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

April 21, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Apr-21 (PDF)

L165 - Thu 21 Apr 2016 / Jeu 21 avr 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 21 April 2016 Jeudi 21 avril 2016

Orders of the Day

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Wearing of scarves

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Electoral reform

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Autism treatment

Tenant protection

Mining industry

Police oversight

Cancer treatment

Highway improvement

Wind turbines

Consumer protection

Retirement homes

Government appointments

Visitor

Legislative pages

Visitor

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Journey to Freedom Day

Girls’ Government

Journey to Freedom Day

Johnny Whitteker

Autism treatment

Multicultural Children’s Day

Ordre de la Pléiade

Cultural diversity

Carnation Revolution

Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Number Plates and Carrying Racks), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (plaques d’immatriculation et supports de transport)

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Keep our Roads Safer through the use of Intelligent Drive Technologies), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (sécurité routière accrue grâce à l’emploi de technologies de conduite intelligente)

Motions

Committee membership

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Day of Mourning

Visitor

Petitions

Autism treatment

Privatisation des biens publics

Home inspection industry

Health care funding

Health care funding

Autism treatment

Queen Elizabeth II

Autism treatment

Dental care

Lung health

Health care funding

Prix de l’essence

Private Members’ Public Business

Workplace harassment

Immigration policy

Wind turbines

Workplace harassment

Immigration policy

Wind turbines

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 20, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 186,

An Act to establish the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan / Projet de loi 186, Loi établissant le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this issue, the member from York–Simcoe had the floor.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to continue on yesterday’s theme.

Just to bring people together and understand where we were, the critical issues in this pension plan are the unintended consequences: the impact it will have on various members of society, not all of which are really in their best interests. There are a few key words that I think people need to be aware of as they try to understand what, in fact, is being recommended by the government—what is being pushed forward by the government.

First is the fact that this was designed for a very special group of people: those without workplace pensions. When that idea was floated, there were some studies that were done to determine who we were talking about and how long that was. But people recognize that there were a lot of part-time jobs where they had very little number of hours to work. So there was general sympathy, looking at how to respond to the problem of there being no workplace pensions.

But the signal light went on when that got floated among businesses through organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, who all then looked at their membership, who were able to point out that they’re stretched very thinly. There are so many people, frankly, who own businesses so they have a job, and there isn’t much left over.

In today’s macro system, there is not much left over either, when you have the most debt of any subnational state in the world, with almost $300 billion in debt, and it costs about $11 billion for the servicing of that $300 billion. That’s the backdrop to this piece of legislation. It’s the elephant in the room, so to speak. There’s always a problem that that’s there.

People in the private sector have recognized increases in the hydro rates, for instance, both at home and at work. They have recognized that in the last budget there has been a whole list of licences and fees and things that will be charged to the individual. The threat, I would argue, of a cap-and-trade carbon tax is looming on the horizon. The notion that an employer and employee would have to put forward 1.9% towards a pension fund—there are many businesses for which that is actually going to lead to a decrease in hours or to actual layoffs.

That there is actually a number attached to the number of layoffs that this will trigger gives you a sense of the cruel irony that, without a job, you certainly can’t be collecting a pension. For the people who might lose their jobs as a result of this initiative, this is a very real-life threat.

That was the initial area of concern. Then the government decided, as well, to introduce the notion of what’s comparable. It took them several months to establish some parameters so that now this brings in a huge segment of the population that had no idea that they would be part of this pension for people who didn’t have a workplace pension. I’m talking here about people who are employed in the private sector, who have pensions and who are relatively satisfied with that system as it is. It’s an important economic driver in this province, the fact that private sector pensions are administered and held by banks and insurance companies and various other investment opportunities.

They now suddenly get sucked into this whole equation because they find themselves, the private sector businesses, now having to look and see whether or not they measure up to something called “comparable.” “Comparable” in this context means that your pension is good enough; it’s good enough for the government’s definition. Without going into all of those details of the definition, the simplest one is to look at a defined contribution pension plan that is supported with less than 4% from each side. In other words, many pensions are “three and three”: 3% by the employer and 3% by the employee. Now, all of a sudden, these people aren’t deemed comparable and they would have to make alterations.

The private sector is looking at itself in terms of what kind of changes that makes, and that’s really, Madam Speaker, where we are today in terms of the ripple effect, if you like, of this bill. Suddenly people who had no idea that they would be drawn in—they understood it to be a bill that was for people who actually don’t have a workplace pension, and I am sure they never imagined that they would be drawn into a very complicated exercise with the government, spread out over years. Businesses, then, are going to have to choose whether they join the ORPP, or can they can measure up to the rigours of being comparable?

Those are issues that still stand out in the discussion on this bill; there are many others. But I think you have to come back to the timing and the notion that we’re going to have a payroll tax included in this province, just at a point when S&P dropped its credit grade—the lowest level ever. These are the kinds of things—I mentioned hydro rates, and certainly the spending scandals and the ever-rising debt. Into those situations now comes, for individuals who never imagined they were part of this, the need to look at this notion of “comparable.”

The other aspect of that, of course, is the impact of making it more costly to do business in this province, because any kind of payroll tax that is a job-killing one, which we know this to be, hinders the ability of the private sector to do what it does best: actually provide job opportunities for people and strengthen our economy to attract investment. I recently mentioned that Canada’s economy is growing, but we must remain prudent and fiscally sound. To conjure up a further tax on Ontarians now will run the real risk of adverse effects. Outside of recession, this is the worst possible time to enact a $3.5-billion payroll tax.

As I mentioned earlier, Ontario is the largest subnational debtor in the entire world—just over $21,000 for every single person in Ontario. Net debt to GDP has gone up nearly 50% under the Liberal government. Last year, due to poor policies like this, interest totalled $11.4 billion. After major funding allocations like health care and education, that is the government’s largest expenditure. I’m sure it would surprise many Ontarians if they really found out how much they are paying just in interest on the provincial debt. It averages $840 per person—that could be a rent payment for many working Ontarians—yet this cost just keeps on rising each year.

Ontario businesses already feel immense pressure, especially with out-of-province competition. With more regulations, hydro rate increases and the newly proposed mutual payroll tax, businesses are being forced to reconsider investing in Ontario. I know, in conversations with my own constituents who have businesses that may employ 25 people—those are deemed small business, and certainly in the grand scheme of things, they are. But there comes a point when the regulatory burden and the tax burden just make it so that there’s not much incentive to continue.

So Ontario’s businesses face serious trouble as the province has no will to levy any taxation support. Businesses just won’t have the capital to handle the financial blow and will be forced to close their doors.

We see a government that would rather squeeze more money from a small business by any means necessary, including a new mandatory pension tax. But I must repeat: Businesses can only pay these when they make a profit. Businesses can only hire more employees and grow if the government allows them to do so. It is no longer a secret that each and every day, companies choose to pass Ontario by and find jurisdictions where growth is possible.

This brings us back to this ill-conceived plan that can further risk the state of the economy. The ORPP has continually evolved as potential revenue, continually growing as it looks to pool as much revenue as possible, even if it means giving up a better plan.

We all know that it’s impossible to save for retirement if you have no job. As I explained yesterday, the government has no true need to squeeze Ontarians any further. The mandatory nature of this plan will jeopardize some of the most vulnerable by taking away what they spend each and every day on food, clothes and ever-increasing bills, for the benefits to be clawed back from them 40 years from now.

There are many other successful forms of savings plans, such as the pooled registered pension plan. In 2013, before this government decided to pay attention to the issue of retirement security, our PC caucus was hard at work. It was three years ago when I brought forth Bill 50,

An Act to require the introduction of legislation to allow for pooled registered pension plans. This plan, contrary to the mandatory Ontario plan, is a retirement savings option for individuals, including self-employed individuals. Another example of how the pooled registered pension is superior is that it enables its members to benefit from lower administration costs that result from participating in a large, pooled pension plan. It’s also portable, which is something that the Ontario one is not, which raises unanswered questions with regard to moving out of the province, having an employer that is a national employer, not a provincial one;

whereas the pooled pension goes with the individual from job to job. You’re also able to go to participating provinces, like British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Quebec. Since the investment options within a pooled registered plan are similar to those for other registered pension plans, its members can benefit from greater flexibility in managing their savings and meeting their retirement objectives.

As a result of the repeated mismanagement and the growing infrastructure deficit, the Ontario Liberals are running out of ways to fund projects and political promises. By looking at the numbers, one can easily see the alarming pattern. For anyone counting, the new cap-and-trade scheme is estimated to take up $2 billion a year, not to mention another $4 billion from the sale of Hydro One.

Keeping with this theme, the expected billions a year in revenue they plan to create through the Ontario pension plan by imposing the method of a payroll tax on employers and employees who don’t have private plans deemed adequate for their retirement—the real reason is the need for capital. When you look at the management of money since coming to power in 2003, the government has increased Ontario’s debt by 115%, from $138.8 billion to $298.9 billion, and Ontario’s debt-to-GDP ratio from a healthy 27% to an alarming 39%.

More money is spent on interest on debt than on any other government function except for health and education. Ontario’s credit rating has been downgraded, which makes it more expensive to borrow money.

Finally, as a recent Fraser Institute report noted, since the 2008 recession, 66% of the debt the government has piled up has gone to meet government operating expenses as opposed to being invested in capital projects. The real reason that this is a cash grab is because of the need to find capital money.

I mentioned how the program has evolved, from people who weren’t employed, then to help seniors. But seniors who are retired are obviously not eligible, and low-income retirees are already supplemented through OAS and GIS. Actually, they stand to hit the ceiling on their ability to collect OAS and GIS, so they actually would be clawed back.

It’s also important to know who is in and who is out. As a result of federal jurisdiction and federal income tax pension rules, individuals such as the self-employed and First Nations will be exempted. The big development in the government’s latest announcement was that those employees who are not crown federally regulated workers or individuals who work in industries like marine, airlines and airports, telecommunications, railways, and anyone who works with a crown corporation will be exempt as well.

This leaves about four million working in Ontario, who will be split into two distinct groups: those who have some type of pension benefit that will be put to the government test of an annual contribution rate at 4% for each employee and employer, respectively, totalling a yearly contribution of 8%; and those who have no pension with their employer, to which individual employees and employers will be forced to contribute at an annual rate of 1.9%.

In the time I have left, I think it’s really important that people understand how much more complex this has evolved from looking after those people without a workplace pension. While there’s a great deal more I could say, I just want to indicate how difficult it is for the average Ontarian who looks for his government to provide stability in his community and now is looking at the increased cost of living beyond being able to remain optimistic and hopeful.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: On the NDP side of the House, we want every worker in this province to have a good pension plan: a pension plan that allows them to retire with dignity, a pension plan that allows them to retire free of the stress of, “How will I pay the ever-increasing hydro bill? How will I pay the ever-increasing gas prices at the pump?”

When the Liberals started talking about the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, it looked like they were going in that direction: It was going to be for all workers, very similar to the CPP. Don’t get me wrong: If we could have an add-on to the CPP, that would be very much preferable than starting a new pension plan. I would add to this that any deviations from the CPP that we do with the ORPP, positive or negative, will make it harder later on to make sure we merge the two.

The CPP covers every single worker in Canada; the ORPP won’t. When we look at the list of who is included versus the list of who is excluded, let’s just say that the exclusions are way, way more than who is in. That’s not what we bargained for. What we bargained for is to make sure that every worker could retire with dignity and would have a stable amount of revenue coming to them in their old age, so that they can live their lives without worrying about not being able to make an income anymore, because they would have a pension coming in. We are going further and further away from the stated goal.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, I want to make it clear that our government has made this plan one of the pillars of our economic plan going forward because we believe that every worker deserves to have a secure retirement. That’s why we’ve done it.

The plan is going to close the retirement savings gap for those two thirds of Ontario employees who do not have a workplace pension. The gap is even worse for younger people, because three quarters of Ontario workers between the ages of 25 and 34 do not have a workplace pension, and they will never have one, practically speaking.

What the bill does, to address this gap, is provide employers and employees with a period of time and clarity that they’re going to need to prepare for the launch of the plan. The enrolment is going to start in January 2017, and the collection of contributions will begin the following January, in 2018.

Another feature of the plan, and a necessary feature of the plan, is accountability. The plan is designed to be sustainable for the long term. The act will establish a formal funding policy guide to guide the actions of the plan and to ensure that the government, in the event of a funding shortfall or excess, can take actions to adjust the plan.

We want to support that transparency and accountability regarding the sustainability of the plan, and in doing so, we are committed this fall to introduce legislation that will introduce the office of the chief actuary. That’s a very, very important feature of the plan, because the criticism has been, from some quarters, that somehow the money is going to flow into general revenues and so forth and so on. The office of the chief actuary will make sure that plan operates independently.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I always appreciate hearing from the member from York–Simcoe about the pension plan, because she is very knowledgeable in the pros and cons of an Ontario Registered Pension Plan.

A few things weren’t really touched on today. Many people have fantastic pension plans with their companies, and this government is not making the assurances that are needed to ensure that those plans will be in place and they won’t lose their excellent pension plans for a lesser plan provided by the government. Those plans are very well invested. Companies are not going to be able to hold onto private pension plans as well as a public pension plan, so they’re going to ditch the private pension plans, which in many cases are better plans and working very well.

The old adage is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” We are concerned that there are a lot of people who will be worse off with this Ontario Registered Pension Plan.

The other factor is about investments. We all know that the Canada Pension Plan is very well invested all over the world. In fact, they invest in York region, in many projects right in the region. We are very concerned because it was very clear in previous budgets that this government plans to invest in their infrastructure projects with this pension plan. That has raised a lot of red flags and a lot of concern in many areas.

Yes, people need help saving for their retirement—we all realize that—but too many Ontarians are retiring with debt, and not just the burden of the provincial debt, which will cost them in many different ways, but the burden of their own debt. That’s something that this plan doesn’t address. I am concerned that many people will see this as another excuse to take on more debt. That’s certainly not what we want to see.

The concerns are there, and I think that we need a lot more discussion.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s good to have a couple of minutes to talk about this issue again. New Democrats believe that every worker in this province should have a good pension, preferably defined benefit protection, so that when they do retire they can be sure that they’re going to have a stable income for those 30- to 40-plus years that people are living today.

Michael Prue, the former member from Beaches–East York, was here yesterday, and I got to spend a little bit of time with him. He’s in that retirement mode now. Here at the Legislative Assembly we have an RPP, somewhat similar to what is being proposed in an ORPP, but it’s market dependent and it’s not a defined benefit plan, so if the stock market is doing well, you might do well.

Michael tells me that after 13 years of serving here, following time as the mayor of East York and on Toronto city council—at a time when you couldn’t participate in the OMERS plan so there was nothing coming out of there—the money that was in his fund here at the Legislative Assembly is just what was put in. There isn’t very much more money there because of the ups and downs in the market. In his retirement, he’s going to have to be very careful with whatever money he has coming out of that, while with a defined-benefit plan he could have counted on whatever that looked like—$1,000 a month or $1,200 a month.

While this is a good step to get something in place, I don’t think it is the best result for Ontarians.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to return to the member from York–Simcoe to wrap up.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Thank you very much. I appreciate the comments of the member from Nickel Belt, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the members from Thornhill and Welland. I’m very pleased with the comments that were made, generally, in the sense that they recognize the complexity of this issue and the fact that this was begun as a response for those people with no workplace pension.

It has now morphed into—actually, the budget itself talked about a flow of money coming from the pension to help with roads and bridges and things like that. The government made the comment itself. But it also has created an uncertainty in the area around a comparable pension and the kinds of decisions, as some of the observers commented on—that people are going to find themselves downgraded in their pension simply because the private sector isn’t going to be able to make the kind of steps necessary to meet that comparable goal.

There are many issues that have to be addressed by the government as this bill proceeds and as more and more people understand that it’s a mandatory process and there’s an issue around comparability.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Here we are again debating the ORPP. This is the third bill of four on the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. Bill 186,

An Act to establish the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, outlines the broad details and fleshes out the plan but, really, if you have been following along with the announcements, as I am sure you have, there isn’t too much that is new.

Interestingly, some of the information that we learned through the big and enthusiastic announcements along the way are not in this bill. Those details will be left to regulation. Frankly, Speaker, there is a lot that will be left to regulation.

Just to recap, the first bill, of three so far, was to allow for the ORPP to exist. It was a piece of enabling legislation. The second bill established the ORPP Administration Corp. and laid out its role. This third piece now presents more of the details of the plan.

Everyone in the province of Ontario deserves to retire with dignity and deserves to share in the benefits of an Ontario public pension plan. We wish that this plan included everyone, but instead of being a strong, public, universal plan to benefit all Ontarians, this government has continued to exclude more and more people.

This bill lays out which plans will be considered comparable and therefore left out of this plan. In the beginning, the government, in their discussion paper, had said that comparable, and therefore exempt, might mean solid, defined benefit plans. However, as we see here, it is now DB, DC, MEPP and—wait for it—PRPPs. Speaker, I would like to point out that PRPPs don’t even exist yet. But as you know, we’ve debated these bank products in this House, and they are on the horizon. But this government says some of them will be considered comparable and therefore exempt.

You know, Speaker, this has really been quite a session for the big banks, if we stop to take stock—no pun intended. Between PRPP legislation and the sell-off of Hydro One, banks have really made out like bandits with this very generous Liberal government. If only this Liberal government were as motivated to ensure the financial well-being of all everyday, hard-working Ontarians.

We want retirement security for everyone. We want people to be able to count on predictable and fair benefits after a lifetime of working. This government talks a good game about retirement security. They want Ontarians to be covered in their retirement. However, we have only been hearing this messaging when it comes to the proposed shiny and new ORPP.

We need to think about the future, of course, but why is this government silent on the issue of pension security when it comes to existing pensions? Pensioners across the province—across the country—are worried about the security of their pensions and their benefits. All that we have to do is look at what has been happening to benefit plans and pensioners in Hamilton. Their benefits have been attacked, their pensions are targeted and their future and security is in jeopardy. What does the government think about that? What do they think about the amount that would be covered by the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund?

What are their thoughts on the fact that pensioners hang from the bottom rung when it comes to bankruptcy? Speaker, bankruptcy might be a federal issue, but our provincial industries and provincial workers, friends, neighbours and constituents are affected.

This government doesn’t seem to have an opinion when it comes to protecting existing pensioners. We can’t only talk about the shiny, new plan we can cut the ribbon for; we must pay attention to existing plans and pensioners. Speaker, I challenge this government to do just that.

This government wanted to create a plan modelled after the CPP, and assured us that it could be integrated or rolled into the CPP. I spent time in committee, and I asked about that. I asked why they put their opinion on the design of CPP enhancement into their provincial budget. It is in this provincial government’s opinion that a future CPP enhancement should be a targeted enhancement made in the image of their own ORPP.

“Targeted,” incidentally, does not mean universal, Madam Speaker. We should be working to strengthen our universal programs that support everyone, not outlining ways to undermine and undercut them.

So, as always, it is my pleasure to rise in this Legislature and speak about my constituents in Oshawa, but because we’re discussing pension issues again today, I appreciate my role as pension critic for our caucus and to be able to speak to these issues that affect all Ontarians. I think it’s important that we always come back to the importance of ensuring Ontarians are afforded the opportunity to retire with dignity. It has actually become one of my favourite topics of discussion, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak at length to this this morning.

Speaker, as I noted earlier, this is the third piece of legislation pertaining to the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. It’s also the third bill that I’ve had the opportunity to speak to at length in this chamber. I do one-hour leads, as you know, as critic, so to have three pieces is six hours, and if you factor in the PRPP legislation, that’s eight. And then I found out that there’s going to be a fourth bill on the ORPP.

Mr. Wayne Gates: No way. No.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Really. Wait for it; there will be. So, lots of talk about pensions, which is wonderful. It’s wonderful that Ontarians are learning so much about the importance of having a pension.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Lots of talk; no action.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: But to my colleague’s point, we have lots of opportunities to talk, and while that’s always important, the most important

part is the action piece.

We’ve spoken about the details, from broad strokes right down to the minutia, and as we’re getting closer to the launch date, the more important these details become. Seeing as this is the final piece of legislation before the government hammers out all of the remaining significant design details and regulations all by their lonesome behind closed doors; maybe at the kitchen table with a napkin, I don’t know—

Mr. Wayne Gates: A big napkin.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: A big napkin—a place mat. I’d like to take the opportunity today to look back at where we started on some of the finer points, to look at where we’ve landed on them and to look at what remains to be decided.

As I have said many times before in this Legislature, when it comes to this government, the devil is in the details, so it is important as opposition members and critics that we take a good hard look at where this plan is headed.

When we first started this discussion about our concerns regarding the ORPP, we spoke a lot about the consultation process, or the lack thereof; the fact this is a non-universal plan that will leave millions of Ontarians excluded; our concern that by excluding Ontarians and complicating the plan, this government is seriously jeopardizing the potential for future CPP expansion; and what this will mean for all Canadians.

We have spoken about the definition surrounding comparability and what would and should be considered comparable about portability; the minimum income or earnings threshold; whether the investment body would be at arm’s length or in the kitchen; or if the government was looking to privatize the delivery model, like they have privatized so many other important public assets and programs.

We asked whether experts and stakeholders were being included in every step of the conversation or if you were compromising the plan by caving to external pressures. We asked about PRPPs, DBs, DCs and the PBGF. The pension community seems to have a good solid love of a good solid acronym. I’ve learned to love them too, Madam Speaker.

Finally, we asked about where the security, strength and reliability of existing pension plans fit into the government agenda, or if we should all just get distracted by the shiny and the new.

These are all important conversations, and while I start to think that they’re all talked out, at some point the government continues to fail us on so many of these issues. They continue to delay and diminish, water down, and walk away.

Let’s not forget that these decisions have real consequences on real Ontarians’ real lives. It’s easy to get lost in the bubble of this very impressive and important building some days. But the decisions that the government makes are what are really important. They affect how people will live in retirement or how they will plan for their futures, and they will continue to affect them for generations to come.

That’s why we need to make sure we get it right, now. That’s why the government should be listening to the experts around them. I’m certainly not one of them myself, but I’ve met with as many of them as I can find and let me tell you, there are some smart people in the pension community and they are smart people with their hearts in the right place, too. People with expertise and the best of intentions and hearts in the right places are not people who are easy to find. But I hope that the government, now that they have them in their circles, are taking their advice more diligently than we saw during the ORPP consultation process.

We are getting down to the nitty-gritty now, and the clock is ticking. Of course, the government has—I can’t read this morning. Just a second. Regroup. An hour is a long time even though this is like hour number 7. Are you waiting with bated breath? How many of you know what I might say?

Where was I? I’m just giving the government a hard time. We need to have pension security. Okay. Nitty-gritty; right. Clock is ticking.

Of course the government also has the ability to simply turn back time, as they did just recently by delaying the phase-in by a full year. It’s important to note that this delay was only for the first phase of the employers, which is compromised of the largest corporations in the country. The government seems pretty content reassuring Ontarians that enhanced retirement security cannot wait when they are glossing over the consultation process, but they were quick to hit the brakes when their friends on Bay Street interjected. Stop me when you’ve heard this before.

They say “Jump” and you say “How high?” Oh, and smaller businesses are apparently more equipped to adjust to the plan and make adjustments for the plan, so the delay only pertains to the largest employers.

Delays and adjustment are okay. We do want governments to adjust their plans as they gather new information or as needed. It just seems convenient the new information seems to always come from the same place and consistently benefit the same people, while Ontarians wait to hear what compromise is next to come.

Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, that New Democrats are supportive of a strong public pension plan. We recognize that Ontarians need the kind of fundamental change that will address a fundamentally changing workplace. Part of that involves ensuring that all workers in the province have a pension plan. No one should be left behind. But we want to make sure that it is done right, that it is the best plan.

Everybody in the province deserves to retire with dignity and to share in the benefits of an Ontario public pension plan. We are, however, concerned that the legislation doesn’t align with previous Liberal promises, in all of the ways that I have already discussed and more.

We hope that the Premier will continue to push the federal Liberal government to expand the Canada Pension Plan. Like everyone else, we are waiting to see if the Prime Minister delivers on this campaign promise and to see exactly what an enhanced CPP will look like.

As you all know, the CPP is a universal plan that covers all Canadians, including those working for the federal government and the self-employed, while the ORPP is targeted towards those workers who don’t have a comparable workplace pension plan.

It is important that we remember that any departure of the ORPP from the CPP will make it difficult to integrate the ORPP into a future and potential CPP enhancement. If the government truly prioritizes strengthening retirement income security for all Ontarians, then in addition to the ORPP it should be making sure that Ontario pensioners and pensioners across Canada are put first. That means working towards a CPP enhancement, and it means protecting the security of existing plans as they continue to fall under siege.

These are troubling facts, Madam Speaker, and ones that should not be taken lightly. All Ontarians deserve to retire with dignity, and we are heard to remind the government that “all Ontarians” is not a definition that the government can rework as they see fit. “All Ontarians” means all Ontarians.

Mr. Wayne Gates: All is all.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Right.

Let’s start with details of the legislation that we have in front of us and then we can get back into the larger discussion of our concerns and what improvements the government needs to make.

First, as I mentioned earlier, we are concerned that the legislation doesn’t align with previous Liberal promises. Now, I know that you and many people outside of this chamber are shocked to hear that the government’s promises are not always reflected in legislation, but there it is. Finding a way to duck out of their promises within legislation is actually kind of their specialty, and it doesn’t go unnoticed.

In August of 2015, the government put out a release that said, “Our goal is for every employee in Ontario to be part of the ORPP or a comparable workplace pension plan by 2020.” In January of 2016, however, the government’s press release read, “Today’s announcement brings the government closer to achieving its goal of ensuring that every eligible Ontario employee is part of the ORPP or a comparable workplace pension plan by 2020.” Hmm.

The legislation now confirms that a number of groups will neither have a workplace pension nor be a part of the ORPP. Given the close relationship between the federal and provincial governments, it’s unclear why a consensus has not been reached or cannot be reached.

In January 2016, Minister Sousa said, “We have a mandate from Ontarians, and they can’t wait any longer” for increased retirement security. In February of 2016, and now in legislation, it was announced that the first phase of contributions will begin in January 2018, not in 2017, as previously promised—a win for the business community.

In August 2015, the calculation of pension benefits was said to be based on a maximum of $90,000 in 2014 dollars. I’m going to say that again: $90,000 in 2014 dollars. Legislation shows that this is now $90,000 in 2017 dollars. Under the Liberals’ previous promise, in 2014 dollars, the maximum pensionable earnings would have been nearly $93,000 by 2017. We know that the greater the amount of money used in the calculation of pension benefits, the greater the future payout for Ontarians. So right out of the gate, we’re starting at $90,000, we’re keeping it at $90,000, but now we’ve changed from 2014 dollars to 2017 dollars, and we’re just shaving some of that benefit right off the top.

Budget 2016 states, “The province’s extensive consultations in developing the ORPP have helped to inform Ontario’s view that a CPP enhancement must be timely and provide a level of adequacy and targeted coverage that is consistent with the ORPP.” You’ll find that on page 151 of the budget, if you’re interested. It appears that the targeted approach of the ORPP will inform any potential enhancement of the CPP, when it should be the other way around.

It should be, as they had said initially, that the ORPP would be modelled after the CPP, but now we see in the budget that it’s the CPP enhancement that they want to see modelled after the ORPP. What remains unclear is whether the ORPP will in fact jeopardize the universality inherent in the CPP. That’s a pretty significant concern to leave up to the whims of the government on any given day at any given kitchen table.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I appreciate the opportunity, and I’m always humbled to stand in this chamber and speak at length about an issue that is so significant to all Ontarians and to our province as a whole. I am honoured to speak on behalf of the New Democrats and the rich history of support our party has shown to the pension movement in Ontario and across the country.

In 2009, New Democrats reached out to constituents all over the province to learn directly from Ontarians about what changes were needed in Ontario’s retirement system. While those consultations were more than just window dressing, unlike the government’s recent round of consultations, we ultimately came to the same conclusion. Despite the fact that the government opted not to support the Ontario retirement plan as proposed by the New Democratic Party in early 2010, we are pleased to see that they’ve come around and found the value in this concept and the need for proactive action.

Our work on fairness issues such as retirement security is what first attracted me to this party, and it’s because of the core principle of collective good that I am a New Democrat.

As a teacher, I was fortunate enough to find myself in an occupation that provided a good and reliable pension, and as a New Democrat, I believe that that opportunity should be extended to all people.

As New Democrats, we have always believed and will always believe that all Ontarians should have access to a strong defined benefit pension plan, and for those that don’t have one, it is our duty as representatives of this province to provide it.

Back to the legislation at hand: This bill follows a number of announcements made by the government over the course of the last year, as previously mentioned, and contains design elements related to contributions, benefits, plan sustainability and protection of funds, as well as administrative compliance and enforcement matters—lots of stuff. Additional plan design details, however, including those that have been previously announced, will be contained in regulations to come.

Let’s start with contributions, or who’s included, or, more significantly, who is excluded. Starting with inclusions—and if you’re not familiar with the plan, here’s a chance to learn: Ontarians aged 18 to 70 are eligible to participate in the ORPP. Therefore, the maximum period during which a plan member may contribute to the ORPP will be 52 years. Because you must have a job to be in the plan, which is another problem the government should pay more attention to—a person is considered employed in Ontario whether they work full-time or part-time, as long as they meet the minimum earning threshold of $3,500, if they are paid from an Ontario-based employer and meet all other

definitions to qualify.

For the exclusions: Ontarians working for the federal government. It is important to note that government jobs don’t always offer workplace pensions, particularly for—I need water. Just a second. I know I can talk for an hour, but normally I breathe.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Take your time.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I appreciate the notes as to how much time is left. Thank you. Are you not enjoying learning about pensions?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Yes, it’s great. It’s the fifth time I’ve learned.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: The seventh.

Interjections.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m being heckled from the other side. Pensions are among my favourite topics.

Interjections.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Yes, yes. In the New Democratic Party, we wear many hats and we care about all issues that are important to Ontarians.

Back to the exclusions: Who is left out of this plan? Ontarians working for the federal government are left out of this plan. It’s important to note that government jobs don’t always offer workplace pensions, particularly for those who are hired on a temporary or seasonal basis. For example, the Toronto Star recently found that 44% of the 10,682 jobs posted and filled in Ontario ministries in 2013-14 were temporary or seasonal, not including student summer jobs. That is a significant number, Madam Speaker, and it represents a large group of Ontarians that will be left to fend for themselves outside of this plan.

Another group excluded: employees already receiving an ORPP pension. Sounds a bit confusing: employees who are already receiving the ORPP pension benefit. As I mentioned earlier, Ontarians aged 18 to 70 are eligible to participate. For example, if someone is 70 but decided not to retire and to continue working—after 70, they will be collecting a pension. They are being excluded going forward.

This provision is unlike the recent changes introduced to the CPP. For individuals under 65 who are working while receiving their CPP retirement benefit, both the employee and employer will have to make CPP contributions. These contributions will increase the employee’s CPP retirement benefits. For individuals aged 65 to 70 who are working while receiving their CPP retirement pension, employees can choose to make CPP contributions. These contributions will increase the employee’s CPP retirement benefits. Under the ORPP, however, as I mentioned, these individuals will be unable to continue to contribute to the plan even should they continue to work past the age of 70.

Employees with earnings exempt under a tax treaty—for example, temporary foreign workers—are excluded. Also excluded: on-reserve First Nations workers, unless both the employer and employee elect otherwise. Also excluded: individuals who object to participation in the ORPP on religious grounds, which does mirror the CPP. Also excluded: an employee who takes a leave—for example, pregnancy, parental, personal emergency, family caregiver or family medical—under the Employment Standards Act, unless employees elect otherwise.

Most importantly, other groups to be determined under regulations will be excluded: those who are self-employed and those employed in areas under federal jurisdiction; for example, airlines, banks, post offices, radio and television stations, and interprovincial railways.

That was technical. But Speaker, this barely skims the surface of who will be excluded from the plan. Those are the technical exclusions. Now let’s talk about everybody else.

As the government continues to expand the definition of what constitutes a comparable workplace pension plan, we’re going to see more and more people left out and excluded. While it might seem alarmist to assume that they are going to continue to expand that definition—far be it from me to be an alarmist—we’ve watched them do it again and again with the announcements over the past year, so I think it’s a pretty fair assumption. But more on that later.

This bill also sets up some of the details surrounding contributions. However, much is left to regulation—so again with the technical. Contributory pensionable earnings are to be determined under regulations, with the following specifications: above the minimum earnings threshold of $3,500; below the maximum earnings threshold of $90,000 in 2017 dollars, as I mentioned—no longer, as previously announced, in 2014 dollars. This amount will be adjusted for inflation.

At this time, it is unclear if pensionable earnings will include both cash and non-cash earnings, including amounts beyond base salaries such as bonuses and commissions. We know that that will be left to regulations as well. In fairness, I asked about this in committee, but until we’ve seen it in writing—we’ll wait for it in regulations.

As we know, an equal contribution rate of 1.9% will be phased in for both employers and employees based on firm size. This amount may be adjusted to ensure plan sustainability. Madam Speaker, as I noted earlier, the timeline of the phase-in period has been adjusted once already, so we hope that the government is not going to feel inspired to further delay and further diminish.

This bill also stipulates a number of the duties of contributing employers, which include paying contributions on behalf of their eligible workers to the ORPP Administration Corp., collecting and remitting contributions from those workers, and keeping prescribed records.

This bill elaborates on the benefits under the plan, including: A member is entitled to be paid a lifetime pension from the ORPP. It will be paid in equal monthly instalments upon retirement. The annual amount of a member’s pension, once it starts being paid out, will be equal to the total of the pension benefits the member has accrued. This is calculated by multiplying a benefit accrual rate of 0.375% by the member’s pensionable earnings for the year.

Are you learning your technical details now? Okay.

Interjection.

Mr. Wayne Gates: The other side is happy.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m saying what’s in the plan, so yes—without political commentary.

The 0.375% has been determined based on a targeted income replacement rate of 15%.

If it’s a joint and survivor pension, the amount of the pension will be actuarially equivalent—that’s actuarially a hard word to say—to the value of a non-joint and survivor pension.

Upon the death of the member, the pension payable to the member’s surviving spouse will be 60% of the pension paid to the member during their joint lives. As a further definition included within the act, a spouse is defined as either of two persons who are married to each other or in a common-law relationship.

Pension benefits can be received when the member turns 60 at the earliest; at the latest, the pension benefits will be paid at 70, and the ORPP will begin paying benefits in 2022. Under special circumstances, the pension can be paid out earlier.

In order to make further contributions to the ORPP as an employee, a member who is being paid the pension may elect to suspend the payment of the pension. As you may expect, the amount of the resumed pension is to be determined under regulations. Everything seems to be going to be determined under regulations. I actually feel like “to be determined under regulations” could be this government’s catchphrase. It seems to give them the wiggle room that they so desperately need and it lets them punt the ball just a little further down the field so they can deal with it later.

Unfortunately, it means that we are forced to wait and trust the government, which I’ve learned in my time here is not an advisable idea. That’s not a good idea.

When we trust the government, they tell us things like, “We have no intention of selling Ontario’s assets,” and then we find Hydro One on the chopping block just a few months later. Perhaps “Ontario for sale” could also be another applicable catchphrase for this government. But once again, I digress.

Speaker, I have laid out a number of details, and there are more. But do you know what? I’m going to stop because I’m tired of reading the specifics here.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Aw.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I know the minister was enjoying that, and that’s also really why I’m stopping.

As you can see and as you have heard, we’ve received some further details but we await the mountain of regulations to come and hope that the government doesn’t look for new ways to water down the plan and exclude more Ontarians while we wait.

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, it is my privilege and responsibility to speak, as the NDP critic for pensions, on behalf of the two thirds of Ontarians who do not have a workplace pension, and to speak for those who deserve to feel secure in their retirement.

I also speak for the yet-to-be-determined number of Ontarians who are going to be left out of this plan and who are being excluded from this opportunity—Ontarians who could benefit from this plan, just as the plan could benefit from their enrolment; but alas, it will not.

Pensions have always been a vital piece of our economic stability and cornerstone of financial security in retirement. Ontarians deserve the right to retire with dignity, and the next generation is not going to be taken care of. That’s why something does have to be done. That’s why New Democrats advocated for an enhanced public pension system for years. Two thirds of Ontarians don’t have a workplace pension. Some Ontarians with insufficient workplace pensions still will struggle into retirement.

It’s difficult to imagine that the majority of our aging population will not have the resources to pay their own way, to afford housing, to buy necessities, to contribute to the economy or to live with dignity. That’s a pretty grim reality that we’re facing. Just the other day I had the opportunity to speak about predatory lending; when we are reminded of the financial opportunities or financial options for individuals living in communities that struggle or are in significant need—when those are their financial options, we wonder why retirement is not something that they can plan for—or rather we don’t wonder.

When we see that those are their avenues, we realize we need to be building ways forward.

We have a retirement savings crisis in Ontario. We know that. Whether we’re talking about retiring seniors, those in the prime of their working lives, or the next crop of workers to come, we really do need to do more. In 2012, the median income for Ontarians over 65 was $26,720, or $2,227 per month. Putting that in perspective, the average monthly cost for seniors’ housing in Ontario last year was over $2,750. That’s more than $500 short every month. That’s only taking housing into account, and that’s using average numbers; that’s not using real people and real specifics. People are struggling, and we cannot allow this to be the future for our seniors.

And that’s our seniors. What about our youth? The government simply isn’t doing enough to address youth employment in this province, and that is immensely worrying. Talk is cheap. We talked earlier about—we talk and talk and talk. We’ve been talking about pension security; we’ve been talking about retirement security. The number of hours that we have spent in this Legislature focusing on the ORPP—if we could spend a fraction of that time speaking about the strategy to address youth unemployment, imagine what we could talk about. Then we’d have to put that into action.

As I said, talk is cheap. Not only do we need to take action now, but we have to plan for the future. How on earth can our youth, without stable employment—or sometimes without any employment—start to save for retirement when they can’t even pay their tuition bills today, when they can’t pay for child care and when they can’t find affordable housing? Debt continues to balloon, jobs just don’t appear, and future stability is not on the horizon. If their own government doesn’t have a strong plan for the future, how on earth can the youth of today be expected to plan for themselves?

I’m pleased to serve Ontario, as I said, as the NDP pension critic. I fully appreciated and enjoyed attempting to hold this Liberal government to account when it comes to the future financial stability of workers, whether they’re General Motors pensioners in my riding of Oshawa or Ontarians across all of our constituencies.

How am I for time?

M me France Gélinas: Five minutes.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay. It’s a lot easier just to relax into an hour and know you’ve got the full time, and not be sort of waiting. But I will continue.

We implore this government to design and implement a progressive public pension plan for hard-working people across Ontario who deserve one, and stop focusing on exceptions and exemptions, and focusing on helping more Ontarians. Since the beginning of these conversations, we’ve been essentially begging them to bring more people in who they wouldn’t consider universal. They wanted to leave others out and try and make everyone happy, and the thing is that when you try and make everyone happy, nobody’s really happy at all. We could have had an opportunity here to bring everyone in to really create something strong, universal and public, but anyway, that wasn’t their choice.

As we said before, all Ontarians—and that isn’t a changeable definition: “All” means “all”—deserve the right to retire with dignity. I am here today to remind the government to keep this principle at the forefront as we continue to debate the details of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

As I said, Madam Speaker, New Democrats are supportive of a public pension plan. We recognize that Ontarians need the kind of fundamental change that will address a fundamentally changing workplace, that will keep up with the fundamentally increasing cost of living. Part of that involves ensuring that all workers in the province have a pension plan and that no one should be left behind. Everybody in the province deserves to retire with dignity and to share in the benefits of an Ontario public pension plan.

As I’ve said before, we are concerned that the legislation doesn’t align with what the Liberals had previously promised in terms of eligibility and in terms of implementation timelines and benefit payments.

We hope that the Premier, as I’ve said, will continue to push their federal counterparts—their federal cousins—to expand the Canada Pension Plan. Like everyone else, we are waiting to see if the Prime Minister does actually follow through. We’re waiting to see what the CPP enhancement might look like.

The CPP is a universal plan. I keep coming back to that because the ORPP is not. The CPP is a universal plan that covers all Canadians, including those working for the federal government and the self-employed. The ORPP is targeted towards those workers who don’t have a comparable workplace pension plan.

It is important to recognize, though, that all of the deviations, all of the ways that the ORPP differs from the CPP, whether it’s tiny little design detail or a broader piece, are going to make it more difficult to integrate—seamlessly or otherwise, but even potentially to integrate at all—into a future CPP enhancement. I keep coming back to it: If this government truly prioritized strengthening retirement income security for all Ontarians, then in addition to the ORPP, it really should be making sure that Ontario pensioners are put first.

If they really do want to strengthen security in retirement for Ontarians and Canadians, they should bear that in mind: that as they’re putting forward these details, that’s going to have an impact on that future CPP enhancement.

Madam Speaker, I’m pleased to stand to talk about pensions. I thank the minister for putting forward yet another bill for us to debate at length and for the opportunity to speak today. Coming out of the public sector—specifically, education—I do know the value of a pension. Pensioners know the value of a pension. Those who work and wonder how they will survive or thrive after their working years know the value of a pension.

I appreciate that I have come to the end of my time for today, and I look forward to continuing my remarks about the importance of pensions in Ontario. As I’ve said, this is such an important conversation—one of my favourites to have. Thank you for the time today, Madam Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it’s almost 10:15, we’re going to recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce Lori Synes Taraba, a volunteer with the Niagara cancer society. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, to my pleasant surprise, some of our friends from the Turkish community are present in the members’ east gallery, led by the new Turkish consul general, Erdeniz Şen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome from my riding Carole Watson and Nancy Irving, with the Canadian Cancer Society, hiding way at the back. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to introduce two young students from the University of Windsor who are here today with the Canadian Cancer Society: Kamal Mann and Lindsey Bakos. Thank you for being here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to acknowledge our page captain, Christina Vadivelu, this morning. Her mother, Ramya, and father, Clement, are here in the gallery to see their daughter in action. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s a pleasure to introduce Senator Thanh Ngo, who has been an inspiration to Vietnamese Canadians. He’s here with us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome, Senator.

Further introductions?

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce Mark Donahue, Alison Payne and Kendra Willis from the cancer society of Peterborough. They’re in the east public gallery today.

Mrs.

Julia Munro: I’m very pleased to be able to recognize representatives of the following organizations who are here today to celebrate Journey to Freedom Day: The Republic of Vietnam Veterans Association of Ontario; the Vietnamese Association Toronto; the Vietnamese Canadian Federation; the Vietnamese Association of Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph-Cambridge; the Vietnamese Women’s Association of Toronto; Golden Age Village for the Elderly; the Elderly Vietnamese Association of Mississauga; the Vietnamese Canadian Voting and Advocacy Association; VOICE Canada; Free Vietnamese Canadian Community Association of Ottawa; the Committee to Support Vietnam’s Human Rights and Democracy; Alliance for Democracy in Vietnam, Canada chapter; Phan Boi Chau youth organization; the Vietnamese Canadian Pharmacists’ Association of Toronto; Phap Van Vietnamese Buddhist Cultural Centre of Ontario; Vietnamese Hoa Hao Buddhism in Greater Toronto Area; Hoa Tinh Thuong Toronto; and Quang Ngai Friendship Association of Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They are all here to represent—

Interjection: Everyone’s here today, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of a filibuster during introductions.

The leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m pleased to welcome a couple of people from the Canadian Cancer Society who are from my riding: Kalasian Kalaichelvan and Linda Wu. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I hope you enjoy your day here.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Mr. Erdeniz Şen, consul general of Turkey. He is visiting us with members from the community: Dr. Mehmet Bor, president of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations; Mr. Celal Uçar, president of the Turkish Culture and Folklore Society of Canada; Mrs. Yildiz Ünsal, treasurer of the Turkish Federation Community Foundation; Mr. Ismail Vataner, past president of the Turkic Assembly of Canada; Mr. Nazif Kurt, vice-president of the Turkish Culture and Folklore Society of Canada; and Mrs.

Nuriye Astalos, the director of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations. They are in the House today on the occasion of the multicultural children’s day festival proclamation. There’s a reception at Queen’s Park today.

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

The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Councillor Doug Measures, Councillor Kevin Elwood and Mr. Chuck Magwood. They’re all here for the wind turbine debate this afternoon. I also welcome Ian Adams from Metroland Media Group, located in my riding.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature Mr. Paul Elliott, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. Welcome, Paul.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Page Harry Blackwell has some people here for us to meet today: his dad, Geoff Blackwell; his brother, Jack Blackwell; and his grandmother, Joan Blackwell. Please give them a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We have three North Bay guests from the Canadian Cancer Society: Mr. Gil Pharand, Katelyn Haddow and “The Debster.”

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to introduce four people today. Bonnie Kraft is the president of the Aurora Cultural Centre, Laura Schembri is the executive director of the Aurora Cultural Centre, and David Schembri is Laura’s partner. Also in the House, Mr. Speaker, is Janice Hodgson. Janice is the regional representative for south-central Ontario and represents the region as a member of the Canadian Cancer Society’s Ontario board of directors.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome three members from the Canadian Cancer Society, Hastings-Prince Edward and Brighton branch: Karen White, Amy Doyle and Jeff Brace.

Also, I had the pleasure of having breakfast with Jan Hopkins from Carleton Place, who is with us this morning, and Lucas Rodrigues, one of the youth advocates from Ajax. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to introduce five people from the Canadian Cancer Society in eastern Ontario who are here with us today: Laura Lafantaisie, Terri McNamara, Byron James, Roger Martin and Theresa Crossan.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a warm welcome to Doug Kane, the manager of the Canadian Cancer Society Frontenac Lennox and Addington and the Waterways community office.

I would also like to wish a big hoş geldiniz to our friends from the Turkish community: Mr. Erdeniz Şen, Dr. Mehmet Bor, Mrs. Yildiz Ünsal, Mr. Ismail Vataner and Mrs. Nuriye Astalos. Hoş geldiniz.

Hon. David Zimmer: On behalf of Brad Duguid, Scarborough Centre, I would like to acknowledge the page captain from his riding, Diluk Ramachandra; his mother, Ruwani Ramachandra; and his father, Tiddy Ramachandra.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m very happy to see two very good friends from Ottawa visiting the chamber today: Senator and Mrs. Ngo. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I am delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park today four representatives from Kitchener Centre and surrounding areas who are here with the Canadian Cancer Society. They are Diane Hawrylenko, Karen Griffiths, Nicole Amorim and Sara Orrell. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would also like to welcome Karen White and Jeff Brace, from the wonderful riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, here on behalf of cancer.

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to welcome grade 10 students from Dr. Norman Bethune, along with their teacher, Alison Rimell. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

Seeing none, the member from Ottawa South on a point of order.

Wearing of pins

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe that you will find we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear daffodils in recognition of cancer awareness month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Ottawa South is seeking unanimous consent to wear daffodils for this month. Do we agree? Agreed. To the people who are wearing them, it’s now legitimate.

The Minister of Labour on a point of order.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, I think you will find we have unanimous consent that all members of the House be permitted to wear pins in recognition of the National Day of Mourning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Labour is seeking unanimous consent to wear pins for the National Day of Mourning. Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from York–Simcoe on a point of order.

Wearing of scarves

Mrs. Julia Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request unanimous consent to wear the red-and-yellow freedom scarves in the House today. It is to mark the Journey to Freedom Day next Saturday, April 30, to celebrate the journey to freedom of Vietnamese Ontarians, as well as to reflect on the many contributions that they continue to make to Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from York–Simcoe is seeking unanimous consent to wear the scarves. Do we agree? Agreed.

Just before we do that, I’m going to ask that the front benches not hang them over, because it is not considered to be appropriate, and a reminder that you should get unanimous consent to wear anything other than what you’re normally allowed to. It’s a reminder for some people who have been putting these things on beforehand. I appreciate your co-operation in that.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. On May 1, hydro rates will rise again and life will get even harder under the Liberals, despite the Minister of Finance trying to convince everyone that hydro prices are going down. I’m still shaking my head about that. Why would everyone pay more for their hydro bills because Ontario families use less energy? Only in the Liberal government’s Ontario. I actually thought it was a joke the first time I heard it.

Does the Premier think it’s okay for families and seniors to pay more when they are using less?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Individually, those people would pay less who use less. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the Ontario Energy Board is an independent regulator with a mandate to protect the interests of Ontario ratepayers—

Interjections.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Kick them all out.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not helpful, Minister. But I am going to say that I will not tolerate outbursts like yesterday.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Energy conservation is proven to be successful and provides savings for consumers on every bill. The time-of-use pricing offers opportunities for savings. I would also say to the member opposite that the programs that we have put in place to help low-income seniors and other residents of the province are designed exactly to help those people that I hope the Leader of the Opposition is talking about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: A letter to the editor in the North Bay Nugget hit the nail on the head. There are some smart folks in North Bay. Murray Byers wrote to the paper and he said that he thought the goal was to reduce electricity use. Yet, he continued—and this is his letter to editor—“when electricity consumption actually declines, the knee-jerk reaction ... is to increase rates.”

Just yesterday, the Premier announced $43 million in funding for energy retrofits to improve energy efficiency. Yet under the Liberal government, that means higher energy prices for everyone.

Can the Premier explain? Are the people of Ontario supposed to conserve energy or are they supposed to use more energy so their hydro rates don’t go up? You’ve created an impossible situation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said before, individual consumers who conserve pay less on their energy bills.

The investments that have been made in the electricity system to make sure that we have a reliable electricity system—a clean grid—are investments that were needed because of years of neglect in the electricity system. We’ve been rebuilding this system. When we came into office in 2003, there were brownouts and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Next time I stand, I may have to move immediately into warnings, and if that’s what’s requested, it will happen.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like the member from Simcoe–Grey to come to order, at least when I’m standing.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member who was muttering under his breath might want to explain why there had not been investment in transmission lines and why there had not been an upgrading of the grid for the whole time that he was in office.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier. Hydro bills can be summed up like this in Ontario: You use too much energy, you pay more; you conserve energy, you pay more. No matter what, under this Liberal government, you pay more. They try to muddy the waters; they try to confuse the issue. The reality is, they have messed up hydro prices in Ontario, they have messed up the energy sector, and they are responsible for it.

No matter what, because of this Liberal government, you pay more for electricity and life gets harder. They’ve already overcharged Ontario, according to the AG, by $37 billion, and we lost almost $3.5 billion in energy over the last two years because of overproduction. If Ontarians unplug their TVs, turn off their lights and keep the AC off, they still pay more.

How much longer does the Premier expect the people of Ontario to subsidize power for other provinces and other states? It’s ridiculous.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve taken strong action to mitigate the costs of energy for families and businesses and to introduce new programs to lower costs. The Ontario Electricity Support Program, which supports low-income families, has benefited almost 80,000 households in Ontario.

We shut down the coal plants. We’ve invested in the electricity system in this province. We don’t have smog days. It’s a clean grid. This party opposite is filibustering the climate change bill in committee, because, actually, they don’t believe in clean energy. They don’t believe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. It’s coming from both sides.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: They actually have no commitment to making sure that we maintain a clean electricity grid. We don’t know if they would reopen coal plants, but what we do know is that they’re not interested in climate change action. They’re not interested in it today, and they weren’t interested in it when they were in office.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The only strong action this government is taking is subsidizing hydro rates in Manitoba, Quebec, New York and Michigan. The only filibuster that is happening is by the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Climate Change, who had to amend his own bill 70 times because he bungled the drafting of his own bill.

Let me read to you another note, this one from Matt Barbeau from Sault Ste. Marie. He wrote on our Facebook page. He has a cottage that is unoccupied in winter months and uses no power, but it costs him more than his home in town that he lives in year-round.

I know the government wants to laugh about this. They’re insensitive to the bills that people are struggling to pay. But the reality is, this is happening everywhere. So my question is, why are you putting hard-working Ontarians in this position? Why can’t you get the hydro sector right?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am extremely sensitive to the needs of the people in this province for a clean, predictable electricity system—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: And reliable.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that is reliable, that allows people and businesses to count on that electricity grid.

I’m also very sensitive to the fact that there are low-income and low-middle-income families in this province who need support, which is exactly why the Ontario Energy Support Program has been put in place, which is exactly why the northern industrial energy rate is put in place and which is exactly why there are electricity and property tax credits put in place for seniors. Those programs are all designed to help people to be able to deal with energy costs.

But I’m also sympathetic to kids with asthma who need clean air. That’s why we shut down the coal plants, that’s why we’ve made the investments, and that’s why we have a clean grid in this province.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The Premier said that they’re delivering predictable—“predictable” is the word she used—hydro prices. When you give away $3.5 billion of power in two years, the only predictable prices you’re getting are in Manitoba, Quebec, New York and Michigan, because of your government.

How about Ontario? How about we start helping individuals in Ontario?

Joanne MacDonald Schroeder wrote us a note, and she said she has two properties up north, one on a vacant lot that has no power at all. The one lot did, however, have a hydro pole. They got a bill—no hydro, but they got a bill for a $179 delivery fee.

My question for the Premier is: Are these bills that you’re sending out, these charges to hard-working Ontarians—is that to pay for the $4-million salary you just gave Ontario’s hydro CEO, the highest salary in Canada for a hydro CEO?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will just say to the member opposite that we have worked very, very hard to upgrade the electricity system in this province that needed to be upgraded, that was not reliable. It certainly wasn’t a clean grid, and it had been neglected. Over 10,000 kilometres of line have been built because that had not been done under the previous government.

There was a cost associated with moving off of coal. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to move back to coal, he’d better be clear about that with the people of the province. This afternoon, one of his members is going to be talking about the evils of wind power. One of his members is going to talk about how she doesn’t believe—

Mr. Todd Smith: On a runway.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And if the member chooses to speak again as soon as I ask him to stop, then I’ll give him a warning.

A wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: She’s going to talk about how she doesn’t believe in clean renewable power, and her colleagues are filibustering at committee on a climate change bill because they don’t believe in that either.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Sarnia–Lambton will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, the drive-by smears in Whitby–Oshawa on coal didn’t work, and they’re not going to work right now. We need to address the facts. The fact is, hydro bills are going up beyond belief.

Abe Eberly wrote me a note to say that his hydro bill was $98 a month in the summer, two years ago, and now they are paying $220 a month. This is in less than three years. He can’t afford it. It’s not right.

Although the Minister of Finance says hydro bills are going down, I want to ask the Premier directly: Do you believe in the Minister of Finance’s fantasy world where hydro bills are going down across Ontario, or do you recognize the fact that bills are going up, through the roof, because of your government’s incompetence?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It doesn’t really matter where you sit in the House.

Just a reminder: To the Chair, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, this Leader of the Opposition, who is out of step with the 150 countries that are in New York today reaffirming their commitment to climate change reduction—this leader, whose members are going to fight renewable energy tooth and nail, can stay on that path if that is his choice.

What the Minister of Finance said is that we have a long-term energy plan and that the rates are not increasing at the speed that we had laid out because we are applying downward pressure to those electricity rates. We have competitive rates, if you look at our neighbouring jurisdictions.

We are going to continue to make the investments in our electricity system—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that will keep it clean, that will keep it renewable. We are going to continue to fight climate change—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Just not affordable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t mind the exercise, but if you make me get up right after I sit down, then I’ll do it. The member from Nipissing, come to order.

You have one sentence, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are going to fight climate change.

As the Deputy Premier said, what price does the Leader of the Opposition put on asthma?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, may I start by asking MPPs in the chamber, and others, to thank and congratulate the legislative library staff on 30 years of fantastic service with our press clippings, Toronto Press Today?

Electoral reform

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The leaders of three of Ontario’s largest political parties, together with Democracy Watch and newspaper editorial boards, are all calling for an inclusive, non-partisan process for reforming party and election financing laws in our province. Does this Premier believe that the Green Party, Democracy Watch and the editorial boards are all trying to stall meaningful reform?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have put forward a process that is the definition of democratic because it is the way this Legislature operates. This is a democratically elected Legislature. There is a process in place whereby legislation is introduced, is consulted upon. We’ve expanded that process by proposing that we send the legislation after it’s introduced to consultation after first reading.

My hope was that the House leaders were going to be able to agree on how there might be input from the opposition parties before the legislation was drafted. I still hope that may happen. I look forward to the consultation, where we will get commentary on many of the things where there is consensus, in terms of the banning of union and corporate donations. But we’ll get refinement on those because I know that there are opinions around the province, and we look forward to hearing those.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier wants to have new election rules in place by January 2017, and I don’t disagree. In fact, I told her that directly. Ontario can have, however, a non-partisan panel that includes political parties and civil society recommend those new rules, and we can have legislation based on those recommendations, drafted and passed, well in advance of January 2017’s deadline. It is a timely process, but more importantly—most importantly—it is a process that is credible and will be respected by Ontarians.

Will this Premier abandon her efforts to control this process in favour of the Liberal Party of Ontario and agree to start the ball rolling today on a non-partisan, open and transparent process that the people of Ontario are now demanding?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party wants to continue to talk about process. I understand that. She wants to go through a process and then, after that, introduce legislation and then, after that, have another consultation, which will drag out the process. I understand that for her own political reasons, she wants to continue to have that conversation.

What we want to do is get going. We want to get the legislation drafted. I would love to have input from the opposition leaders. I would love to have input before the legislation is drafted, and then we can send the legislation out for consultation—because there are a lot of questions associated with what should be in that legislation. I would love to hear from the leader of the third party, for example, whether she thinks, as I’ve proposed, that we should introduce leadership and nomination campaign spending limits and donation rules.

I’d love to know if she thinks we should reform by-election rules and what we should do in terms of by-elections that may be coming up sooner rather than later. I haven’t heard from her on those things.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I would love to know if this Premier actually believes in the tenets of an open democracy. That’s what I would love to know, because it certainly doesn’t look that way.

It is disappointing in the extreme that this Premier continues to hold this untenable position around election finance reform. The Liberal Party actually used to believe that it was anti-democratic for one party and one Premier to unilaterally change election laws. A lot changes after 12 years in power, apparently, because now this Premier is doing her best to discredit anyone who questions her unilateral plan to change Ontario’s election rules to favour the Liberal—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please, leader?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —to favour the Liberal Party of Ontario.

As one newspaper editorial wrote, changes will be “best delivered through consultation and co-operation, not bulldozing.” That’s exactly what I’m calling for, what the Conservatives are calling for, what the Green Party is calling for, what Democracy Watch is calling for.

When will the Premier stop trying to—

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What is kind of interesting in here is that the third party seems to think that they are immune to the issue of fundraising. I strongly disagree with that. In fact, let’s just review some of the very special events that have been hosted by the leader of the third party.

There was one at the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts—I bet it was wonderful—limited to 10 guests, $9,975 per person. But you know what? If you couldn’t make it to that one, there was a private stakeholder social at the Gardiner Museum—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Tonight.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: No, it was actually a year ago. It was—

Mr. Paul Miller: There’s one time it was—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek can do a walk-by heckling all he wants; I’m still going to call him on it.

Answer, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Ten lucky guests paid a bargain basement $9,975 to attend. I’m sure it was lovely—

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

New question.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Courts have ruled that the Liberal government violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with Bill 115. Will this Premier take this opportunity to apologize to parents, students and education workers for trampling on collective bargaining rights and throwing our schools into chaos?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The decision is being reviewed, obviously. It has just come down.

When I ran for leadership in 2012-13, I was very clear that I had problems with Bill 115. Bill 115 has been repealed. We have established a new bargaining process. We are working with the education sector. I believe that the move away from Bill 115 was exactly the right thing to do.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When the Liberal government introduced Bill 115, this Premier said that “everyone did what they thought they needed to do.” Actually, everyone, from teachers to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, including New Democrats, knew that Bill 115 was unconstitutional.

Now can this Premier explain to families thrown into chaos in 2012 why she was part of a cabinet that chose to put political grandstanding and the political interests of her political party ahead of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rights of people to free collective bargaining in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I will say again that I was very clear when I ran to be the leader of this party—I was very clear—that I was not happy with Bill 115. I was not happy with the relationship with the education sector. My career has been built on partnerships within the education sector, on the management and the employee side. I will stand up any day for the education sector, and that is how I got to this place. That’s how I will continue.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Some things never change when it comes to Liberal self-interest, particularly in terms of their timing. Yesterday, the court ordered the province to discuss the remedies for violating the charter with Bill 115. The Liberals were warned in 2012 that Bill 115 would end up costing our province, and it has in many ways. The only reason that Ontarians will be on the hook for paying remedies is because the Liberal government thought that trampling on teachers’ bargaining rights would help them win a by-election in Kitchener–Waterloo.

How much is this Liberal government’s self-serving decision going to cost the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, the decision is being reviewed.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Did you vote for Bill 115?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The heckling from the other side is, “Did I vote for Bill 115?” I was a member of a cabinet and I was working to the very best of my ability to do what—

Mr. John Yakabuski: So you sold out your principles to stay in cabinet? Wow.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the reality—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The point I’m making is that at the first opportunity, when I ran in the leadership, I made it very clear that we were going to make changes if I was elected leader. We’ve made those changes, and I will continue to work with the education sector to the very best of my ability.

Autism treatment

Mrs. Gila Martow: To the Premier: Last Friday, the Premier met Cliff McIntosh from my riding of Thornhill at the autism rally held at her constituency office. I’m sure the Premier will agree that Cliff very clearly and ably communicated the progress he made as a result of starting IBI therapy over the age of five.

Does the Premier agree Cliff clearly communicated the benefits of IBI beyond the age of five?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was very happy to meet Cliff. There were a couple of other people at my office, and I was happy to have an opportunity to talk with them and to make it clear that I’d be happy to talk with them again. I think Laura was one of them. I’m happy to have a further conversation with her.

I also made it clear that what we are doing is making sure that as children come off of wait-lists, where they are not getting service, we will move them into service that has the intensity that is right for them, to a program that is tailor-made for them, and that there is a transition plan as they come off the waiting list.

I think some of the fear-mongering that has gone on is that somehow, they’re coming off a waiting list and there is nothing that will happen. That’s not the reality. The reality is that as these children who are not getting service come off the waiting list into a transition, they are getting service as part of that transition. To my mind, that is much more important than languishing on a waiting list and getting no service whatsoever.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Back to the Premier: Cliff is still waiting for your call. You promised that you would have a further conversation and that hasn’t happened.

The Premier spoke to Cliff. She saw how well Cliff articulated the benefits he received from IBI therapy after the age of five.

According to your own ministry documents, 85% of the kids currently receiving IBI therapy are over the age of five—85% of children who will now be removed from this critical therapy simply because they’ve had a birthday. Families are being told their children are being removed from IBI therapy May 1—removal; no transition plan. Your transition plan is to transition kids onto another waiting list.

Premier, it’s never too late to do the right thing. Announce today you are reversing your decision and allow kids over five, kids like Cliff, to access IBI therapy.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I think it’s important to recognize that children who are receiving IBI services today are not being removed from service. They are being assessed by clinical experts at their next—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Take a look at the Speaker.

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. This is a very important point: that children who are getting IBI will be assessed at their next scheduled clinical assessment. A transition plan will be developed. If they need more intensive services, they’re going to get that service. We will make sure that the plans are very flexible and individual, based on that child’s needs. That’s the intention of the new program—

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

New question.

Tenant protection

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker. My question this morning is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Good morning, Minister.

Last week, the government quietly sent around a proposal that stripped tenants of some of their rights. The proposal was sent to just four stakeholder groups and not released to the public. The groups were given just one week to provide feedback. The document basically blamed tenants for the lack of affordable housing in Ontario. The solution, according to the government, is to give landlords more powers to evict people.

Speaker, can the government provide one shred of evidence or any peer-reviewed study, other than the anecdotes of a few landlords, showing that more evictions could create new affordable housing units in Ontario?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, Minister—good morning, member from Windsor–Tecumseh—

Hon. Liz Sandals: Member.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Member. I always appreciate the member’s questions, because they’re usually substantive and thoughtfully put, and I appreciate that.

In a perfect world, we’d have—

Mr. Randy Hillier: You’d have no Liberals.

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As sharp as that is, the member from Lanark will come to order.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I remind the member that we’re still on this side of the House.

In a perfect world, we’d have perfect landlords and we’d have perfect tenants, and we’d have no need at all for a Landlord and Tenant Board, because everything would be fine. But until we live in that perfect world, we need the Landlord and Tenant Board and the protections that it affords. We’re proud of the protections we’ve provided for both landlords and tenants in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: There could be many reasons why people aren’t creating more affordable secondary suites to rent to tenants. Restrictive zoning bylaws and high property taxes come to mind. But the government says, “No, the real problem is tenants. The solution is more evictions.”

By the way, Speaker, it just so happens that the third-biggest campaign donor in Ontario is a lobby group representing—wait for it, wait for it—landlords. Why is the minister basing his affordable housing policy on the anecdotes of Liberal campaign donors and not on facts and objective analysis?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: There are a number of potential remedies that can help us to increase and enhance the availability of social and affordable housing. There have been some advocates on the other side, and we’ve embraced their advocacy around inclusive zoning, secondary units and what have you.

The comments and reflections in the consultation paper are not our proposals. They’re things we’ve heard from the sectors. The fact that we sent it out to four groups: It was a pre-consultation release sent to four groups that we knew would have an interest who might help us to shape the consultation papers. That’s a standard process when you’re doing government policy.

We’re going to be moving ahead. We’re going to be looking at potential changes to the Landlord and Tenant Board and better remedies that will make processes more fair, introduce new protections for both tenants and landlords, and make it easier for small landlords to stay in the game.

Mining industry

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question this morning is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Our government is continuously working to support the mining industry in northern Ontario. I understand that our government recently announced a renewed Mineral Development Strategy that will provide a blueprint for how we will build on our industry’s well-earned global reputation.

As the minister knows, the mining landscape is constantly evolving, and you can just look in my riding of Sudbury, with great mining companies that are continuing to evolve. Recognizing this changing landscape and the importance of the mineral sector to Ontario’s future is a key part of the Mineral Development Strategy.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please update this House on what this government is doing to enhance our ongoing support for the mining industry in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to thank the member from Sudbury for the question.

He’s absolutely right: The mineral industry is so critical for Ontario, particularly for communities in northern Ontario. Ontario accounts for over 25% of mining jobs in Canada—26,000 directly; 50,000 indirectly—and the mineral sector is also the largest private sector employer of aboriginal peoples in Canada. In addition, Ontario is also the leading jurisdiction for the exploration and the production of minerals in Canada and remains a major player around the world.

We are committed to attracting new investment and supporting innovation in the mineral exploration and development sector. In fact, Mr. Speaker, just recently we announced that the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. will be investing $5 million in the Junior Exploration Assistance Program, which will help exploration and certainly will be part of our renewed mineral development strategy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this government is committed to developing the mineral exploration industry in Ontario. The mining industry is critical to communities like my own, as it helps support more than 26,000 direct and 50,000 indirect jobs.

Funding a program to assist junior exploration will provide financial assistance to qualified individuals carrying out exploration activities. Minister, I understand that recently the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. awarded the Ontario Prospectors Association $5 million in funding to create an incentive program called the Junior Exploration Assistance Program, or JEAP. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell us more about the Junior Exploration Assistance Program and the significance of this very important investment?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: This is really a great program. We recognize the challenges in this sector, particularly the junior exploration sector, and we want to be able to provide much-needed financial support to see more of those projects come forward.

Building on the core expertise of the Ontario Prospectors Association, the Junior Exploration Assistance Program, or JEAP, and the funds associated with it will be administered directly by the OPA, the prospectors’ association, to junior exploration companies across the north. The $5-million investment to this program, we believe, can support more than 45 exploration projects. This will clearly help promote long-term competitiveness and continue to attract jobs and investment. We are excited about this program, Mr. Speaker. It will help support a healthy, competitive and sustainable mineral sector, another part of our plan to build Ontario up.

Police oversight

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Attorney General. It was disturbing to hear that, for over a month, a significant SIU report sat gathering dust in your office. The report was an investigation into the fatal shooting of an individual here in Toronto. The SIU investigators did their job, the SIU director did his job, yet the Attorney General could not be bothered to do hers.

To have the chief law officer of this province ignore this report for so long is tantamount to wilfully frustrating justice. It clearly demonstrates confused priorities, a lack of compassion and an absence of sympathy, and erodes the public’s confidence in her office.

Speaker, why did the Attorney General not read the report herself the moment she received it and demonstrate the utmost respect not only of her office, but, more importantly, to a grieving family?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to assure the House that I was very well briefed—twice—on this report and that I’ve read the report.

Mr. Speaker, public confidence in the transparency of police oversight is a priority for our government. We recognize that there are concerns about the current process. We have a responsibility to ensure—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: —that the public interest is being served. That’s why we have committed to a public consultation. It is our objective that the review and public consultation would guide, among other things, when and how best to release the report. We will be appointing a reviewer as soon as possible; we have announced that. My ministry will begin consultations on police oversight in the coming weeks.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Attorney General: My question was about why she didn’t do it. This is not just another government report full of numbers and figures. It’s an investigation into why someone died. A father, a husband, a son, a person was killed. It is deserving of immediacy, not briefs.

The Attorney General’s lack of action and compassion has brought clouds of doubt over her office, embarrassed her colleagues in law enforcement and exposed her inability to fulfill her duties.

Were there just too many ribbons to cut, fundraisers to attend or cheques to cash? Can the Attorney General explain to this House what was so important that it took priority over this investigation and justified her turning her back not just on the family of Mr. Loku but on all of Ontario?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I have heard the concerns in the community. I have heard the concerns from everyone, from all our stakeholders, that the process needs to be reviewed. I heard it from the SIU. I heard it from the police officers. I heard it from the community, from Black Lives Matter—I’ve heard it.

That’s why we will initiate this consultation to find when and how best to release the report. It’s important that people feel good and are reassured about what is in the report that they cannot see. That’s the question that is being asked. We wanted to answer the concerns of the public. The consultation will help us to find when and how best to release the report.

Cancer treatment

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Today, members of the Canadian Cancer Society, cancer survivors and their families are with us at Queen’s Park. They can tell you that no one fighting cancer should have to fight for drug coverage as well.

Yet in Ontario today, the costs of cancer drugs taken in hospitals are publicly covered; the costs of cancer drugs taken at home are not. Patients are forced to pay out of pocket for their life-saving medication or fight for reimbursement through personal insurance or Trillium. The problem has gotten so bad, Speaker, that one in six cancer patients in this province say that their out-of-pocket drug costs are significant or even unmanageable.

Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia all do the right thing: They cover the cost of cancer drugs taken at home. Ontario should do the same. Will the Premier do the right thing and extend full public coverage for cancer drugs taken at home?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question and welcome the many members from the Canadian Cancer Society who are joining us here today. They know and we all, I think, recognize that Ontario is a leader in cancer care, not just in Canada but around the world. We have one of the best chances of survival of anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker, and we cover more than 3,800 drugs to fight cancer.

We have added to that new drug funding amounting to more than $1.5 billion in the last decade. We have in fact tripled the amount of money that we invest in cancer-fighting drugs. We have added 57 new cancer drugs to our formulary in the last decade, and 33 oral treatments as well, in reference to the question of the member opposite.

We know that there’s more work to be done. CCO, Cancer Care Ontario, is working on this together with my ministry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, it has been a year and a half since Cancer Care Ontario released a report that called for equitable access to cancer drugs, regardless of whether they were administered in the hospital or at home. The ministers have had this report for a year and a half. This report says, “Public drug coverage for take-home cancer medications should align with the funding model for hospital-administered drugs....” It’s simple as that, Speaker.

Cancer patients have been waiting for a year and a half for this Liberal government to act. They are tired of waiting. They are frustrated. They cannot afford to keep paying out of pocket for drugs they need to literally save their lives. Will the Premier and the minister stop stalling, stop delaying and provide full public coverage for at-home cancer drugs?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As a government and as a ministry, we do everything we can to provide the highest quality of care, including for cancer patients around this province. I know that there’s more work to be done. We’re well aware of the Cancer Care Ontario work that they have done and that is ongoing. My ministry is working with them as well. We’ve made available, either through the Ontario drug program or through Trillium, for example, opportunities for individuals who are challenged.

I know the member opposite knows that we have a great cancer system. She herself said just a couple of years ago that she marvelled as to where we are at in Ontario with cancer services. We’re one of the best in the world, and I think that part of this is because of the fantastic work that CCO does every day. I agree with her on that. I think Cancer Care Ontario does an exceptional job. They’ve provided us with important advice.

As I mentioned, almost 4,000 drugs are being provided, including for cancer patients. There is more work to be done, and we’re prepared to do that work.

Highway improvement

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. My constituents in Barrie are very excited to see our government reinstating the Connecting Links program as part of budget 2015. For some time, municipalities told us that making Connecting Links projects eligible under other infrastructure projects was not sufficient. That is why we now provide small, rural and northern municipalities with expanded access to predictable, stable and annual funding. While the opposition refused to support the reinstatement of this fund in 2015, Ontario municipalities, including Barrie, have continued to praise our government for delivering on this file.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House more about the new and improved Connecting Links program?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the outstanding member for Barrie for being an extraordinary representative for that important community.

Last year, this government was extremely excited to announce the reinstatement of a stand-alone Connecting Links program as part of our budget 2015. I was very pleased recently to be in Barrie, alongside the local member and Premier Kathleen Wynne, to highlight some enhancements that are being made to this important program. This government is now committing $20 million to municipalities through this program in 2016-17 with funding increasing to $30 million per year by 2018-19.

This is just one more important way that we are showing our long-term commitment to Ontario’s rural and northern communities and the families who live there, something that the opposition clearly does not support as they voted against this funding in budget 2016. While the opposition has chosen to vote against providing municipalities with more infrastructure funding, we’ll continue to take decisive action to build Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I want to thank the minister for his response. I, like many people living in my riding, was thrilled to hear that our community will be receiving funding through this new program. There are 352 Connecting Links in 77 municipalities across the province. Many members of this House have Connecting Links in their ridings.

Because demand for the program was so high this year, I understand there have been some concerns expressed by municipalities that did not receive funding in the first intake. These municipalities have questions about the process that was used to select this year’s recipients. Can the minister please tell members of the House more about the application process used for the new Connecting Links program?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I appreciate the member’s follow-up question. Applications officially opened in November, and we were pleased to receive a total of 60 applications from right across the province of Ontario. Ministry staff evaluated funding applications based on technical need and safety issues. In our first intake, we were able to fund 23 projects. These projects included those coming from across the province, whether in Barrie, Smith’s Falls or in the riding of Peterborough and Havelock.

In many regions, the highest priority projects typically involved bridges or pavement in very poor condition. MTO staff will continue to be available to municipalities in order to provide advice as needed.

We would encourage all municipalities that can qualify for funding from Connecting Links to apply for the next intake of this program, expected to be announced later this year.

Wind turbines

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Whenever I tell the minister his government is putting pilot safety at risk by allowing the wpd wind turbine project near the Collingwood Regional Airport, I get the answer that Transport Canada and Nav Canada aren’t concerned, so all is well.

However, Collingwood airport is a registered aerodrome and not a Transport Canada-certified airport. Therefore, its operational airspace is not protected by Transport Canada. That means Transport Canada will not interfere with the province’s decision to approve the placement of wind turbines within the operational airspace of the airport. Hence, flight risks—namely the 500-foot-tall wind turbines the Liberals want to put next to the airport—have not been reviewed or assessed by Transport Canada or Nav Canada, as they have no authority to act.

Will the minister finally admit this government is putting pilot safety at risk by allowing this wind turbine project to proceed?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: First of all, the member opposite—and I appreciate his concern—is a former Minister of the Environment, so I know he’s very familiar with how these decisions are made. The first is, these are not decisions made by the minister. I do not have any say at all. My job is to protect these decisions by the director from becoming political. This is a director’s decision made on technical evidence.

The director consulted several times with Nav Canada and Transport Canada. I have in front of me her notes, three pages from about half a dozen meetings. At each and every time, Nav Canada and Transport Canada—who are the experts, unlike myself and the member opposite—said there were not safety issues here that were at all material. Surely, he doesn’t want—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: I think the minister should be ashamed of how dismissive he is of not only the concerns of the people in my riding of Simcoe–Grey, but pilots across Canada and North America. This is a very busy regional airport, with 11,000 takeoffs and landings a year.

The fact that, up until this point, you have been hiding behind Nav Canada and Transport Canada—I’m glad to see you didn’t do it today, because you know you’ve been wrong all the way along. It’s a regional airport, not a certified airport.

I have no doubt that your director is following the law, but it’s you guys who changed the law and took away the planning authority from local municipalities so that they could direct where these projects should go. No local municipality would ever put 500-feet-tall—50-storeys-tall—wind turbines within 2.1 nautical miles of the end of a runway. That’s about four seconds after you take off.

Government planes go in there. When you’re in a government plane and you have to go into that airport, especially when it’s snowy or foggy or rainy—we’re just off Georgian Bay.

Change the law. Cancel this project. Will you do that—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This is kind of passing strange. I didn’t know the member opposite was an expert in aviation or in environmental law. The difference—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Norm, what do you have to say? You’re a pilot.

Mr. Norm Miller: He’s going to kill people. That’s what I have to say.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I actually asked the ministry. They reviewed this, as did the director, and found several cases where there are many aerodromes and airports in which there are similar structures in similar proximity to the airport. I have an airport in my constituency where the planes fly past very tall buildings and smokestacks that are much closer than anything in this case.

The proposition of the member opposite is that we should not follow due process. The director’s decision can be appealed to the ERT, of which six people are. Another expert body—

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

New question.

Consumer protection

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. High-pressure door-to-door sales of hot water heaters and air conditioners is a problem in many communities across the province, including my community in Hamilton. Often, it is the most vulnerable, elderly and infirm residents who are the victims of these tactics. They’re pressured to sign on to high-interest leases that end up costing them tens of thousands of dollars in interest that they have no hope to ever repay. There are countless stories of these tactics being used by companies like the Ontario Energy Group.

The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services has known about these tactics of this company for years now—since 2009—but only last week was it announced that the company is facing charges, and only in Newmarket.

My question is: What took so long to lay these charges and why is the scope of the investigation limited to just one area of the province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. We take these issues very seriously with respect to consumer door-to-door sales. It’s one of the reasons why we passed Bill 55, the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, which in fact expanded the length of time in which a consumer has the right to get out of a contract. In Ontario, for any contract, there’s a 10-day standing rule where an individual can, for any reason whatsoever, decide that they don’t want to be in that contract. They have that ability.

We also have an enforcement division in the ministry. They have been investigating on an ongoing basis. There were 142 charges laid with respect to a particular company. That matter is, obviously, going before the court.

We take action where it is appropriate to do so, and we’re standing up for consumers on a daily basis in our ministry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, one of my constituents, a widow on a fixed income, received a notice that her home has a lien on it from this particular company. Her option? Pay high monthly payments for a hot water heater that she didn’t need, or pay up to thousands of dollars to break a contract she never signed.

What does the Premier have to say to this widow in my community who has a pay-up-or-lose-your-house notice from this company and doesn’t have time to wait for the government to get around to looking at this company’s actions in Hamilton?

Hon. David Orazietti: Speaker, very clearly we are very concerned about any individual who may be misled at the door about their particular contract. They have the ability to get out of their contract.

We know, in

section 14 of the legislation, that if an individual has a disability, if they don’t understand the contract or if there’s a language barrier, they in fact have up to a year to get out of that contract.

If there’s a particular individual who has not contacted our ministry, I’d be happy to take that information and I’d be happy to be aware of that information.

The ministry will act; absolutely, Speaker. We are concerned about these issues. We continue to strengthen this legislation to protect consumers in Ontario, and I encourage those individuals to bring those concerns to our ministry.

Retirement homes

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre responsable des affaires des aînés, Signor il Ministro Mario Sergio. Speaker, as you’ll know, seniors are living longer and the number of seniors is growing rapidly. This is particularly true in my own riding of Etobicoke North. As you may appreciate, in the last century one of the triumphs of medical science and public health is that life expectancy has almost doubled, from 40 to 85.

But of course, seniors’ years can be a time of a second childhood, of frailty and compromise of activities of daily living. So seniors are often confronted with a decision tree where they have to think about downsizing and giving up the comfort of their own home where they may have lived for many years and even raised their family.

Seniors have many decisions to make. For example, they may ask: What should they do? Where should they go? What type of housing may suffice and how much will this cost?

Speaker, can the minister please inform this House about the benefits of a retirement home and what these have to offer our seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Merci à mon collègue pour la question, the very dynamic member from Etobicoke North.

Retirement homes are communities designed for seniors who want to live a somewhat independent lifestyle and have the choice of support for their daily living.

Residents should feel safe and comfortable in an environment that reflects their own home and not a facility.

They may provide services such as meal preparation, bathing assistance, administering medicine, the service of a health care professional and much more.

Seniors choose retirement homes for freedom from maintaining a home, enjoying privacy while knowing someone is aware of their well-being, belonging to a community of peers and participating in social activities and having peace of mind, knowing that they are living in a safe and secure environment.

Seniors expect safety and the comfort of a home without the worry or work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Mille grazie, Ministro Sergio, per la risposta.

One of the major apprehensi