking for transit in all parts of the province, and now we’re going to—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, Hydro One is paid for by the electricity consumers of this province. They are the ones who have built the asset. They are the ones who own it. The company’s operations, employees and pensions have been paid for by the electricity ratepayers.

Minister, you have already socked it to the energy consumers, with them paying among the highest energy prices in North America. You have suggested that you plan to take any proceeds from the potential sale and invest it in infrastructure. How can you justify putting the cost of infrastructure onto the hydro bills of the people of this province?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that the directions and instructions that we have provided to those experts who are advising us is that the interests of the ratepayer shall be paramount. We believe there will be opportunities for significant mitigation of rates under a new structure that we would set up.

In addition to that, the members know that this is a regulated industry, that the Ontario Energy Board manages the rates in this province for gas and for electricity and that frequently requests for increased rates are rejected or they’re lowered by the Ontario Energy Board.

We have a strong advocate for the consumer in the Ontario Energy Board. Regardless of what happens, the Ontario Energy Board will continue to strongly represent the interests of the consumer.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, in 12 years you have never put the interests of the energy consumer first, not once. They don’t trust your government on the energy file. They’ve seen their hydro bills more than triple since 2003. Disasters, scandals and fiascos are the legacy of your energy policy. The people are worried that because of your desperate need for cash, you will sell off Hydro One at far below market value.

Minister, will you commit to the people of Ontario today that before any deal is signed, you will put it in front of the Financial Accountability Officer and the Auditor General so that they can vet it to ensure that Ontarians are getting fair market value for the asset that they own?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Wow, this is really rich, coming from that side of the House. I tell you, that’s the party that messed up in the first place and left us with a legacy of stranded debt that is costing ratepayers to this day, Mr. Speaker.

What we’re going to do, and what we’ve made very clear in the budget in 2014, is to do a full review of these assets, which are rightly owned by the people of Ontario. That is exactly who we’re fighting for. That’s why we’re going to do everything we can.

I may also say that it’s premature to make any responses, because decisions haven’t been made specifically on the report that’s being done right now, but the principles are guided by the fact that public interest must remain paramount and is protected; that decisions are in line with maximizing value for Ontarians; and that the decision process will remain transparent, professional and independently validated.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister there’s a problem at the Housing Services Corp. that can’t wait for your review or the passing of my private member’s bill. The Housing Services Corp. is pushing housing providers to make tenant insurance mandatory and tenants are only being told about the HSC’s tenant insurance. The insurance company, the broker and the general managing agency who are doing the work are getting paid, but tenants are also paying 5% to go back to HSC’s pockets.

Do you approve of HSC getting a 5% kickback on insurance premiums paid by the people who can least afford it?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: What I understand is that the Housing Services Corp. is operating under the legislation that was passed by the party opposite when they were in government. The regulatory regime around that was spelled out by them, including the pooling and some of the financial aspects of that.

I’ve answered this question before. Very simply put, we’re doing a review. We’re doing a review because we put accountability measures in place that weren’t there. We discovered there were some difficulties. I share the concern of the member opposite, and we’re responding to fix the problem. It’s as simple as that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, this is taking advantage of people who are living in social housing, and it’s happening today under your watch.

In Oxford, staff simply called the local insurance broker for a quote and got a lower rate than HSC’s tenant insurance, probably because HSC insurance is inflated to pay them a 5% kickback. Under your watch, HSC is taking money from social housing tenants and spending it on trips to Europe, bottles of wine, lobster and questionable investments in Manchester, England.

Minister, will you contact the HSC today, ask them to stop the kickback, lower the prices and refund the money taken from tenants in the social housing units?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Let me just share some of the anecdotal comments that we’ve received from some of the municipalities that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew. And the member from Oxford: You asked the question; I’m sure you want to hear the answer. Thank you.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

“HSC works for us housing providers by leveraging our combined buying power in the private market, making sure we get the best deals”—Peel Housing Corp.

“Through the gas program, we’ve seen stable pricing and value-added programs tailored to our local needs. When it comes to insurance, they’ve helped to guide us through risk management by giving us a better understanding of where we might be vulnerable and how to manage the risk”—Windsor Essex Community Housing.

“I have been very impressed with HSC’s work in bringing together”—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, your government is famous for trying to dodge responsibility. The Premier has been doing it for weeks on the Sudbury mess, delaying her meeting with the OPP and refusing to hold her staff accountable.

But your efforts to dodge the blame are hurting people in social housing. Minister, most of the problems in Housing Services Corp. started in 2007 and until now—long after your government was elected. Now you know that your review doesn’t cover any of these problems. You’re only doing a review for the last two years.

Minister, will you call in the auditor? Will you contact HSC today and ask them to stop the kickback, lower insurance and refund the money to tenants in social housing?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think I heard a heckle that I’m not happy with, but I don’t want to assign it to someone.

Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I think the party opposite—the member opposite—insists on too strict a paradox: that we do well what they weren’t prepared to do at all. The reality is—

Interjections.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: By the way, Mr. Speaker, it’s a challenge that we could easily rise to, to do well what they didn’t do at all.

In terms of dodging responsibility—we didn’t do that. When I reviewed reports outlining some of the difficulties, I wrote to the board. They’re now buying into cabinet and Treasury Board—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe North will come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: They’re going to expense guidelines. There have been some changes at the board, and they have requested us to work with them to bring in a third-party evaluator. We’re looking at what’s broke and how to fix it.

While I share the concerns of the member opposite, we part on what the solution is.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Is the Deputy Premier under the impression that Ontarians want to actually have the Liberal government privatize Hydro One and their local hydro companies?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what I can tell you is that the people of this province, right across this province, are very, very interested in seeing enhanced investments in transportation, in transit, in that much-needed infrastructure.

The notion that we have assets that we own, where we could get more value for those assets—to convert existing assets into new assets is something that I think has tremendous appeal for the people of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals seem to think that we can’t have both public hydro and public transit and transportation infrastructure. We can have both, but it will mean ending Liberal waste, incompetence and corruption.

What we can’t do is be short-sighted about assets that put money in the bank and actually help us pay for infrastructure, year over year. Are the Liberals so short-sighted that they think selling off assets like Hydro One—that makes a profit, year in and year out, putting money into schools, into health care and into services—is a way to build for the future?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that we had an interesting opposition day motion debated yesterday in this House. It was a bit surprising that, I think, about half the NDP caucus was here to actually vote on that opposition day motion—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I listen carefully—I try. The member knows that we do not make any reference to attendance in this place, and I would want you not to do so.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I withdraw—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —because it wasn’t in reference to an individual.

However, what that motion—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A withdraw is a withdraw and only a withdraw.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I withdraw, Speaker.

I did want to point out that there were many, many factual errors in that motion. Let me give you a few examples of facts.

They said that we cut 6% out of nearly every ministry in the last budget. That simply is not true—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, let’s cut through all the rhetoric here. Can the Deputy Premier tell Ontarians whether the Liberals are going to privatize Hydro One or the local hydro companies that people rely on to deliver electricity to their homes and businesses? Are they going to privatize them? That’s the question.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our budget has laid out our path to balance. We have a very large deficit. We are getting to balance on that deficit. We have a number of strategies. We are looking at every program across government to make sure that we’re getting the best value for each of those programs. We’re managing compensation costs. We’re ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of taxes by looking specifically at the underground economy. And we are determined to unlock the value of our provincial assets.

As the finance minister has said, these are assets that are owned by the people of Ontario, and if we can unlock the value to add more infrastructure, to add more transit, then that’s the right thing to do.

Government’s agenda

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Deputy Premier: Perhaps the Deputy Premier and Chair of Treasury Board should look at her own budget. On page 244 of the 2014 budget, the Deputy Premier will find a line that says ministries are going to be cut by 6% in 2014, in 2015, in 2016 and in 2017. That means that people will lose their jobs and services are going to be cut.

Can the Deputy Premier tell Ontarians how many more people are going to be fired as part of the 2015 budget and how many more services are going to be cut by Liberals as a result of the 2015 budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would refer the member opposite to actually look at the page of the budget that she has just referenced. What she will see is that overall spending is actually increasing. So to mislead—I’m sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You have to withdraw.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I withdraw.

To cherry-pick one line without looking at the big picture does not tell the whole story. But they’ve been wrong on other things as well.

They said that we’re cutting health care. In fact, our budget in home and community care went up $270 million on top of the $260 million the year before. Overall, the health care budget is going up.

When it comes to education, they are saying we’re cutting spending on education. That is simply not accurate. We’re increasing spending on education.

They say we want to fire 100,000 people. They got that mixed up with the PC platform. We are continuing to build the services—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last December, the Auditor General said “the tangible costs” of P3s, “(such as those for construction, financing, legal services, engineering services and project management services) were estimated to be” over “$8 billion higher” than they were estimated to be if the projects were managed by the public sector.

The Liberals insist that the well has run dry and that the only solution is slashing and privatization. But somehow the Premier can find $8 billion that is totally wasted on P3s.

Are the Liberals going to keep firing nurses at the same time as they keep feathering the nests of well-connected construction companies?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What anybody watching at home would be interested to know—if they actually looked at the robust nine-page platform of the NDP in the last election, they would see that their financial assumptions were the very same as ours, except, in addition, the member—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. We’ve got a two-way conversation going on behind the scenes here and I want it all to stop.

Please finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let’s get this straight: They ran on our numbers and then said they could do way better. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo said she could cut $600 million more than we were planning. So I don’t know where they’re coming from. It seems to me that they are in a bit of disarray over there.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, two words: eight billion. Eight billion dollars that they’re wasting every single time they put a P3 out there.

Look, nurses are being fired across Ontario, but when it comes to wasting billions on P3s, the chequebook comes out. Schools are being closed across the province, but when it comes to bankrolling billions in new corporate giveaways, the chequebook comes out. Public hydro companies are going on the auction block because the Premier says the cupboard is bare, but when Liberal waste and incompetence become a political headache, or a few Liberals see their jobs threatened, the chequebook comes out.

Will this Liberal government change their priorities, end the cuts, stop blowing billions on scandals and corporate giveaways, and pay attention to the people of this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m encouraged by the question, only because I believe now that the member, the leader of the third party, may actually show up for lock-up at the next budget and actually get into the details that she’s making reference to. Show up and we can—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s a cheap shot. We’ve got to do better in this place, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think there are a lot of people who should be doing a lot better.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t need that kind of comment, either.

Please finish.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, had she read the budget and recognized that we are looking at a number of initiatives, including the assets, to maximize those returns so that we can reinvest into projects that matter and make us competitive—she should also note that the leader—

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’ll do it in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you won’t. New question.

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Mr. Randy Hillier: I guess the finance minister lost count.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, yesterday I asked you whether you were aware of any slush funds being operated by the WSIB. Apparently neither you nor your Premier seemed to have any understanding of the fund in question.

Minister, an internal briefing note from the WSIB states that there was no oversight, as a direct result of political pressures. It also states that government policy on expenses was directly contravened as a result of those same political pressures.

Minister, given a direct connection between your Premier’s chief of staff and the WSIB, can you explain to this House exactly what political pressures were applied to keep this slush fund operating, and by whom?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise in the House today, because certainly I think we’re getting two very different opinions. I’d like to give you what I believe are the facts that the people of Ontario should know. That is, that the WSIB Grants and Research Program is delivered by the WSIB with funds that are collected from its employer premiums. It’s a program that was brought into place in 1990. It funds several partner organizations, including the Ontario Federation of Labour. What they do is they provide help and training in claims management, specifically for workers to navigate the claims system to facilitate the return to work.

In 2012, shortly after some new leadership took over at the WSIB, an audit was conducted—a perfectly good business practice—to learn what changes could be made to enhance the system. Those changes have been put in place. As of 2016, everybody will be operating in a new manner.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, Speaker, let’s go back to the facts. Here’s the briefing note that we got from freedom of information, Minister; if you like, we’ll send you a copy of it after.

My question is straightforward. The KPMG audit was in 2014. The briefing note says there was political pressure applied in multiple situations related to the operations of this slush fund. The KPMG audit found that this program is worthless and does nothing to prevent workplace accidents, and yet the best we can tell is that the Premier and Sid Ryan continue to scratch each other’s backs with this taxpayer money.

Minister, exactly what political pressures are being applied to keep this million-dollar slush fund operating?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: As I mentioned in my previous answer, this is a grant program that’s managed by the WSIB. What it does is, it funds partner organizations to help injured workers return to work or train for new employment—perfectly good business practice.

An audit was conducted that covered the period from 2009 to 2012. They found there was a lot of good in the program. They found there were some areas where some improvements could be made. As a result of the work that was done by KPMG, that information was brought forward to the WSIB. It has made those changes and informed its partners. We’re in a transition year; those changes come into effect in 2016.

This is about making sure that injured workers in this province receive the help they need, return to work quickly and are treated in the manner they should be.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Can you tell me why you as the Deputy Premier, the Premier and other ministers of the crown won’t answer any of the questions as to the Premier’s role in the bribery of Andrew Olivier in the Sudbury by-election?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Before I call on the Deputy Premier, I’m going to just offer a caution. The language is starting to get really close to what I know you would realize is not parliamentary, so I ask you to be cautious, please.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Premier and others have spoken dozens of times on this very issue, Speaker. You know that we take this very, very seriously. You know that there is an investigation under way. You know that that investigation is being performed by people who actually have the skills and have the knowledge to conduct a fair and complete investigation. You know that the Premier is co-operating perfectly.

I do think it’s important to read once again into the record what the Chief Electoral Officer said: “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, the public has the right to know what it is the Premier did or did not do. In this House, members of the opposition have stood numerous times in order to ask very direct questions in regard to what happened within that whole fiasco in the Sudbury bribery scandal.

So I ask you again: Is the reason why the Premier is not answering any of these questions that she’s afraid to answer those questions without having her lawyers beside her because she was the one giving the orders in order to do this?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we’ve used many examples of when others in the House are involved in an investigation and they say they cannot comment because there’s an investigation going on. The NDP has done exactly that. In fact, our very own member from Timmins–James Bay has said, “You do have a larger responsibility to make sure you’re careful in the use of your words so you don’t interfere in any ... way.”

The member opposite is right. Why he can say that and expect the Premier to do something different is beyond me.

International trade

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, I understand that on Monday evening, you took

part in the launch of Canada’s first Chinese-currency—renminbi—trading hub. I heard a lot of good things about Shu Shan Min’s remarks.

I also understand that this means that Toronto is the only jurisdiction in all of the Americas that will be able to clear Chinese currency. That’s a big deal for importers, exporters and investors.

I know that the constituents in my riding of Trinity–Spadina are excited about our government’s lead in making Ontario a global leader in investment and trade.

Minister, could you please tell us more about this fantastic opportunity for Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It was a great pleasure to be at the RMB hub launch with the member for Trinity–Spadina as well as the Minister of International Trade, recognizing the union between Canada and the Chinese authorities.

Toronto, Ontario, now becomes the only financial centre in all of the Americas—North America and South America—to be able to do this currency trade, which will provide tremendous savings to businesses, make us competitive and enable Ontario and Canada to be more prominent in these activities. It’s very good for Toronto, very good for Ontario and very good for British Columbia, whom we worked with closely over the last 18 months to make this happen.

Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud of what happened a couple of days ago. It’s going to improve relations with China.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for that answer. It sounds like the launch of the RMB hub is a huge economic opportunity not only for the province but also for the entire nation. It’s clear that our government is committed to building Ontario up as a global leader and economic partner.

The Premier’s recent trade mission to China underlines the importance of this economic relationship. To date, the mission has attracted nearly $1.1 billion to Ontario in new deals and is creating nearly 1,900 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance please inform this House as to what future economic opportunities this RMB hub will facilitate?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member is absolutely correct: The work that he as well as the Minister of International Trade have done and the work that the Premier has done in her trade mission to China has enabled some of this to come to fruition. But I also give tremendous credit to the federal government and Minister of Finance federally, who took a lead on this, as well as Mike de Jong, the Minister of Finance for British Columbia.

In the end, the Canadian RMB trading hub will facilitate increased investment in trade, strengthen Canada’s competitive position in global financial markets, build on our financial services and foreign exchange market expertise and infrastructure right here in Toronto, and strengthen Canada’s broader economic relationship with China.

Congratulations to all who made this happen.

Public sector compensation

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Earlier today, it was revealed that the Ottawa Hospital had to eliminate another 35 full-time equivalents in health care. This is on top of cuts at the CHEO hospital in my city. We know that North Bay, for example, has lost close to 100 full-time equivalents in their health care.

These are the direct consequences of ignoring deficit reduction targets: cuts to health care and to education.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The minister can laugh all she wants, but the Fraser Institute reported this morning that ballooning public sector salaries have increased by a rate of 47% while inflation has only increased by 15%. Today, Ontario public servants are being paid 11% higher than those in the private sector.

My question is very simple: Can the Treasury Board president tell me how many additional job cuts we can expect in health care and education over the next few months as a result of ballooning salaries in the public sector?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is an important question. We should all favourite this question because it is both a spending and a cutting question all in one.

You heard the member opposite say that she’s concerned about cuts in health care. In fact, the Ottawa Hospital has had an increase in funding of 49% since 2003. That’s over $200 million more. Yes, it’s true that the health care system is changing, and that does mean changing where people are working and the kind of care that is provided in hospital and out of hospital.

But we have a very clear path to balance, and we are on that path. It does involve restraining compensation. If the member opposite would actually look at that Fraser Institute report, she would see that, in fact, compensation has been flatlined for the past five years on an individual basis.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’ll bring Pollyanna back to reality here: The Fraser Institute was pretty clear that public sector wages in Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will not accept that. Either mention the person’s title or their riding, please, and nothing else.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Treasury Board president isn’t being clear with the assembly or the people of Ontario. We know that public sector wages are 11% higher than they are in the private sector. We know, for example, that those wages have increased 47% when inflation only rose by 15%. These are direct consequences when we see health care cuts and when we see education cuts. Each time a salary raises beyond the level of inflation, there will be compromises to public services that we value.

Will the Deputy Premier talk about the deficit that she has rung up with her colleagues, as she did earlier in question period, and about the fact that the increases to public sector salaries are compromising health care services in the city of Ottawa and elsewhere in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I don’t often quote the Fraser Institute, but if you would turn to page 9 of the report that was released today, you will see that compensation per provincial government job in 2009 was $76,337. It is now down to $75,960.

This is a chart that says that our plan is working, that compensation restraint is under way in the public sector in Ontario, and that’s an important piece ongoing, as we get to balance.

We are determined to get to balance by 2017-18. We’re on the path to get there. It’s not easy work, let me tell you, but it’s important we do it at the same time as we protect the services that matter to the people of this province.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The Liberals have talked about selling off Hydro One. We’ve heard about breaking up Hydro One and selling it for parts. We’ve heard about plans for an IPO for Hydro One so that Bay Street can hoover up the profits that we need for our hospitals and for our schools. We’ve heard about forced consolidation of local utilities. Of course, none of this came up during the election.

Can the minister please tell Ontarians what Liberals are planning for Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I can tell the member that no final decisions have been made with respect to the asset council. They have neither been approved by Treasury Board or cabinet.

We have very, very competent people advising us on options that we can bring forward. We will bring forward options that will be in the best interests of the people of this province.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That would be new. That would be a change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have directed our experts to place the highest priority on protecting the interests of the ratepayer.

Most of all, since this Premier was elected Premier in February 2013, she’s investing in people, she’s investing in infrastructure and she’s creating a dynamic business community.

I will speak to the issue more completely in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I think the minister is being overly modest. I think the Liberals clearly do have a plan for Hydro One, but apparently it’s a secret. They didn’t tell anyone during the last election, and they won’t tell anyone now.

Can the minister end the suspense and tell Ontarians just what the plan is for Hydro One and local utilities across Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I infer from the question that he does not support power in private hands. He has a member who is advocating that we continue to invest in private power; we’ve indicated that before.

But most importantly, the NDP claims to oppose the privatization of crown corporations, but Manitoba’s NDP—their Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act specifically contemplates the privatization of Manitoba Hydro, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., the liquor control commission and the Manitoba lotteries corporation.

Mr. Speaker, they have no plan. They haven’t had any plan on a whole range of significant strategic issues. They should get to work and put forward something that they think might work, instead of simply criticizing.

Tobacco control

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, a recent national survey found that over four million Canadians still smoke tobacco. It was the lowest national smoking rate ever recorded, but statistically unchanged from the same survey two years ago.

Just this past Monday, we saw in the news that Montreal city councillors are putting great pressure on Quebec’s government to tackle the prevalence of tobacco use in that province. Our government is working hard to toughen tobacco laws, ban smoking in public places, encourage more Ontarians to quit altogether and to protect our kids from ever taking up smoking.

Can the minister please tell the House what our government is doing to help bring down smoking rates in our province, and how we are protecting our youth from the dangers of tobacco?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to begin by thanking the member for that very important question. She’s very right, Speaker: We are working very hard to reduce smoking in Ontario. I know we are working hard, and we have partners here, like the Heart and Stroke Foundation, who are very valued and who have been with us every step of the way.

I’m pleased to say that, partly as a result of our joint efforts, smoking rates have decreased in Ontario from 24.5% in 2000 to 18.1% in 2013. That’s 332,000 fewer smokers.

But I know we also have to do more, and if we are going to reduce smoking rates in Ontario, we have to do two things: First, we have to ensure that that next generation of smokers never begins, and second, we have to help those who smoke now but want to quit. We need to help them. That is why we have invested over $350 million for tobacco prevention, cessation and protection.

In my supplementary, I will speak more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Again, my question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Speaker, in that same Statistics Canada survey, close to 700,000 current or former smokers who had tried e-cigarettes said they had used them to help quit smoking. At this time, I understand that the jury is still out in terms of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to help people quit smoking, and there is also uncertainty as to their health impacts. As a consequence, Ontarians are concerned about the limited research to properly address these issues. Earlier this month, in fact, the federal Standing Committee on Health called upon the federal government to fund research into these very same questions.

Mr. Speaker, through you, could the minister please tell the House what our government is doing to learn more about e-cigarettes?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I thank the member for that supplementary question.

I believe that there is a role for government to protect people from what may be emerging harms. That is what electronic cigarettes are; it’s an emerging technology.

There is currently no regulation at all in Ontario around electronic cigarettes. What this means is that a 16-year-old could walk into a store and buy an electronic cigarette. That is why Ontario is being the leader. What we have proposed is legislation that, if passed, would, among other things, ban the sale and supply of electronic cigarettes to youth under the age of 19 and restrict vaping in designated public areas. With this legislation, Speaker, we are trying to balance the potential benefits that might be there of electronic cigarettes in helping adults quit cigarettes, but on the other hand also making sure that that next generation never begins to take up electronic cigarettes.

Horse racing industry

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Minister, Kawartha Downs is a vital asset to the horse racing communities in both of our ridings. Last year, after only being approved for 18 racing dates in a last-minute deal, as opposed to the traditional 90 to 100, Kawartha Downs went on to host a very successful season, with attendance and wagering second only to Woodbine Racetrack across the province.

Sadly, despite all this success, Kawartha Downs saw no reward and were denied their request for additional race dates this season. They also still have no commitment from this government on a long-term deal.

Minister, will you make a commitment today to Kawartha Downs and finalize a long-term transfer payment agreement for this track?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I appreciate the question from the member from Kawartha Lakes–Haliburton–Brock.

A number of years ago we appointed three very competent individuals, the honourable Elmer Buchanan; the honourable John Snobelen, who had a very distinguished career on those benches; and the honourable John Wilkinson, who put together a framework, a plan, that was indeed put in place.

In fact, I go to Kawartha Downs. I was there on four or five occasions to see the excellent work that was being done by Skip Ambrose at Kawartha Downs and the horse racing industry right across the province of Ontario.

In fact, just recently, Sue Leslie extended compliments on what we’re doing for the horse racing industry. We know it’s important to rural Ontario, and we’re going to move the horse racing industry forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, I do hope you move the horse racing industry forward, because you put it back a hundred steps.

That doesn’t explain why Kawartha Downs is the only track in the province without a five-year deal. You know that these long-term deals are vital to the horse racing community so stock can be purchased and maintained.

Kawartha Downs has one of the smallest purse pools across the province, and no announcement has been made by your ministry if they will receive their requested increase. If they remain at 18 race dates and a $35,000 purse per night, it will slowly lead to the death of horse racing in our area and across eastern Ontario.

Minister, you’re the one responsible. Will you commit to horse racing in our area and help assist Kawartha Downs by increasing their purse pools and committing to a long-term transfer agreement?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, we see the horse racing industry is very important to rural Ontario. We had three very distinguished individuals—Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Snobelen and Mr. Wilkinson—put together the five-year plan for horse racing in the province of Ontario. We’re hearing very positive comments coming back.

My colleague the finance minister has been working with us. Previous Minister of Agriculture the Honourable Ted McMeekin and the Premier herself have made a commitment to horse racing in the province of Ontario, to make sure it drives our rural economy.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a story. Two years ago, when they thought Kawartha Downs was going to close, that member was there, and the former member from Northumberland–Quinte West was there. They were there because they wanted to put the curtains over Kawartha Downs. I was there to make sure Kawartha Downs was going to—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. We learned yesterday that instead of doing proper planning for the Pan Am Games, the government is asking Ontarians, in what could be called a faith-based transportation plan, to stay off the roads, miraculously reducing congestion by 20%.

Instead, we learned that they’ve done absolutely no modelling for how the Pan Am and Parapan Games will impact city streets. Even if we trust the projections for the highways, every journey starts and ends on municipal streets.

Did they simply forget to do the breakdown and research on this, or did they not do it because they didn’t want to hear complaints from the public?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member for that question. Yesterday, I did have the opportunity to update the public with respect to our transportation strategy for the upcoming Pan Am/Parapan Am Games. We have a very strong plan that draws on the expertise brought to us by individuals responsible for the successful transportation plans that were used, for example, at the Vancouver Olympics and the London Olympics. Both communities were able to meet or exceed their reduction targets, the targets of 20% that we’ve also identified in our plan.

In addition to that, we’ve created a games route network that calls for HOV lanes that will be operating throughout that network. We did announce some of the details relating to the modelling itself, Speaker.

But on the question about municipal streets in particular, it’s important to recognize that our team at MTO and the rest of the TO2015 team have worked really closely with all 30 partners we have across the entire affected region, which would include the municipalities that will be participating. Those municipalities are well aware of the impacts that will occur on their streets, and they’re planning for that impact.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The transit systems in Toronto and the GTHA are bursting at capacity now, and the government’s plan is to shift tens of thousands of commuters and a quarter of a million visitors on to that system. Minister, where are they all going to fit?

They are spending $7 million on enhanced transit service for the biggest sporting event that Canada has ever seen. Unfortunately London, England, invested £7 billion in transport systems for the Olympics—quite a contrast. We don’t have backups in our network, and we don’t have a plan B. What will happen if we have another subway breakdown like we had yesterday? How many hours will be added to people’s commute?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I said in my opening response, we are working closely with all 30 of our partners across the affected region. We have a strong strategy in place, and we will achieve our targets.

I think what’s most important, which the member opposite didn’t recognize, is that currently in the GTHA, we have over $16 billion worth of transit that’s under construction. We’ll be delivering the Union Pearson Express in advance of the games themselves.

Speaker, I would also note that it’s interesting that this question is coming from a member representing Hamilton because if that member had showed up to yesterday’s technical briefing, he would have known that the James Street North GO station that we are currently building will be in service in Hamilton for the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Farm safety

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. My riding of Halton is home to a diverse and active farming industry. Take a drive along any side road in Halton, and you will see farms, orchards and livestock operations in the region—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I asked the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to come to order.

Mr. Paul Miller: Unbelievable. No class.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Carry on. Finish your question, please.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: This includes a large variety of farming types.

We all know that workplace safety is vital. No one wants to have a loved one head off to work and come back home injured or not at all. However, most of us don’t usually think about farms and farming practices when it comes to workplace safety.

In Ontario, we have close to 50,000 farms and 75,000 farm operators working daily. It’s important to ensure their safety. That’s why the Canadian Federation of Agriculture established this week as Canadian Agricultural Safety Week.

I know this government is committed to ensuring that farmers, like the ones in Halton, are safe—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank my colleague from Halton for the question. I know how she works tirelessly on behalf of the agriculture sector in that great area of Halton.

We do know our government is committed to providing safe working environments for farms right across the province of Ontario. If members had been in the House yesterday, the member from Haldimand–Norfolk shared an example of a personal friend of his who experienced a very devastating farm accident that had long-term implycations for that particular family.

Our ministry has been working hard with Workplace Safety and Prevention Services for over 15 years to improve farm safety. Canadian Agricultural Safety Week gives us the opportunity to emphasize that working on safety programs on farms is a top priority for all of us.

We can accomplish this through three ways: through the Ontario FarmSafe network; the agricultural safety days, which focus on safety education and training for children and families, with a goal of reducing child injuries, which have occurred in our agriculture sector; and through Growing Forward 2, we also fund a number of initiatives, for farmers right across Ontario, that promote farm safety.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Speaker, farmers are an important part of our economy, but the work they do is often hazardous. Just recently, the Guelph Mercury said, “Farmers are five times more likely to be killed or suffer work-related disability than those in any other occupation.”

Many of the people in my riding work in the agricultural sector and face these inherent risks each day. Sargent Farms, for example, is a family-owned and -operated poultry processing business that has operated in Ontario for more than 65 years. This business and hundreds of other high-quality farms are pillars of our local economy.

I understand that in 2006, our government extended the Occupational Health and Safety Act to include farming operations for the first time.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you tell my constituents what else our government is doing to protect the health and safety of Ontarians who work in our agricultural sector?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’m really pleased to be able to take such a timely question from the member from Halton, who is my neighbour in Oakville.

The Ministry of Labour has over 200 trained inspectors. They have got expertise on issues that are very inherent to the health and safety of Ontario’s workers, including those who work in the agricultural sector.

What we do at the ministry is we conduct both proactive and reactive visits to farms right across this province, to ensure that the best practices are met and to actually charge those who are not performing safe work. To address and continuously improve farm safety in Ontario, we work with the farming Technical Advisory Committee.

Speaker, the Ministry of Labour continues to make great progress. We’ve still got more to do, but we want to ensure that Ontario farms are safe places to work.

Hospice care

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, in her most recent report, the Auditor General pointed out that the hospice sector in Ontario is providing high-quality care, but then she went on to describe a patchwork approach across the province.

During the election campaign, your government committed to fund 20 new hospices. You reaffirmed that commitment in last year’s budget. Matthews House Hospice, in my riding, is one example that does not receive operational funding.

Minister, you’re about to release a new budget while you have yet to fulfil your commitments in the last budget. People cannot put off dying to wait for your government to do the right thing and provide compassionate, cost-effective care. When are you going to take some pressure off our local hospitals and properly support hospice care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I commend the acting leader of the official opposition. I know he is a very strong supporter of palliative care and the valuable work that our hospices do. I know he’s going to want to join me, because we so infrequently do this: to celebrate and acknowledge and thank the many, many health care professionals and other professionals, as well as the communities and individuals, that support our hospices and work in palliative care. They do important work across this province every single day.

We have made a commitment to fund the operating costs of 20 new hospices. We’re already providing that support to over 30 hospices in the province, and I’m happy to say as well that my parliamentary assistant, John Fraser, has taken upon himself the extraordinarily challenging exercise to develop a palliative care strategy for the entire province and to take upon himself as well the responsibility of focusing on the hospices in those additional 20.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the minister: There are 12,000 people in this province dying in hospital each year because there aren’t enough hospice beds. The Auditor General points out that hospice care is much cheaper than hospital care. As an example, in the first six months of last year, Matthews House in my riding cared for 64 people at a cost of $254,000, all of that money raised by the community. Comparable care in hospital would have cost $608,000. In other words, Minister, as you know, care in a residential hospice is less than half the cost of hospital care.

Your party platform promised more end-of-life care and, specifically, as you mentioned, the funding of 20 more hospices. It has been 10 months, Minister. I know your heart is in the right place, but there are people dying unnecessarily where they don’t want to die, and that’s in hospital. They’d rather be in a hospice or at home. Would you do the right thing and live up to your commitments?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, that’s why we’ve made this commitment: because we do value the work that hospices are doing. I don’t think the Speaker will mind me referencing a hospice in his riding, actually, Stedman Community Hospice, that I visited before the New Year, which is providing extraordinary service not only within the hospice itself but within the community through its outreach programs. We have made this commitment.

The member opposite, as a former Minister of Health, will also know that we were the first government—this government, the Liberal government—to actually provide funding to hospices in Ontario. The former Minister of Health will also note that we were the first government in Ontario to provide an end-of-life strategy in this province.

We’re going a step further. We’re developing a palliative care strategy so that the care provided is uniform across the province. Part of that strategy is to fund an additional 20 hospices, their operating costs, as we’ve committed to do.

Hospital funding

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health. This morning, patients in London were shocked to learn that elective surgeries have been cut by two thirds for two weeks in a row. That means that dozens of surgeries won’t be done. Anyone with a loved one waiting for surgery will be outraged by more delays. Everyone in London has one simple question: Will the minister stop these cuts or will he stand by while patients suffer?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it.

The member opposite knows that we aren’t cutting health care spending. In fact, the percentage of government funding that goes into health care has increased year over year as long as we’ve been in power, and that will continue going forward.

Hospitals are independent entities. They work closely with the LHINs, the local health integration networks, within their localities. They make decisions based on not only the financial realities, the budgets that they’ve been provided with by the ministry, but also from time to time there are changes that happen. I don’t know the specifics in terms of the current situation in London, but I certainly will be looking into that.

Our funding for hospitals, Mr. Speaker, over the past decade has on average increased by 50%. We are making significant investments in our hospital environments, but the funding has increased by 50% over the past decade.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you, Speaker. Despite what the minister says, this reduction in elective surgeries in London is just the latest in the growing list of Liberal cuts to London’s hospitals: 52,000 nursing hours cut, 80,000 cleaning hours cut, $37 million cut. Front-line nurses say these cuts are having “a horrendous effect” on patients. How can the Minister of Health stand by and allow patient care to deteriorate in this way in London?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I don’t allow that, and I have an expectation of all our hospitals that they maintain the highest quality of care and services that they’re required to do. I know also that they work closely with their LHINs, with their local health integration networks, to do that. That’s an expectation that I have. Certainly, as I mentioned, with the funding increasing year over year—not only the global health care budget, but the funding that we’re providing to hospitals has increased by 50% over the past decade—our hospitals are doing incredible work.

We’re measuring the outcomes. We’re measuring the quality of services that they’re providing. They are working to find efficiencies, provide innovations, and develop and change programs so that they’re able to provide even better care. I know they work in concert with their local communities, the patients they serve and the boards that govern them, but certainly with the LHINs, as well, that have the responsibility for patient care and quality of care.

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Mr. Yvan Baker: Speaker, most of the time when I’ve risen in the House to ask questions, I’ve asked questions about issues that are of specific interest to my community in Etobicoke C