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

May 4, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-May-04 (PDF)

L168 - Wed 4 May 2016 / Mer 4 mai 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 May 2016 Mercredi 4 mai 2016

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Visitors

Fire in Alberta

Visitors

Keith Brown

Oral Questions

Wind turbines

Wind turbines

Energy policies

Energy policies

Automotive industry

Energy policies

Air quality

Ontario Trillium Foundation

Hospital funding

Family Service Ontario

Autism treatment

Hospital funding

Ontario Geological Survey

Élèves ayant des besoins particuliers / Special-needs students

Visitors

Report, Chief Electoral Officer

Members’ Statements

Palliative care

Marylynn Holzel

National Day of Mourning

Insurance fraud

Claire Prashaw

Italian Fallen Workers Memorial

Children’s mental health services

Downtown Milton Business Improvement Area

Asian Heritage Month

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Helmet Exemption for Sikh Motorcyclists), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (exemption de l’obligation de port du casque pour les motocyclistes sikhs)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Children’s Mental Health Week / Semaine de la santé mentale des enfants

Petitions

Special-needs students

Autism treatment

Lung health

Privatization of public assets

Services for the developmentally disabled

Water fluoridation

Health care funding

Mental health and addictions services

Transports en commun

Health care funding

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Transports en commun

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Health Information Protection Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Orders of the day.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Mr. Speaker, government notice of motion number 65.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Point of order.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I don’t believe we have a quorum, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A quorum count, please.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a quorum.

The government House leader.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 186,

An Act to establish the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet at its regularly scheduled times on Monday, May 16, 2016, and Tuesday, May 17, 2016, for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 186:

—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario Parliamentary Channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 1 p.m. on Thursday, May 12, 2016; and

—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first-come, first-served basis; and

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

—That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 2016; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 noon on Thursday, May 19, 2016; and

That the committee be authorized to meet at its regularly scheduled times on Monday, May 30, 2016, and Tuesday, May 31, 2016, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, June 1, 2016. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

The votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that pursuant—

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? I heard a no.

“I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding”—

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispensed.

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, thank you for acknowledging me to speak on this motion as it relates to Bill 186. I’ve had the opportunity to speak on this important bill. This is a necessary piece of legislation that will help close the retirement savings gap for the two thirds of Ontario employees who do not have a workplace pension plan.

This gap is even worse for younger people. Three quarters of Ontario workers aged 25 to 34 do not have a workplace pension plan. Speaker, that’s something I can speak to, not that I’m not in that language, but I started my working life, obviously, in that age group and I’ve never had a workplace pension plan. I know that for a lot of people within my circle of friends this is a very active conversation as to the retirement income security of individuals who work extremely hard, and we know that CPP is not sufficient.

That’s why our government made the Ontario Retirement Pension plan, or ORPP, one of the pillars of our economic plan. We believe that every worker deserves to have a secure retirement. Bill 186 enshrines the key plan design details of the ORPP in legislation. This bill also provides employers and employees with the time and the clarity they need to prepare for the launch of the ORPP, with enrolment starting in January 2017, and the collection of contributions phased in starting January 1, 2018.

Passing this bill will bring us one step closer to our government’s goal that all Ontario workers are either enrolled in the ORPP or in a comparable workplace pension plan by 2020.

Speaker, as I’m sure you are aware, the government has carried out extensive consultations on the ORPP. In 2014, the Associate Minister of Finance led a province-wide consultation to provide an overview of the government’s plan to enhance retirement security. This included 13 consultations; visits to over 10 communities; engaging with businesses, associations, non-profit organizations, labour, individuals and families; and, in addition, speaking with hundreds of Ontarians.

In 2015, the Associate Minister of Finance led a second province-wide consultation to discuss the plan. That particular consultation included 15 consultations; visits to over 12 communities, including northern, rural and urban communities; engaging with businesses, associations, the self-employed, young professionals, social advocates, non-profit organizations, labour, individuals and families; and speaking with hundreds of Ontarians.

Speaker, I can personally attest, because I know that the minister came to my community in Ottawa on several occasions holding these meetings and consultations, and they were very well attended, with diverse perspectives being presented from my community of Ottawa Centre, of course, and the city of Ottawa that I live in.

Speaker, the ministry has also received over 1,000 written submissions to the ORPP consultation.

This is the third piece of legislation related to the ORPP that our government has introduced. The first was Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, which went through the Standing Committee on Social Policy, where we heard from 40 deputants.

The second bill, Bill 91, the Building Ontario Up Act, which established the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Administration Corp., went through the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and heard from over 50 deputants.

Now, there’s this particular bill, Bill 186, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, which this House has debated for over seven hours already.

Speaker, it’s important that we move forward with Bill 186 and bring it before the committee. In the last Parliament, this Legislature was ground to a halt and was unable to move forward. Only 39% of government bills were passed in the last minority government, unfortunately, compared to more than three quarters of bills that were passed going back to 1990.

The voters of Ontario sent a clear message in 2014, no ifs and buts about it: They want our government to provide Ontario workers with a predictable stream of income paid for life in retirement. We cannot afford to have the opposition recklessly hold up this important piece of legislation with procedural trickery and needless filibustering. We need to move this legislation forward in a timely manner so that employers can prepare for the launch of the ORPP.

It is time that we end second reading and refer the bill to committee. In committee, of course, stakeholders will present their views. We will be able to hear directly from the public on their thoughts on this bill, as we’ve been doing through the consultation process and, of course, the consultation in committee on the last two bills as well. Also, as we all know, committee members will have an opportunity to move amendments to the bill as well.

At the same time, Speaker, this House can move to substantive debate on other very important matters. There are a number of important pieces of legislation that have already been introduced, which the government would like to debate in the House and move through the legislative process; for example, Bill 119, which is the Health Information Protection Act; Bill 135, which is the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act; Bill 156, which is the Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act; and, very important, Bill 172, which is the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act.

Speaker, we would like to spend time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House; we cannot wait until Bill 186 is dealt with. That is why I have moved this motion. I urge all members to support this motion. Bill 186 is a very important piece of legislation.

It succeeds two other pieces of legislation and completes the work of establishing the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, which is going to be a cornerstone ensuring that we have retirement income security for Ontarians, especially young Ontarians, so that for the hard work they do they are able to save money and will be able to live with safety and security in their retirement. Of course, Speaker, that is a huge boon to our economy as well, because when people retire and have a predictable income, that money is invested back in our local economy, which is also very important.

Speaker, I end my debate now and urge all members to support this motion.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: This government is yet again shutting down debate in the Legislature to, I would say, ram something through. It’s nearly getting to the point where I can start each of my speeches this way. It appears that the ORPP ‘scheme-boat’ is moving full speed ahead. A lot of people are really wondering why the Ontario Liberals want to rush this thing through the House without more debate. When looking over the timeline of events that led to this point, it’s not the first questionable act by the government when it comes to this issue.

How did it all begin in the first place? Well, I’m glad you asked that question, Mr. Speaker. Years ago, the Premier said she needed to create her own pension scheme because Ottawa was refusing to expand the Canada Pension Plan. Perhaps if she had tried to offer a handshake instead of throwing elbows, there would have been more co-operation between levels of government. She reiterated this last year while taking time away from her office to campaign for candidates at another level of government, starkly breaking away from the long-standing tradition of Premiers staying objective during elections and focusing on governing.

The Premier stated that the only reason the province needed the ORPP was because Prime Minister Stephen Harper would not expand the Canada Pension Plan. She then said that if people voted for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, she wouldn’t need to implement a costly duplicate program here in Ontario, because she would finally have a partner she was willing to try to work with. That was the Premier’s argument on October 13 last year; the dates matter because it is difficult to keep up with flip-flops.

On October 13, 2015, an

article appeared in the National Post with the following headline: “Wynne Says Ontario Would Drop Pension Plan if a Federal Liberal Government Expands CPP.” The

article explains the Premier’s now-abandoned position:

“Wynne says she couldn’t convince the Harper government to enhance the Canada Pension Plan, so her government introduced an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan that would mirror the CPP, essentially doubling deductions and benefits.

“She says if Trudeau wins the Oct. 19 federal election and is willing to improve the CPP, that would be ‘the solution’ to her concerns....”

Well, the Liberals won the election, so there should be no reason now for the redundant ORPP scheme to be implemented, right? Wrong. Well, not so fast. It turns out that the Premier quickly reversed this position as soon as the election was over. Isn’t that convenient?

A little over a month later, the Premier clarified her comments by saying she actually meant the exact opposite of what she said before the election. The Liberals then made the questionable claim that they could simply roll the redundant ORPP into the CPP later. That certainly sounds quite complicated and costly, but the Liberals said it is so, so it must be true. But is that accurate?

On January 13, a National Post

article threw doubt on such a complicated plan.

The headline stated, “Despite What the Premier Says, Ontario’s Pension Plan Can’t Simply Be Rolled into an Expanded CPP.” Mike Moffat, an assistant professor of economics at the Richard Ivey School of Business in London, stated, “I’m not entirely sure how they would pull that off, because they’re quite a bit different.” He goes on to say, “Let’s say this thing exists for three or four or five years, and then to fold it back into CPP, I’m not sure how that would work, to be quite honest.” The professor went on to say that while rolling the ORPP into the CPP could technically be done, the cost of doing this would be astronomical.

That’s another alarm bell ringing loud and clear.

With citizens seeing alarming trends from this government such as fundraising quotas being placed on ministers of the crown and billions of dollars handed out to secret Liberal friends with no public records of who got the money or how many jobs it created, they start to ask pretty tough questions about potential corruption.

Now Premier Wynne wants to reach into your pocket to pull out money for her pension plan. It kind of reminds me of a commercial I used to see a long time ago: Hands in my Pockets. Well, you know what? She wants to reach into your pocket and pull out money for her pension scheme, after she herself said that the only reason for the scheme was that Prime Minister Harper would not expand CPP and that she would drop the redundant program if the Liberals were elected. Well, the ground the Premier stood on to argue for the ORPP disappeared from under her feet, but she plowed ahead anyway.

Does anyone in Ontario actually trust the Premier with their pension money? Why do we need to set up an entirely new program with its own administrative costs to do something the federal government already does successfully? Why is the Ontario Liberal government so obsessed with getting our pension dollars in their hands? I have a few thoughts on that, but I may be asked to withdraw so I won’t say them.

There is intense resistance to the Wynne Liberal pension scheme right across the political spectrum from—get this—the Fraser Institute to CUPE. When was the last time they agreed on anything? That ought to send a clear message to the government: Nobody, other than the Ontario Liberals, thinks that the ORPP is the way to go.

Is it because their focus isn’t really on retirement security and pensions at all? Any program of this size has the potential to make those who are tasked with running it a lot of money. A line in the recent budget stated that through the ORPP “new pools of capital would be available for Ontario-based projects.” If you’re a fisherman, something smells fishy here.

One wonders why a government that handed out $163 million to its biggest donor would want to spend pension money on things other than pensions. The ORPP bill, as it’s written, leaves a massive loophole for pension funds to be spent on a wide variety of different things. The pension administration corporation, which will be appointed by the Liberals, would be left to determine where to spend the money for “the benefit of members and other beneficiaries.” Would those “other beneficiaries” be friends of the Wynne Liberals in the private sector?

We’ve seen incredibly worrisome acts from the Liberal government, but they have increased dramatically after this Premier came to power. They’re giving government grants to friends and generous donors off the public record. There’s also the curious trend of Ontario Liberals becoming filthy rich once they leave Queen’s Park, free to negotiate secret, million-dollar deals with the government they just worked for. That is why a public inquiry is needed to restore trust in the public that its government is not becoming a for-profit business.

Now the Wynne Liberals want to set up another massive pool of money to play in. They say it’s for pensions, but it can actually be spent on other things. By the way, this is a government that is currently facing—count them—five OPP investigations.

Interjection: How many?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Five OPP investigations. The OPP anti-rackets branch may have to set up a satellite office at Queen’s Park.

The public simply doesn’t trust the Ontario Liberals with their money and certainly not their pensions. Instead of setting up an unnecessary, costly and redundant pension scheme, the Premier should keep the original promise she made before the federal election and simply ask for the CPP to be expanded. No more flip-flopping. In this case, if she flip-flops and she has to do a backflip, it would be called a flop-flip.

We’re being asked to support a program with unknown costs and unknown benefits, and the very reason for this program in the first place no longer exists. What’s worse, we’re now being told that we cannot ask any more questions or raise any other criticisms of this redundant and expensive pension plan scheme here in the Legislature. Once again, the Ontario Liberals are running from a debate.

Mr. Speaker, I know you’ll be happy to hear this: If elected, Patrick Brown and the PCs would remove and refund the redundant ORPP and ensure that no more taxpayer dollars end up in the pockets of friends of the Ontario Liberals who are becoming filthy rich while the rest of the province tries to keep up with the rising cost of living in the Wynne Liberals’ Ontario.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I have to say, I’m not pleased to be participating in yet another time allocation debate. This government uses time allocation like nobody’s business, as they say.

I want to ask the question to the House: What are they afraid of? Are they afraid to have debate on a bill that they feel proud about? There is a right of members to be able to express their views for or against a particular initiative of this Legislature.

It is clear in the Legislature that the Liberals’ ORPP is somewhat supported by New Democrats. We’re in favour of the principle. We think there are some changes that need to be made because there are some exclusions; I’ll let other people speak to that. But the other party here, the Conservative Party, have, in their view, legitimate issues that they feel need to be put on the record in order to deal with what they see is a plan that they can’t support. I don’t understand why a government is afraid to hear from an opposition party, in this case the Conservatives, speaking against their initiative.

If the initiative is so good, their arguments will prevail and the public will support them; if the Tory arguments are bad, it actually works against the Tories.

I don’t understand politically, first of all, why they wouldn’t allow debate, but the more important question is: This place is supposed to be about making sure that the voices of everyone in this Legislature are heard. These are all representatives of the people. We all ran and got elected in our individual ridings as New Democrats, Conservatives or Liberals to represent the people in our constituencies and, yes, to represent our political views of our own political philosophy as New Democrats, Conservatives or Liberals.

When a member of this assembly who is duly elected by the public doesn’t have an ability to be heard because the government decides by fiat that it’s going to truncate a debate by way of time allocation, I think it’s an affront to our democracy and, quite frankly, an affront to this institution.

The Legislature, until 1992, didn’t have time allocation. The only thing you were able to do was to call the question, and the threshold by which you were allowed to call the question and it being called was a lot higher than it is now. Now, because there’s time allocation in the standing orders after seven and a half hours, calling the question probably only needs about eight or nine hours for the question to be called. There was a time that there wasn’t any time allocation and the threshold for calling the question was much higher. And guess what happened? The political parties actually had to work together.

Why? Because the government of the day, whoever it might be, wanted to pass a particular initiative, whatever it was, an opposition party or two opposition parties may be opposed, and then you picked your fights. You fought on the things that you really cared about and then you traded off on the other things that you could support and then you would get something in exchange.

For an example, in this particular fight that the Conservatives are having on the ORPP, they may have demanded, “Listen, we want more hearings. We want an ability for the bill to travel.” Well, how is that a bad thing for the people we represent, number one? I don’t see it as a bad thing. I see it as a service to democracy.

How is it bad for the government—if they have an initiative that they think is good and is worthy of support, well, then, you should be okay with travelling your own bill and having the opposition speak against it; it’ll serve your political need.

The only reason that they do time allocation now is because, quite frankly, the government has gotten lazy. It’s gotten lazy with democracy. It’s gotten lazy in having to listen to the voices of the duly elected members. It’s gotten lazy in having to listen to the people who want to say something on this, who want to come to our committees to be heard. As you know, Mr. Speaker, once this bill is finished second reading, it is ordered to committee. And when it’s in committee and if there isn’t time allocation—in the old days, you would travel the bill somewhere in Ontario so people could be heard. Imagine that.

Imagine a Legislature that allows the people to be heard: Oh, my God, how awful that would be.

That’s what the government is saying by way of this motion. They’re saying that giving members the ability to use their voice in the Legislature, which they were democratically elected to do, shouldn’t be done; and they’re saying the people who want to speak to this particular bill in committee, at either Toronto or other places in Ontario as the committee travels, don’t have to be heard. And I say, shame on the government House leader, shame on the Premier, and shame on the government for utilizing time allocation.

There are bills in this House—and if you look at this order paper, Mr. Speaker, it’s a pretty thin order paper. This isn’t a prop; this is our order paper. And if you look at the order paper, it’s pretty thin. There’s not a lot of legislation left. Why? Because, quite frankly, the opposition has agreed with quite a few of the bills that the government has put forward. We’ve raised some concerns, we’ve allowed the bills to go to committee, and then we make changes.

But every now and then, there comes a bill where there’s a more principled view on the part of the party for or against the bill. For the Tories on the ORPP—and I don’t agree with them, by the way; I think the position the Conservatives are taking on the ORPP is wrong. I believe that people should have pensions and I’ll speak to that in a second. They have an obligation to do what they think is right as Conservatives and as representatives of the people of their ridings. They have a right to be able to stand in this Legislature to be heard.

When a government shuts them down because it’s decided by fiat, by order of the Premier’s office, utilizing the government House leader’s office to bring a motion to censure the opposition, I say it’s a bad thing.

Now, do most people out in Ontario care? Probably not. My good friend Mr. Hillier, from the riding of—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Lanark—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Lanark–Renfrew?

Mr. Randy Hillier: —Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I can never remember all that stuff. That’s why, Mr. Speaker, I could never be the Speaker; I would never remember all the names.

But my point is that the members have a right to be heard and they need to be heard. That’s the first point.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in case you’re wondering, New Democrats will not be supporting the time allocation motion, even though we support the bill, on the principle that members should be heard and the public should be heard. This is what this institution is all about.

As far as the idea of the ORPP, I think there are things that the government could have done differently, but the general principle of providing a pension for workers and others in this province to be able to retire with some dignity—because we know now the Canada Pension Plan and the old age pension plan aren’t going to cut it for most seniors today. If you’re 65 years old and you retire and the only thing you have is the old age pension and CPP, it’s going to be a pretty thin budget you live on. It’s doable; there are all kinds of people who do it, but it’s a pretty difficult thing to do.

The principle of trying to create another CPP-style plan I think is a good thing. In fact, our party put forward that initiative a number of times and, Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly—and correct me if I’m wrong—you were a critic for our party who brought forward such a plan as well. So we, as New Democrats, think it’s a good idea, because we shouldn’t be in a situation in this province that people work all their lives and find themselves in a situation of not being able to afford to retire.

We go back to our communities, all of us, as we do every weekend, and how many people do we see of retirement age are back to work, working as a greeter at Walmart, working at the Home Depot, working in the service industry somewhere? They’re doing that because they can’t afford to retire. I think that’s sad because those are people taking the jobs of younger people who would need those jobs at the entry-level positions. What are we really doing here by not allowing people to have an adequate income for retirement?

Is the ORPP going to be the blessed answer that’s going to allow everybody to retire in dignity? Probably not. It’s a step forward, absolutely; I give that full credit. But it’s not going to give us everything that we need.

I’ll use us, as members, as an example. I have this little test. Most people think that members have got a pension. I want to let members know we don’t have a pension here, okay?

Interjection: What?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I know it’s a surprise to the public, the people you serve in your constituencies. I don’t know how many times I go to an event and they say, “Oh, yeah, but you’ve got a big fat pension in the Legislature.” I’ve got zilch.

I have RRSPs that are contributed by both myself and by my employer, the Legislature of Ontario. Here’s a stark fact: I’ve been here for 27 years, Mr. Speaker, and I couldn’t afford to retire on the RRSPs I’ve got. Why? Because of the whims of the market; it’s not enough.

A defined pension plan is always better. You look at the people who work in this building. I look at our staff who are here today, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Clerks. God bless them; they work hard and they are good at what they do. They get a pension in this place: 2% per year. Good for them, and I applaud that. Two per cent for every year of service of their salary up to a certain maximum, whatever that calculation is. Rightfully so, when they get to a certain age, they can afford to retire with some dignity.

We make a good income, members here. What’s a base salary, $120,000?

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s $116,000. Oh my God, sorry. They all barked back at me. Okay, all right, I make a little bit more than that as House leader. But $116,000 is a base salary.

My point is this: $116,000 in our constituencies is a lot of money. There are not a lot of people where I come from who make $116,000 outside of some certain jobs in the mining industry and others in trades and stuff that are—

Mr. Randy Hillier: School principals.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Even they don’t make that. Anyways, that’s a whole other story.

My point is, even with people at the income level that we have, I would love to make the following survey: How many members here can afford to retire on their RRSPs today? Please put up your hand. There’s not one because you can’t.

The RRSP system is not an adequate pension for people to be able to retire on. The amount of money you would have to put into an RRSP would be somewhat equal to what you would have to put into a defined pension plan. It’s the only way. Plus, the problem is that once you’re into an RRSP, you’re at the whim of the market.

I’ve gone through three major corrections, as they call them, where I’ve lost a shitload of money. Pardon me, Speaker. I want to withdraw that comment. I feel so badly about those losses that it overwhelmed me. But the point is, as anybody who is in the market today will know, if they’ve been in for any while, there have been three major corrections. Essentially, what it’s done is taken away whatever gains we’ve made. I have looked at the amount of money that I’ve put in my RRSPs over the 20-some-odd years that I’ve been here. I essentially have the same amount of money that I put in. That’s pretty well what it comes down to.

I think the stock market is rigged. It’s rigged for the people at the top to take the money out of pockets of people like me. Every now and then, they give me a nice return of 10% or 15% or even 20% in some year, but then they give you a market correction in order to take that all back, and you end up probably making 2% to 3% overall in a period of 20 or 25 years. You probably average over the whole thing about 2% to 3%. It’s not a heck of a lot of money.

At least, in a defined pension plan, people know how much they’re going to retire on. The employer puts in, generally, 10%; the employee puts in 10%. It’s invested by way of large amounts of money. If you look at the Teachers’ Pension Plan and others, they’re doing quite well. What happens is when the person goes to retire, you know what you’re going to get. It’s a defined benefit. You know how much you’re going to get every month, and you can get on with your life and you can figure out what you’re going to do in your retirement. That’s what we’re trying to do here with the ORPP—not as much as we need, but to give people a little bit more security of income.

I’m just saying to my friends in the Conservative Party that I disagree with your position. I don’t think standing in the way of the ORPP is a wise thing, in my view, but you’re entitled to yours and I will not impugn motive or say that you have to look at it my way, because this is a democracy. We have different ways of looking at it.

But what New Democrats want to respect is the ability in this case for the Conservative members to have their say. Utilizing a time allocation motion to shut down debate on something that they feel strongly about is not only an affront to them as individuals, but it’s also an affront to the people that they represent in their constituencies, because this Legislature is about letting the voices be heard. They represent people in this assembly, as I do and other members of the assembly do. We have different points of view, but they need to be heard. If you’re not going to allow it—I don’t mean you, Mr.

Speaker, because you’re not the one who brought the time allocation. But if the government is going to bring time allocation as a way of shutting down the voices, I think it’s a disservice not only to the members who are being affected, but I think it’s a disservice to the process of this Legislature and it’s a disservice to the people of Ontario and the democracy we’re here to enact.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity to weigh in on yet again another time allocation. Basically, what that means is that they’re limiting the debate. They don’t want us to talk any longer about the ORPP. You have to ask yourself why. Why do they not want us talking about the ORPP? What is it that they don’t want the people to hear?

I’ll go once again, as I do many times in this Legislature, to the gas plant scandal hearing documents. Those 300,000 pages were a treasure trove, an inside look into the thinking of this Liberal government. Back during the gas plant scandal, we actually obtained confidential internal documents. One document was entitled Confidential Advice to Cabinet—Not Recommended. This was a document that warned the newly—at that time—appointed Premier that the province will lose 18,000 jobs for every $2 billion collected under this pension tax.

As this is now a $6-billion plan, that’s 54,000 job losses, and this government knew that. They knew that they would jeopardize 54,000 jobs and they implemented this anyway.

The government was told in this confidential document that the long-term behavioural impact of this tax would be lower business investment, relocation of businesses to other jurisdictions, reduced work effort and an out-migration of people. In fact, of all the revenue tools the government was considering, the payroll tax had the largest negative impact.

Mr. Han Dong: It’s not a tax.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s not a tax? Speaker, I hear from the other side that it’s not a tax. With all the taxes this Liberal government had brought on, you would think they would actually know what a tax was by now.

The government also commissioned EKOS, a prominent public affairs and polling company, to assess the impact of the ORPP. They found that 54% of businesses are considering a hiring freeze—this is the government’s own research that they conducted—and two thirds of businesses would make operating cuts. Speaker, this is their own research. Large businesses would consider lay-offs as well as cancelling existing pension plans. This is what they were told through their own research. Small businesses told them that they would redefine employees from full-time to contract workers to avoid the ORPP.

In total, they were told 60% of businesses expect to be hurt by the ORPP. This information only came to light because the Canadian Taxpayers Federation filed a freedom of information request. In fact, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation concluded, “It’s remarkable the Ontario government didn’t walk away from the ORPP when they saw this research. The ORPP is being sold as a benefit to Ontario employees, when in reality it will mean many of them will end up worse off.”

Further, the government decided to do additional research and they did a cost-benefit analysis that was performed by the Conference Board of Canada. Again, this was commissioned by the government’s Ministry of Finance. In this report, it admitted it will take 20 years before the economy recovers from the shock of the ORPP. They calculated and told their client—the government of Ontario—the job losses, in their estimation, will peak at 23,000 in 2023. Real disposable income and consumption spending will remain lower until 2040. This will lead to a fall in real private investment that peaks at $939 million—so almost a billion dollars lost—and that will peak in 2024.

And when does the report say the good news kicks in? Well, that, Speaker, will be 2093. This will kick in in 75 years. Go for it. It’ll kick in then. That’s the government’s own research. That’s why they don’t want us here debating this new tax. This is exactly why they don’t want us debating their new tax.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated in their pre-budget submission that the ORPP would lead to a loss of 160,000 person-years of employment. They also noted that 90% of their members do not support the ORPP; that’s up from 86% last year. Some 69% of their members say they’ll freeze or cut salaries; 53% said they would cut jobs if the ORPP goes ahead. They concluded the ORPP tax will significantly undermine the competitiveness of Ontario businesses.

This is what the government is being told. This is why they don’t want us any longer, after today, to be debating this new tax.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce presented a letter to the government opposing the ORPP. They urged the government to expand the definition of “comparable plans” and exempt many of the businesses from participating. It was signed by 150 of Ontario’s key stakeholders. This included Magna, Chrysler, Ford, GM, Canadian Tire, GE, Walmart, Maple Leaf Foods—the list goes on and on. They were joined by 57 of Ontario’s local chambers of commerce and many associations throughout Ontario, all telling the government of Ontario that only 26% of their members can afford the increased cost of the ORPP and 44% of its members will reduce employees or hire fewer staff.

The key to remember is that it’s impossible to save for retirement if you don’t have a job, and every one of these organizations is telling the government that jobs will be cut. They will actually achieve the opposite of what they’re trying to do here.

Over the summer, the chairman of Fiat Chrysler, Sergio Marchionne, talked about how Ontario is becoming the most expensive jurisdiction in which to do business. He’s talking North America-wide now. He’s talking about our skyrocketing hydro rates. He specifically brought up the ORPP. This is what’s happening. He also talked about the fact that because there will be job losses from this, there will be fewer people in a position to buy the cars he makes. This has got a downward spiral effect that is going to hurt families right across Ontario.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, another group—with 750,000 employees—talked about how this ORPP tax will lead to more layoffs and wage freezes. A survey of their members says as many as 35% will lay off staff to cope with the additional costs associated with the ORPP tax. About 68% said they would eliminate wage increases or bonuses to pay for those additional costs.

I can tell you, Speaker, when I was in London, Ontario, a little while ago, there was a businessperson there and we were talking about the cost of doing business in Ontario. What he told our group was that he’s got 15 employees, and he plans on firing one of them to use that salary to pay for his share of the other 14 ORPPs. And he knows his employees are not going to want to take a 1.9% reduction, because, don’t forget, this is not a government pension. This is not the government giving you a pension.

This is your money; 1.9% of your salary, $1,643 every year, will come off your paycheque, and your employer must kick in the same amount. What he said is that he’s going to fire one employee and use that salary to pay for not only his share, but likely he’ll end up paying for his employees’ share as well, because they’re not going to want to take a haircut on their paycheque. That’s anecdotally what’s happening right across Ontario. That’s why all these companies are saying they’re going to have layoffs: because they need that money to pay for the additional costs coming from the ORPP.

There’s lots of talk about whether this is actually yet another cash grab under the guise of infrastructure. Right from day one, we understood. If you look at a letter to the editor from the Associate Minister of Finance, Mitzie Hunter—I was so disturbed at her letter to the editor that I sent a follow-up letter to the Globe and Mail last July, and I’ll read it to you.

It says, “I was disturbed with the letter to the editor from Ontario’s associate finance minister, Mitzie Hunter. Referring to the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, she states, ‘The government will not determine where and how contributions are invested and that the government is establishing an independent body to manage and administer the ORPP.’ That is not what the government told the Legislature. In the 2014 budget, it states, ‘By unlocking value from assets and encouraging more Ontarians to save through the new ORPP, new pools of capital would be available for projects such as roads, bridges and transit.’”

I’m offended because what was presented to us in the Legislature is the complete opposite of what the public was being told, and that’s another reason why they want to shut down debate: because they don’t want us disclosing all of these things that are contrary to what we’re being told.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s always a pleasure to be able to stand in this House and speak on important issues before us and the matters of the day. I guess in this case we’re talking about time allocation. It’s Bill 186, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, that has been time-allocated. It is an interesting piece of legislation. It’s like a chameleon: It keeps changing, not in colour but in shape and in wording. The time allocation of the bill is certainly a major change in it.

Before I get into that, allow me to state at the outset that we in the New Democratic Party, the progressive opposition in the House, believe passionately that everyone in Ontario deserves to retire with dignity. Everyone in Ontario deserves to share in the benefits of an Ontario public pension plan. We believe in retirement security for everyone. We do not believe in time-allocating this bill.

We in the NDP want people to be able to count on predictable and fair benefits when they retire. We do not believe in time allocation.

Allow me, if you will, Speaker, to take a very short detour for a moment. Last week, Gale and I welcomed our fifth grandchild.

Applause.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you. Clarity Athena Sage joins her sister Katana and her cousins Paisley, Arwen and Fletcher. Paisley is five; she’s the oldest. Arwen is three, Katana is two, Fletcher is a year and a half, and now our little peanut, Clarity, who weighed in at five pounds and 10 ounces—very, very small. I mention my grandchildren not just because I’m a proud grandparent but because eventually this time-allocated proposed legislation, one would hope, would be to their benefit.

I also mention them because, to their detriment, as I was reading over the Hansard from what has been stated on the bill already before it was time-allocated, I was reminded that each of my beautiful grandchildren is already burdened with their share of Ontario’s debt. As I understand it, Speaker, and I know you will correct me if I’m wrong, that debt is to the tune of more than $21,000 apiece. You can’t time-allocate that; you can’t time-allocate owing $21,000.

I’ve told each of my grandchildren many times, Speaker, that I’m their pop and my job is to spoil them rotten. What I didn’t tell them is that there’s no way that Poppy can ever pay off $21,000 for each of them to retire their share of Ontario’s debt. So I sincerely hope that they all live long and prosper and live healthy lives and get to enjoy their retirement years with a good pension and a benefits package that allows them to retire with dignity—dignity that can’t be time-allocated.

That brings me back to this chameleon of a bill that’s before us this morning, this time-allocated bill, if you will. I say it’s a chameleon bill, even though “chameleon” may not be the proper word for the bill. As you know, the chameleon changes colours to fit in with its surroundings; this bill changes direction, it seems, on the whims of this time-allocated government. Believe me, they will be time-allocated because in two years, they won’t be the government anymore.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Now, that’s a fact.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Yes.

I said at the beginning that we in the NDP say that everyone in the province of Ontario deserves to retire with dignity. Everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a made-in-Ontario public pension plan. No opposition debate deserves to be time-allocated on such an important matter. We believe in the universality of such a plan; however, we are concerned that the Liberal plan that was up for discussion today before they decided to shut down debate and time-allocate it has already been dissolving in dribs and in drabs as more and more people are excluded from what was originally proposed by the Premier.

We want retirement security for everyone. We want it for our children, our grandchildren and our neighbours. We want all Ontarians to prosper. Don’t forget, Speaker, that what is supposed to be on the table is what the Liberals started out saying would be their plan B—not the time allocation part, Speaker; the original bill was supposed to be their plan B, their backup plan, the one they would only turn to if they were unable to convince the federal government to augment the Canada Pension Plan, the CPP.

The Ontario pension plan—the whole idea—started out when the Harper Conservatives were in power in Ottawa, and more on that in a moment. So when the Premier went out of her way to campaign so hard for Mr. Trudeau and defeat the Harper Conservatives, we all took it for granted and we all expected that part of her payback for helping with his success in Ontario would be that the Premier could count on his support for improving the CPP. That way, she said, she wouldn’t have to bring in an Ontario pension plan. Of course, she didn’t talk about time allocation back then either.

By the way, Speaker, when the Premier talked openly about this idea back in August 2015, more than eight months ago, she said, “Our goal is for every employee in Ontario to be part of the ORPP or a comparable workplace pension plan by 2020.” She didn’t say, of course, “I’ll also time-allocate that bill if the opposition keeps finding little holes to pick away at.”

A few months ago, in January of this year, that “every employee” in the first announcement had been watered down to every “eligible” Ontario employee. Initially, contributions to the new plan were to start in 2017, and now we’re told it will be 2018. Of course, I don’t know what’s going to happen now that the bill is time-allocated. Back in August, the calculation of pension benefits was to be based on a maximum of $90,000 in 2014 dollars. This chameleon of a bill has now been changed to $90,000 in 2017 dollars. The original formula would have seen pensionable earnings set at nearly $93,000 by 2017.

As you well know, Speaker, the greater the amount of the money used in the calculation of the benefits, the greater the actual future pension payouts.

Let me say again, we don’t believe in time allocation, but New Democrats believe in a pension plan for everyone, a plan that allows them to retire with dignity. That’s why we proposed just such a plan six years ago. The Liberals are playing a little bit of catch-up. By the way, when we suggested the plan that we brought in, the Liberals rejected it. They voted against it. Now they have their own plan.

We proposed a strong plan, a defined benefits pension plan. I can just imagine what the Harper Conservatives must have said about that, but I do know what Harper’s former finance minister, Joe Oliver, keeps saying about the Ontario plan we were to be discussing in the morning before it was time-allocated to shut us down in debate. In a column in the National Post in March, he calls the proposal “a job-killing tax,” a “clunker scheme,” “a $3.5-billion payroll tax.” Maybe that’s why the bill was time-allocated: The Liberals don’t like hearing such things.

In the Toronto Star, reporter Rob Ferguson says Conservative leader Patrick Brown has promised to repeal the ORPP when he becomes Premier—if and when—and refund any money that was taken from employers and employees.

The Associate Minister of Finance, Ms. Hunter, in that same

article in the Toronto Star, says it’s “misleading” for Mr. Brown to call the pension premiums a tax—before this bill was time-allocated, she made these comments—“since they go into a pension investment pool and not to the government.” With that kind of criticism out there—I guess we’ll never get to hear the full argument on that since the bill has now been time-allocated.

In the Globe and Mail, Adrian Morrow writes that the proposed pension plan is one of Premier Wynne’s legacy projects. Well, her legacy actually will be time-allocating pretty well every bill that came before the House when she was Premier. That

article in the Globe and Mail says that after paying into the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan for 40 years, on average, you’ll be able to retire on $6,410 a year.

Let’s compare that to the salary of the man, the Liberal insider, picked by his buddies to run the proposed new pension plan. Saäd Rafi will be paid more than half a million dollars, and there’s nothing shabby about that. That’s even more than he was paid when he was brought in to run the Pan Am Games.

Remember the eHealth scandal, Speaker? Well, Mr. Rafi was brought in as a deputy minister in the aftermath of that boondoggle. He was Deputy Minister of Energy when the Liberals brought in the Green Energy Act. He must be a highly talented and capable manager as well as a Liberal insider to be hauling down more than half a million bucks on the pension file. I just wonder if he was the guy who told the Liberal House leader this morning to bring in time allocation because he’s getting tired of hearing all the bad things that people on this side of the House are saying about the plan that he’s going to get more than half a million dollars to introduce, to lay out—half a million bucks a year.

As you know, Speaker, we have pensioners at US Steel Canada in Hamilton losing their health benefits, and scared to death they will be losing a good chunk of their pensions. That’s because this Liberal government and the Liberal government in Ottawa are not doing anything to bring in legislation that would protect workers’ rights when a company goes bankrupt. Why the heck wouldn’t a government that says they care about the people actually strengthen existing pension legislation before bringing in something new—or for that matter, instead of bringing in something called time allocation?

Those Hamilton workers and workers right across this province deserve to get what’s coming to them after their 25 or 30 years or more of service to a company, companies that are supposed to set aside that money they owe to the employee pension plan. It’s supposed to always be there. Many of these big companies get government grants, they get government loans, yet the government doesn’t require them to protect the pension funds of their employees.

The Canada Pension Plan is simply not good enough. I think we can all agree on that. So why has Prime Minister Trudeau yet to act on his campaign promise to enhance CPP benefits? Why has the Premier let him off the hook? Why are we time-allocating this bill? This plan was her backup plan—plan B. Plan A was to enhance the CPP. We’ve heard her say that. We wouldn’t need this plan B if she and her buddy in Ottawa were to keep their promises.

New Democrats—I’ll say it again, Speaker—believe in a strong pension plan for everyone. We don’t believe in cutting off debate; we don’t believe in shutting down opposition voices; we don’t believe in time-allocating this bill.

The Premier used to believe that we could do better on pensions. She said it was for everyone in Ontario. Now, in the small print, we see a growing number of people who will be excluded from the plan: the self-employed; people working in federal jurisdictions; my former colleagues at the CBC or at private radio and TV stations; those who work for the airlines and provincial railways or the post office; those who object on religious grounds; temporary foreign workers.

Speaker, if and when the feds finally come to the table and improve the CPP, what happens to the universality of the CPP, which won’t be coordinated with the Ontario plan? Has the minister thought this through? If so, perhaps we’ll be enlightened by someone on the government side in a few minutes, unless time allocation prevents them from doing that this morning. Inquiring minds would like to know.

As we all know, even if you work for the provincial government, you don’t necessarily qualify for a government pension. That point was driven home not that long ago in the Toronto Star. Again, Speaker, their investigators discovered that 44% of the 10,682 jobs that were posted and filled in various ministries in the 2013-14 term were temporary or seasonal positions and may not have qualified for the ORPP.

We all know friends or neighbours who have reached the age of 70 and are still working to put food on the table or to pay their hydro bills. They wouldn’t qualify for the ORPP either. So what was the Premier thinking when she said that the plan would cover everyone in Ontario? What was she thinking when she said, “We’re going to time-allocate this bill”?

Ontario New Democrats believe passionately that everyone in Ontario deserves a decent pension plan with benefits that allow us all to retire with dignity. What is being proposed falls significantly short of that. At this point, I hope the Liberal members opposite have taken notes of what the opposition members have been saying about their bill, this time-allocated bill. We need to hear more about that. We need to hear more about the ways that we think this bill could be improved. We don’t need to shut down debate, to silence the opposition, to time-allocate this bill.

Speaker, let me just wrap up with this: Shame on you guys. Shame on the Liberals for time-allocating such an important bill for Ontario’s Legislature.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s unfortunate that there are only six government members in the chamber to listen to that speech from—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member knows he can’t talk about absences.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you. Speaker, last time I spoke was on another time allocation motion. That’s what’s happening in this House: We don’t actually get to speak to bills; we get to speak to time allocation motions.

The last time I was up speaking, I referred to a story, back when I was an electrician, of a boss who used the term, “Don’t think; just do it.” That’s what we get with this Liberal government: no thinking; just doing it. But as I was thinking about this time allocation once again—and put this in perspective: time allocation motions prevent members from doing their job. It strikes at the core of what we’re here to do: to bring up points, to debate and safeguard the public interest through debate on public policy.

This is on the pension plan, a major plank of the Liberal election. It’s gone into time allocation. The cap-and-trade bill was the previous one that was on time allocation. Every bill that they ran on, they are preventing debate and preventing this House from doing its job.

Speaker, as I was thinking about this, you can’t help but make the comparison between lemmings and Liberal members. You just can’t help make that comparison. We all know that lemmings run off a cliff. They never see their leader; they just follow the herd. They just do what they’re told and mass suicide ensues for lemmings. I know Liberals like to think of themselves as small, cuddly, fuzzy and warm and whatnot like lemmings as well.

It’s interesting: If you look up lemmings online, you’ll also get another term that often comes up when you google or search lemmings, and that is “groupthink.” I think that’s really what we’re seeing with this Liberal Party. It’s groupthink.

Let me just read a couple of things about groupthink that I think apply to the Liberal members in this House: “Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is a loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the ‘in group’”—that would be the Liberals—“produces an ‘illusion of invulnerability,’ an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made.” That speaks to what they’re doing here with these time allocation motions, that they are right; they are the only ones who are right and they are the “in group.”

It goes on: “Thus the ‘in group’ significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents, the ‘out group.’” That’s us on this side, the out group. “Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the ‘out group.’” I think that is a real good

summary of what we see happening with this Liberal government. They’re the smart ones; they’re the intelligent ones. They have an inflated sense of superiority: “We are not going to even let others speak.”

But as you go through and look at this definition of groupthink, it says, “Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context, such as community panic, play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.” Clearly, once again, community panic is always a great thing for the Liberal government to close off debate on: “We must get this done before the sky falls, before the planet goes off its axis and stops turning.” The Liberal government will bring in legislation to do this, of course, but also group cohesiveness—and nobody will counter that; the Liberals are a very cohesive group—and, as we can see with the Premier’s office, a very faulty structure.

So the present Liberal government satisfies each of those conditions to allow groupthink to take place. They do it quite well.

There was a fellow who pioneered the research on groupthink. His name was Irving Janis. He coined the term “groupthink” along with “doublethink,” and you can see that comes out of that George Orwell novel 1984. But here I think he puts it in even greater clarity: “I use the term ‘groupthink’ as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses in action.”

That says it all. It says it all. Concurrence-seeking is their dominant position, and it has overridden all realistic appraisal of what they do.

Speaker, we’ve heard it from others: The pension plan has gone through and morphed through a number of different iterations. It has gone from “everybody” to “eligible.” It has gone from plan B to plan A to plan C. The member from Windsor–Tecumseh used the term “chameleon.” I think it’s a good term; it goes along with “lemmings.” It is a good term in that the Liberals continue to hide their true purposes and objectives with the bill. That’s the chameleon effect of this.

Irving Janis went on to further say, “The main principle of groupthink, which I offer in the spirit of Parkinson’s law, is this: The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater the danger that the independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against” others.

That’s really what we’re seeing. I can’t understand why each of these members on the Liberal side are subjecting themselves to such insignificance and unimportance in their role as legislators. Like those lemmings, they never see the leader at the front of the herd. They never see that fuzzy little one up at the front. They just follow; it doesn’t matter where they’re going. Even if they know they’re going off the cliff, they’re going to follow anyway because they are that cohesive group and irrational thinking is not part of the program.

Time allocation, once again, Speaker, on a major plank of this Liberal government: It’s stifling debate, killing debate. There must be some Star Trek fans here in the Legislature, and I’m sure there are fans who are watching. Star Trek: The Next Generation with Captain Picard—we need a Captain Picard on that Liberal side of the bench, so when the Borg in the corner office says to all the members, “Resistance is futile,” we need a Liberal member over there to stand up and say, “No, it’s not. Resistance is not futile.” Why don’t you stand up, speak your mind and be a member of this Legislature?

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure to welcome, in the west members’ gallery, Deborah Maxfield, Darlene Derbyshire and Kim Mommersteeg, all from my riding of Sarnia–Lambton.

And long-term-care workers from North Lambton and Lambton Meadowview are representing CUPE here today. We welcome them.

Also, Mr. Don Pitt, the executive director of the Family Counselling Centre in Sarnia–Lambton, a Family Service of Ontario agency, is here to take

part in Family Services Day at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I had breakfast this morning with three personal support workers. I see Susan, Tammy and Trudy up in the west gallery. I’d like to say welcome to Queen’s Park, officially.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: In the House today we have long-term-care workers, members of CUPE from communities across Ontario. They are here today with CUPE Ontario president Fred Hahn and CUPE Ontario secretary-treasurer Candace Rennick, who is herself a long-term-care worker. I know all members will want to applaud them for the work they do and for taking care of our loved ones, and to welcome them to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I would like to introduce a group from CUPE long-term care who met with me this morning: Elizabeth Powell, Victoria Brown, Theresa Ozemoyah and Andrew Johnson.

I’d also like to introduce, on behalf of the member from Haldimand–Norfolk, Susan Wells, who is here from Reach in the Haldimand–Norfolk area. Welcome.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s not often that people come all the way from Timmins to be here in the Legislature. Can you imagine? I don’t get to do this very often.

I’m so proud to welcome three wonderful people who work in our long-term-care institutions in Timmins, both in extended care at the Golden Manor, which is our municipal home for the aged, which we want to keep: Brenda Lalonde, Debbie Larkin and Christine Laforest. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I have an extensive list of welcomes this morning. First, from the Catholic Women’s League, in the members’ east gallery: Pauline Krupa, president from Thunder Bay; Anne Madden, president-elect from Godfrey; Betty Colaneri, past president from Niagara-on-the-Lake; Carol Richer, legislation chairperson from Morrisburg; and Linda Squarzolo, resolutions chairperson and second vice-president from Sudbury.

Also visiting from Thunder Bay today: Nancy Chamberlain, executive director of the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre, and Lori Golab, a board member from the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre.

My last one today is from my office. My summer intern is here somewhere—there he is in the front row; I don’t know how he got the front-row seat. Jad Halabi, welcome.

And welcome, everybody, to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m really honoured to welcome to Queen’s Park today a friend of mine and an entrepreneur in the province of Ontario, Michael Nitefor.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome two community leaders visiting us from Waterloo region for Family Services Day: Wanda Wagler-Martin is here from Shalom Counselling Services Inc. in Waterloo, and Leslie Josling is here from KW Counselling Services in Kitchener. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Mississauga–Erindale and page captain Ayan Siddiqui, I’d like to welcome his parents, Sehar and Kamran Siddiqui; his sister, Zayna Siddiqui; grandparents Qulzam and Irshad Siddiqui; and his grandmother Rehana Rizwan. They will be in the members’ gallery this morning. Would members please join me in welcoming them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome Darlene Derbyshire from Huron–Bruce. She is representing Meadowvale Villas.

I’d also like to introduce, in conjunction with Randy Pettapiece, Susan Melkert, executive director and president at the Family Services Perth Huron, and Nick Forte, board president of Family Services Perth Huron. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: I have visitors from Ivanhoe Lake. I’m ready to bet that 106 of us don’t know where that is—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Hey, hey, hold it.

M me France Gélinas: Okay, 100 of you don’t know where that is. It is in the north end of my riding, and I’m very happy to welcome Shirley and Russell Litt as well as their friend Hugh McGinn, who came down this morning and are in the visitors’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Joining the surge of families at the Queen’s Park conference we have our summer students in the east lobby and in the east members’ gallery. Jennifer Commisso: I hope she will enjoy the time with us and enjoy this wonderful place. Welcome, Jennifer.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to inform the House that Shannon and Warren McPherson are here as well as Natalie McPherson: the family of our page captain today, Samantha McPherson. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to welcome Brandon Barangno, a co-op student who has been in my office. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s my pleasure to welcome three individuals from the Community Counselling and Resource Centre in Peterborough: Mike Burger, the president of the board of directors; Casey Ready, executive director; and Bob Campbell, who’s the past president of the board. They’re celebrating the 60th anniversary of the CCRC serving the great community of Peterborough.

Also, my summer intern, Alexander Cohen, will be joining our ministry for this summer.

Mr. Jim Wilson: In the House today are long-term-care workers, members of CUPE, from communities across Ontario. They’re here with CUPE Ontario secretary-treasurer Candace Rennick, who is herself a long-term-care worker. I know that all members would like to applaud these workers for the work that they do in looking after our loved ones. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: There’s also a visitor from Sudbury. She is with the wonderful organization the Catholic Women’s League of Canada, and her name is Linda Squarzolo. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Linda.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The clock has already run out for introductions. I’m going to ask all members to be very brief and get through your introductions. As we have a tribute to give, I want to make sure that we have full attention, so let’s get through our introductions. I’m trying to make sure that everyone has an opportunity, but let’s be brief, please.

The member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: From the Community Counselling Centre of Nipissing we have Alan McQuarrie, Derek Thompson and Helen Antebi.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: From Catholic Family Services of Simcoe County in my riding of Barrie I would like to welcome Maureen Shave, Michelle Bergin and Les Stewart.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to welcome Brad Davis and Leo Heuvelmans from the great riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex. They’re here with Family Service Kent for family service Ontario day.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: From Family Services Windsor-Essex: Joyce Zuk. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Two introductions: I’m pleased to introduce Fred Hahn, president of CUPE Ontario, and, in particular, CUPE education workers, and—I’m not sure if she’s here yet—Joanne Young Evans from Guelph-Wellington Family Counselling and Support Services.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park two long-term-care workers from my riding: members of CUPE Tom Carrothers and Susan Lovell. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please welcome, from the Family Service Ontario board, Connie McLeod from Thunder Bay, Sharon Mayne Devine from Peel-Dufferin and the interim executive director of Family Service Ontario, Susan MacIsaac.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Welcome, from Newmarket–Aurora, Trudy Marsden, a long-term-care worker with Southlake village in Newmarket. She’s here with CUPE Local 2040.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to take this opportunity as well to welcome all of the long-term-care workers here with CUPE, as well as to introduce my intern, Carling Fee, who also happens to be the granddaughter of MPP Ann Hoggarth.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to welcome the members of the board of Family Service Ontario to the Legislature: Brad Davis from Chatham, Robert Campbell from Peterborough, Lori Golab from Thunder Bay and Shelly McCarthy from Brantford. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome Janet Irvine from family counselling service Northumberland.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon on a point of order.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’d like to correct my record. In my question yesterday to the Minister of Children and Youth Services, I said that there were only 12 child protection agencies using CPIN. In fact, there are only nine.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introductions?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Speaker, for this opportunity to welcome a school from my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood. West Hill Collegiate students are here, the grade 10 class. Welcome.

Fire in Alberta

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I wanted to just express, on behalf of all of us here, that our hearts go out to all the people who are affected by the fire that’s raging in Alberta. We hope everyone stays safe.

As in other situations, we are committed to helping out other provinces in times of need. This is obviously one of those times, and I wanted to let the Legislature and the people of Ontario know that Ontario will be dispatching 119 staff to Alberta this week to assist in managing the fire: 100 firefighters and 19 support staff. We thank them for their service and we want them to come home safely, but our hearts are with the people of Alberta right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Patrick Brown: On that note, I want to thank the Premier for having Ontario show that sign of support. We all want to be there to help those in Fort McMurray. It’s the right thing to do. We want to be with our brothers, sisters and family members in Fort McMurray in this hour of need.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think that all of us have real concerns about what’s happening in Alberta in Fort McMurray. I want to say that it was important that the Premier let the people of Ontario and this Legislature know that of course Ontario is going to be there doing what we can. I appreciate the quick response from our team. I say that New Democrats as well are concerned and looking to see that things hopefully turn around, and that property and people particularly are safe and well in Alberta.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First, a personal introduction. The MacKenzies are here visiting, good friends of mine, and I welcome them. They’re in the Speaker’s gallery today. Thank you for joining us.

Would the members please join me in welcoming the family of the late Keith Roy Brown, MPP for Peterborough during the 26th and 27th Parliaments, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery. His daughters Jewell Bennett, Janice Gorodzinsky and Rosemary Ramey, welcome to Queen’s Park for this tribute.

Also in the gallery is our former Speaker, MPP David Warner. Thank you, Speaker.

Keith Brown

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Keith Brown, former member for Peterborough, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s truly an honour to be able to stand in this place on behalf of the New Democratic Party to pay tribute to the life of Keith Roy Brown, a member who served here from 1959 to 1967, representing the riding of Peterborough. I would like to welcome his family here today.

I never had the opportunity to work with or meet Mr. Brown. He won his second election in 1963, the same year that I was born. But in doing research for this tribute, I wish I could have, because like so many who have served and continue to serve, he struck me as a man who not only worked tirelessly for his constituents and who enjoyed being with them, but one who had some incredibly funny stories to tell as well.

Looking back, Keith Brown was involved in an exciting time in Ontario’s political history. He was part of record investments in schools, universities, highways and public services. Keith Brown is highly regarded for his role in bringing Trent University and Fleming College to Peterborough. He was a member of this House when some of Ontario’s first anti-discrimination laws were implemented and when the voting rights of First Nations people were expanded.

Then, as now, members sat on standing committees of the Legislature. In his time here, Keith sat on many, but some of their titles might surprise those serving now. He was a member of the Standing Committee on Game and Fish, the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Standing Committee on Highways and Highway Safety and many others. It was a time when legislators were more involved in the drafting of legislation. It was also a time when rural Ontario truly made a difference. He was also a member of the Select Committee on Automobile Insurance. I guess some issues have not changed all that much.

Keith was a successful businessman in Peterborough whose enterprises included a car dealership. In fact, when he was elected Deputy Speaker of this House, the headline in the local paper was, “Local Car Dealer Elected Deputy Speaker.”

I am positive that his colleagues would have enjoyed his wit. I would like to quote the current member from Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture—that’s the prerogative you get when you’re first to speak. I quote from Mr. Leal: “I bought my first ... car from Mr. Brown in 1988. I remember I saved all my money and went down there ... he said to me, ‘Seeing as how you’re a Liberal, maybe I should get a certified cheque from you.’”

In closing, I would like to thank his family for all their sacrifices so that Keith could work for the people of Ontario and for the sacrifices they continue to make as his son-in-law Daryl Bennett continues to serve as the mayor of Peterborough.

It was said that Keith Brown loved to close a deal. The deal that he made with the people of Ontario was a good one, and we will always respect him for it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tribute.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It truly is an honour to rise today and honour a friend and mentor, the one and only Keith Brown. He was a gentleman. He was born and raised around the tiny hamlet of Bonarlaw, Ontario. As some of you know, it’s on the road to Campbellford. Keith Brown, of course, was very interested in agriculture. He was a cheese maker by profession before he made the great move to the urban centre of Peterborough.

Before I begin today, I want to welcome Mr. Brown’s daughters, who I know very well: Jewel Bennett, Janice Gorodzinsky and, of course, Rosemary Ramey. I’m truly glad that you could join us here today.

In government, we really stand on the shoulders of others who come before us, and Keith Brown was no exception. He served ably as the Progressive Conservative member for Peterborough from 1959 to 1967. He was a witness to three individuals who were so significant in the lives of Ontario politics and, indeed, national politics. During his time he served with the Honourable Leslie Frost, affectionately known as Old Man Ontario. Then, of course, he served with the famous chairman of the board, the honourable John P. Robarts. In 1959—the class of ’59—he was elected with the person who would become affectionately known as “Brampton Billy,” the Honourable William Grenville Davis.

He certainly worked closely with Premier Robarts and the Honourable William G. Davis, who was then the Minister of Education and Minister of University Affairs, because Keith helped to bring both Trent University and Fleming College to Peterborough. Like a great captain on a bridge of a ship, Keith could always see the next horizon. For him, that horizon was bringing post-secondary education to the sons and daughters of the people of Peterborough.

Keith was a political champion, winning both the 1959 and 1963 elections with more than 50% of the vote. It was legendary in Peterborough that on election day he used to always loan cars to his opposition so they could get their voters to the polls. That really didn’t matter for Keith, when he won over 50% of the vote.

He was elected in the class of 1959 that included Mr. Davis. For the longest period of time, Mr. Davis and Mr. Brown were the two remaining individuals of that particular class.

Keith went on to serve. He didn’t serve in the Bill Davis government. He stepped down in 1967 in order to focus on his many businesses and his family. Keith was a very good politician and he was an excellent businessman. My friend from Timiskaming–Cochrane already told the story about me buying the 1988 Dodge Shadow from Keith. That’s a legendary story in Peterborough.

Keith grew his business from a single car lot into two dealerships in Peterborough and Campbellford. He also went on to own a taxi fleet, a coach company and a garage, giving career opportunities to more than 400 people in my riding of Peterborough. His love of his community was exemplary, whether it was his lifelong involvement with the Mark Street United Church, his work with the Masonic Lodge or his support for the Community Living camp in Peterborough.

The camp for Community Living Peterborough has a personal significance for my family, particularly my younger brother. There was a time when families in Peterborough—of course, they didn’t have the opportunity to access that camp to give these families that had sons and daughters with an intellectual disability a bit of respite over the summer. It was Keith Brown who provided a fleet of vehicles so those young children could get to that camp each and every day, something that we’ll always remember Keith Brown for.

For his commitment to his community, Keith was recognized with the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012, and, of course, in the not-too-distant future, he will be inducted into the Peterborough Business Hall of Fame. He was also honoured at the 170th annual Peterborough Exhibition, of which he was a big supporter.

Keith was a proud family man, raising his three daughters, Jewell, Janice and Rosemary, and, of course, somebody I got to know very well, who passed away in 2005, his beloved wife, Marjorie. There’s a lot of talk these days about people with sunny ways, but Marjorie Brown was one of the original people with sunny ways. She had a 100-watt smile. When she went into a room, it turned the room into a very positive experience.

When she passed away in 2005, I saw Keith a short time after that and he had a very, very heavy heart, but then, of course, things changed. He was back, involved in many things in the city of Peterborough, and he was the real patriarch of that family. As has been mentioned, his current son-in-law, a good friend of mine, is doing an incredible job as the mayor of Peterborough, Daryl Bennett.

Ladies and gentlemen, in many ways Keith Brown was larger than life itself. I want to share one of his stories from when he was the member for Peterborough. After he was elected in 1959, Leslie Frost, the Premier of the day, gave him some very good advice. He said, “Always remember, young man, that there are no votes here in Toronto and always pay attention to what’s going on in Peterborough.” To highlight that, I want to tell you the McCulloch chainsaw story.

About two months after he was elected, Keith was paid a visit by the president of Outboard Marine Corp. and the head of the Steelworkers, who represented the hourly rated employees at Outboard Marine. At that particular time, provincial parks in the province of Ontario were using an American chainsaw, the McCulloch chainsaw. But mysteriously, about a month after that meeting, the McCulloch chainsaws in every provincial park across Ontario started to develop problems. There were problems with the carburetors. There were problems with the chains. A month after that, every provincial park had a Pioneer chainsaw made right in Peterborough. That’s how you make changes in politics.

Keith was a good friend of mine. He provided me with a lot of good advice throughout my 30 years of public service in Peterborough. I remember when I got the privilege in 2003, we met shortly after that and he said, “Jeff, remember the advice that Leslie Frost gave to me, and it’s good advice I want to give to you.”

It’s been an honour to follow in Keith Brown’s footsteps as the MPP for Peterborough, although they’ve been very big shoes to fill.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, to my friend Keith, a fond farewell until we meet again. Thank you very much.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to rise today on behalf of my PC colleagues in paying tribute to a former member of this House, Keith Brown, who passed away on July 7 of last year at the age of 88. Keith is survived by his three daughters, who we certainly welcome here today in the Legislature. Jewell, Janice and Rosemary, thank you for being with us here today. He’s also survived by his three son-in-laws, his eight grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

As was mentioned, Keith was born in 1926 in the Marmora area, the son of a local cheese maker. In 1945, he married Marjorie Wallace, and they were married almost 60 years before Marjorie passed away in 2005. As described by his daughter Jewell, it was truly a lifelong love affair. Keith was always a “family first” kind of guy and was and still is adored by his family.

In 1950, Keith started his own business selling cars at a single used car lot. He successfully grew that business into multiple dealerships, eventually founding the Liftlock Group of companies. His business operations provided employment for over 400 people in the community, and he was known, as was said, as the car king of the Kawarthas. Keith’s successful car dealerships served multiple generations of customers. He never forgot the name of a customer, and it was obvious that his customers never forgot him.

Keith took a hiatus from his successful business career to run for the PC Party in 1959, for the government of Premier Leslie Frost, “Old Man Ontario,” who was from the neighbouring riding. Keith won the election easily and, in the general election of 1963, was re-elected under the leadership of Premier John Robarts with over 50% of the vote.

During his tenure as MPP, Keith was committed to bringing growth and development to the Peterborough area, thereby benefitting his entire community. He was described by his family as a true-blue Conservative who was dedicated to serving the people of his Peterborough riding.

Keith continued to be a public figure after his days as MPP. Myself, being the daughter of long-time PC member of Parliament Bill Scott, I remember meeting Keith at various political events and actually being nervous that I was in the presence of the legendary Keith Brown, the man with the car dealerships from Peterborough. I knew my father and my mother, Betty, always considered Keith and his beloved Marjorie to be good friends.

As much as Keith enjoyed the political life, after two terms he decided it was time to return to the private sector. In 1967, he then went back to being the car king of the Kawarthas.

We’ve heard about the member for Peterborough purchasing his first car from Keith in 1988, Keith suggesting that Jeff, the member from Peterborough, being a Liberal, should maybe get a certified cheque. I have to say, even when he was out of elected politics, Keith was still keenly aware of the financial risks associated with the Liberals in politics—clearly an astute man, ahead of his time.

Laughter.

Ms. Laurie Scott: He was also a man who saw the humour in everything—he would have enjoyed that joke—including politics, and was always quick to employ his wit in the spirit of fun.

Although Keith was no longer an elected public official, he never lost his keen interest in politics at all levels, playing various key roles in many elections and leadership campaigns over the years, including in the successful campaign for mayor by his son-in-law Daryl. Daryl is the mayor, but we know where he got his political skills from. Keith took a great deal of pride in Daryl’s success in Peterborough’s municipal politics.

Following his passing, I was speaking with his daughter Jewell about some stories that she has heard about her dad. She received a number of letters from individuals expanding on the many things that her father did for the people he represented as a politician and for the customers he served in being a caring, community-minded businessman. Many of the tributes expressed in these letters were the first time the family had heard the stories.

One particular story was from a woman whose uncle had once purchased a new car from Keith, only to have it stolen a few days later. When Keith heard about it, he gave the man a new car to drive until the police located his car. That same man died of Hodgkin’s in his mid-30s, leaving a widow and two very young daughters. Keith asked the widow to come and see him one day, and when she got there, he wrote “paid in full” on her husband’s car loan. Stories like this only serve to reinforce the image and affection which the family has long held for their beloved patriarch.

Keith was a member of the Masonic Lodge for over 50 years and was a faithful member of the Shriners, serving these fraternal organizations with his leadership and support. He was also a devoted and generous lifelong member of the Mark Street United Church, holding various positions on the board of stewards, board of trustees and session. He was a valued friend, adviser and confidant to all the ministers who served the congregation over the years.

In January of this year, the new Peterborough Business Hall of Fame announced that at its inaugural dinner in May, there would be a number of posthumous inductees into the hall and, not surprisingly, leading the list was Keith Brown. In announcing the criteria for consideration in the hall of fame, it was stated that a business person has to have displayed two definite traits: success in whatever their business endeavours were, and that they had been good to the community. Keith Brown not only met but exceeded these criteria, hands down.

Until the time of his passing, Keith was healthy and remained very active in his community, including the political scene. I have to say he gave me lots of advice when I would see him out at events, which is quite tremendous. As you see the generations unfold, he was still there for us.

His legendary storytelling, his tremendous wit and humour, and his keen business mind were in full evidence right up until the end. He has been referred to as a pillar of the community, a fine example of a person serving his family, his community and his customers.

With the passing of Keith Brown, the province, and the Peterborough area in particular, lost a great man and a legend. We can only be thankful for that legacy that he left behind, and we thank the family for sharing him with us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their heartfelt, thoughtful and kind words.

I would also like to thank the family for attending today for the tribute. What we will do here at the Legislature is make samples of Hansard available for you, and a DVD for your memories.

Again, one last time, thank you for the gift of Keith Brown.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Wind turbines

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. This morning, I was planning on asking the Liberals about the health cuts and about the autism funding cuts. Instead, I’m forced to ask this Premier about a media report by David Reevely about an unprecedented fifth OPP investigation—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Come out with your hands up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, an unprecedented fifth OPP investigation:

—OPP investigation number one: the Ornge scandal;

—OPP investigation number two: the gas plant scandal;

—OPP investigations numbers three and four: the Sudbury bribery scandal.

Can the Premier confirm that her government is in fact under a fifth OPP investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy will want to comment.

We were not aware of any investigation until the media report. If we are contacted, we will, as always, co-operate fully with authorities.

We’re taking a cautious and a responsible approach to offshore wind to allow for the development of research and coordination. The Ministry of the Environment is doing some of that research, looking at the issue, to ensure that we protect the health and safety of people and of the environment. We look forward to additional research coming forward. We stand behind our cautious and responsible approach to offshore wind energy.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I haven’t acknowledged you yet.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: In early 2011, Trillium Power Wind was moving ahead with their offshore wind project near Kingston. At 3 p.m. on February 11, 2011, Trillium was set to close a deal on financing that project, a fact that the Liberals were well aware of.

At 2:24 p.m. that same day, minutes before the deal was to close, the Liberals put out a press release, cancelling the offshore wind program without ever explaining why. When Trillium tried to find out why, there wasn’t a single record of the government’s decision.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier normally make policy by press releases?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The Premier has been extremely clear that we would open up the government completely—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you choose to go down that road—I think I’ve made it quite clear that I want to go through question period properly.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the allegations are within a time frame that is covered by this report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner: “I have appreciated the cooperation I have received from Premier Kathleen Wynne.... The Premier issued a directive in accordance with the recommendations made in the report and committed the government to greater transparency and accountability.... In addition, political staff received in-depth training on record retention responsibilities. I applaud these developments.”

Interjections.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition are heeing and hawing about the report of the independent information commissioner.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: Dodge, deny, deflect, muddy the waters—let me be a bit more specific. We know the Premier signed the deal to cancel the gas plants in order to save the seat of the finance minister, but the question is, why did the Liberal cabinet cancel the offshore wind project? Is it because the current economic development minister was worried about the planned offshore wind project at the Scarborough Bluffs? Was it to save the Liberal seat in Kingston? Or was it because Trillium never donated to the Ontario Liberal Party?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: On the issue of offshore wind, we continue to take a cautious and responsible approach. There are thousands of land-based wind turbines around the world backed by decades of science and experience.

Offshore wind in freshwater lakes is still at early stages of development worldwide. That’s why we still have a moratorium on offshore wind development. The Ministry of the Environment continues to research this issue, to ensure that we protect our health and the health of our environment, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to additional research—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —coming forward from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Even though he’s in a different seat, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order. I don’t think he heard me because he was still heckling while I was asking him to come to order.

You have a wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’ve finished, thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question.

Wind turbines

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. We know the Liberals cancelled the gas plants because they were afraid of losing seats in the 2011 election. That political decision cost Ontario a billion dollars. That billion dollars is being paid by every senior, every family in Ontario on their skyrocketing hydro bills, and now Ontario families and seniors may be on the hook for another $500 million that Trillium is suing for. Is that the cautious approach the Minister of Energy describes?

Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: Why should families and seniors pay for yet another Liberal scandal?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Minister of Energy has said, there is research that is ongoing, Mr. Speaker. There’s decades of research on land-based wind turbines. There is not the same body of research for freshwater lake turbines—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Why were you signing contracts? Why were you ready to sign contracts?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And whoever said that last one, if I knew who you were, I could bring you to order, too.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s why there continues to be a moratorium. We are taking a responsible approach and we’re waiting for that body of research to be developed.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing, come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: I think the government and the Premier are missing the point. Because of their actions, every family is paying more. Hydro customers are already paying more than $1,000 extra under the Liberals because of your political intervention. Now Trillium, I’ll be very clear on this, is suing the Liberals for $500 million. That’s going to go on everyone’s bill. That’s an extra $100 for every home in Ontario. When is enough enough? Because of your mistakes, everyone in Ontario is paying.

Does the Premier really think Ontario families and seniors should pay thousands of dollars more because of this government’s incompetence?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. Thank you. This is not the moment in which I ask for attention, and I even—I am still standing. When I sit down, you start. I’ll deal with it.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The Leader of the Opposition knows that this matter is before the courts. He also didn’t mention that their statement of claim was thrown out by the Court of Appeal, and they have restarted that court case. It’s an allegation. This party doesn’t know anything about oversight. This government has created the position of Financial Accountability—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will be insistent and consistent.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: This government has created the position of Financial Accountability Officer; made the French Language Services Commissioner independent; put into place—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —I’ll complete the list, Mr. Speaker—put into place the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth; allocated new powers to the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth; expanded the Ombudsman’s role to include oversight of municipalities, school boards and publicly funded universities—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: If the Minister of Energy is correct that we can’t talk about anything related to an OPP investigation, when there’s five—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The back and forth is not helpful. I’d like to be able to put the question properly, as I want the answers to be put properly.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the question is for the Premier. If we can’t discuss any matter that’s under an OPP investigation, when there are an unprecedented five OPP investigations, you have to leave us something to ask about here in the Legislature. The billions of dollars wasted on eHealth and Ornge scandals are being felt in every community in Ontario. Hospitals are being closed, doctors are being fired, nurses are being let go. The billions of dollars wasted on smart meters and gas—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry, but I’m getting challenged. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, the member from Hamilton Mountain and the member from Trinity–Spadina, come to order.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Those scandals are being felt in every bill. Life is getting harder under the Liberals. So my question is, does this government not appreciate that it’s harder and harder for families and seniors? Does this government not care that people can’t get the health care they need? My question is for the Premier—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Your time is up. Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the opposition continues to ignore what’s really happening in the electricity sector. They have acknowledged and they support what’s happening in the nuclear sector—

Interjection.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: They acknowledge and support what’s happening in the nuclear sector, where, for the next 30 years, we are going to be introducing into the grid electricity at 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour. We’ll be producing clean energy. They refuse to acknowledge that wind prices are coming in at grid rate now, at 8.5 cents a kilowatt hour.

They’ve been haranguing us about wind, and they now know that wind is successful. They can’t face the truth—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Apparently, the Liberals ripped up energy contracts for political gain, again. It’s alleged they destroyed energy-related documents, again. Now the OPP anti-rackets branch is investigating the Premier’s office, again.

The Premier signed off on the gas plants cancellation, Speaker. What was her role in the cancelling of the wind projects?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, we were not aware of any investigation until the media report. If we’re contacted, we will obviously co-operate fully.

We’re taking a cautious and responsible approach to offshore wind in order to allow for the development of research and coordination.

The Ministry of the Environment is undertaking that research. The fact is that there is a large body of research that backs up the placement of land-based wind turbines around the world. That same body of research does not exist for offshore freshwater wind turbines. We will await that body of research before decisions are made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, we have a very serious problem here in the province of Ontario. When the Quebec Liberals were facing scandal after scandal in the construction industry, they decided to clear the air by establishing the Charbonneau commission. Officially, it was called the Commission of inquiry on the Awarding and Management of Public Contracts in the Construction Industry.

After the gas plant scandal, the Hydro One sell-off, the fundraising quotas in the energy sector and now the latest OPP investigation, it’s time for a similar commission into the energy sector here in Ontario.

Will this Premier do the right thing by the people of this province and call a commission of inquiry on the awarding and management of public contracts in the energy industry, so that Ontarians can get the answers that they so rightly deserve?

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: A commission of inquiry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I appreciate the role of the opposition. I appreciate the fact that they have something in the newspaper which is in the form of an allegation. And I appreciate the fact that the opposition is not going to stand up and say anything good about this government, Mr. Speaker, but I will.

You know what? She hasn’t mentioned Hydro One lately, Mr. Speaker. She hasn’t mentioned Hydro One because the way we’re paying down debt from the proceeds of the IPO, we are saving interest charges of $100 million a year by paying down debt—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order.

Is the member finished? Wrap up?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Thank you.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals ripped up gas plants contracts so they could win a handful of seats in Mississauga and Oakville. The Premier admitted that. That cost Ontarians $1.1 billion. It’s alleged—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Natural Resources, come to order. The deputy House leader, come to order.

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s alleged that they ripped up FIT contracts and then tried to hide the evidence in order to win seats in Scarborough. This could cost Ontarians $500 million or more.

These decisions are about helping the Liberal Party—not the people, not green energy or good policy. But people end up paying the price, Speaker, and they deserve the answers.

Will this Premier do the right thing by the people of this province and call a commission of inquiry into the awarding and the management of public contracts in Ontario’s energy sector?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, again, I understand the role of the opposition. But when the leader gets up, it’s hard to focus on an answer when she takes Kenora in the north and she takes Toronto in the south and she—she’s all over the map on every issue that she can possibly raise in a question. So I choose to take one aspect of what she’s raised in her shotgun approach and talk about what’s positive happening in this province today.

She won’t ask a question about Moody’s investors raising the credit rating of the province of Ontario, saying that we’re meeting our targets, we’re growing the economy and we’re creating jobs. She won’t talk about any of those. She’s embarrassed by how successful we are.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, but I might remind the minister and the Premier that the role of government is actually to work in the interests of Ontarians, not the Liberal Party. The scandal is not limited to gas plants and the FIT contracts, which were cancelled to help the Liberal Party.

The government is selling Hydro One, which doesn’t build infrastructure but does help out a group of bankers who, in turn, attended private fundraisers with the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Finance. The Liberal Party held a $100,000 fundraiser with private nuclear companies immediately before the government chose private companies and scrapped their plans to work with the OPG.

People want their government to focus on making sure that families and businesses have affordable, reliable electricity in this province. But every time the Liberal Party makes a deal, their only question seems to be, how can this help the Liberal Party?

Will this Premier clear the air and actually call a commission of inquiry, like the people prefer?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Trinity–Spadina, it’s the second time.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to talk to the member opposite on the issue of fundraising that she raised, because when we talk about getting ideas from various parts of the province and from the opposition parties, we actually have asked the PCs and the NDP and the Green Party to sit down and look at draft legislation.

The question that the leader of the third party asked was a very wide-ranging question. She began with fundraising. It’s really disappointing—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s really disappointing that of all of the parties—the PCs, the NDP and the Green Party—the only party that has refused to come to look at the draft legislation and give input is the NDP.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Disappointing? The Premier needs to look in the mirror to see what real disappointment is. The people of this province are disappointed in this Liberal government and they’re disappointed in this Premier for the way they’re handling the energy file. When the Liberal government makes energy decisions in this province, the Liberal Party wins and Ontarians lose. It happens time and time again.

There is something seriously wrong here and people deserve some basic answers from their government and from their Premier. She has promised openness and transparency. Will she finally take an opportunity to actually fulfill that promise and call a commission of inquiry on the awarding and management of public contracts in the energy sector in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me take another piece of the question that the leader of the third party focused on. She talks about Hydro One. Now, I understand that the leader of the third party and I have a difference of opinion on Hydro One. But here’s the thing: I am very surprised that the leader of the third party has not once expressed her support for the building of transit and transportation infrastructure in this province, and that she doesn’t seem to understand that in order to be able to build transit, we need funding.

She campaigned on the same fiscal assumptions that we did, Mr. Speaker, and we have moved forward to make those investments. It’s very surprising to me that not only will the NDP not give us substance in terms of fundraising advice, but she also isn’t interested in talking about how we should invest in transit and how we should pay for that.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier of this province and her ministers insist that their energy decisions are business as usual, but there is a pattern, Speaker. There’s a pattern that is very serious and very wrong. The Liberal Party benefits, the OPP investigates, and people pay more. That’s the pattern of this Liberal government when it comes to the energy sector.

The Premier has promised transparency over and over again. I think she does not know what that word means. I’m calling on her to keep that promise. If everything is okay, if everything is above board, if there’s no problem whatsoever, then the Premier has got nothing to worry about and the air can be cleared for the people of this province.

I ask her to take my question seriously, to actually give the people of this province the respect they deserve and answer the question that I’m asking her—not try to be obtuse about it but answer the question that I’m asking her, which is to give Ontario’s people the answers they deserve and call a commission of inquiry into the awarding and management of public contracts in the energy sector in this province—

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party knows that there’s a case before the courts. She knows that we made a decision to gather evidence and to look at the research. She knows. I would think that the NDP has got research on clean, renewable energy, Mr. Speaker, so she would know that there are decades of research that has been done on land-based wind turbines. That same body of research does not exist for offshore, freshwater siting of turbines. That research is being done, and we will take the responsible approach and await the results of that research.

Automotive industry

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is to the Premier. A year ago today, the Minister of Economic Development said, “I’d like to see us land a new [manufacturing] plant or two in the next five or 10 years.” He even went so far as to appoint an auto czar to make that happen.

Yet the Minister of the Environment has totally different plans. At the same time that he threatened the 50,000 jobs in the nuclear industry, he also took aim at the nearly one in six Ontario jobs that benefit from the auto industry. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment described our Canadian manufacturers as “lacking courageous leadership” and doomed to have BMW and Tesla “start eating [their] lunch.”

For the second day in a row, which cabinet minister does the Premier side with, the minister who wants auto manufacturing or the minister who doesn’t?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been very clear all along that we are going to invest in our economy to create good-paying jobs, and we have. The plan has been working: over 630,000 net new jobs since the recession.

We have become the top destination in all of North America for foreign direct investment, beating out California, Texas, New York and every other province. We do so because we are partnering with the auto sector, recognizing the transformations that they’re making in manufacturing—value-added manufacturing, which, by the way, is also an improvement for our environment. They work hand in hand. We’re working closely together to improve our economy, improve our environment and, Mr. Speaker, we’re winning by this point.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Again to the Premier: Just last year the Premier appointed Ray Tanguay as the auto czar to help bring new auto investment to our province. In one day, the environment minister has reversed much of that hard work. It’s another day, another uninformed comment from the environment minister.

We’ve already lost General Motors in Windsor and the Ford plant near St. Thomas, and the GM plant in Oshawa could be next. If the GM plant leaves, it alone will cost Ontario $5.7 billion in GDP and over 33,000 well-paying jobs. That’s why I wrote to Ray Tanguay to see if he agrees with the minister’s comments.

Speaker, who does the Premier think should produce the government’s policies on the auto sector, the expert with over 30 years’ experience or Glen Murray?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister’s title or riding, please.

Minister of Finance?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question because it gives us the opportunity to once again talk about the importance of the auto industry and the importance of continuing to support a sector. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives voted against the opportunity to save the auto industry when it was most in need. They sat on their hands and they did not support what was necessary.

As a result of our ongoing support, since 2003, our government has invested over $1 billion, leveraging an additional $12 billion from the private sector for the auto industry. Ontario owns four of the top five positions in the latest survey by J.D. Power and Associates for quality vehicles built in North America.

Over the past two years, Ontario has seen nearly $4.5 billion in new auto investments. This is helping to create and sustain over 21,000 jobs in that very sector, as well as a peripheral sector that services that industry.

The auto industry is critical to Ontario, and we are going to continue to support it and we are going to continue to support—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Energy policies

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Currently, the OPP is investigating the Liberal government for the gas plants scandal, Ornge kickbacks and the Sudbury bribery scandal. Now, the OPP is investigating the Liberal government for deleting documents in a $2.25-billion lawsuit regarding the cancellation of wind contracts to save seats.

It seems that this is the fifth OPP probe into this Liberal government. It seems that every time we look at Liberal self-interest, it leads to police investigations. Can the Premier explain this pattern?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of community—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Government and consumer services.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government services, whatever it is.

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

Look, it’s pretty clear that on this side of the House, open, transparent and accountable records are what this government supports. Bill 8—

Laughter.

Hon. David Orazietti: The member opposite laughs, but when we introduced Bill 8, with higher standards for transparency and accountability, the NDP voted against it. They sit here and laugh about it, but they voted against it.

We created an offence of up to $5,000 for the willful destruction of records, ensuring that all chiefs of staff were designated as the person accountable for records and compliance. We developed a mandatory training program with respect to that and we required that every institution have reasonable measures to secure their records.

When we introduced Bill 8 to raise the standards and raise the bar in Ontario, this party and those members—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: A commission of inquiry would clear the air. It would clear the air with regard to the cancellation of the wind contracts and the destruction of documents. It would perhaps clear the air with regards to why this government is selling off Hydro One and it would maybe answer some questions around the Liberal government’s fundraising and the connection to the energy sector.

If the Premier has nothing to hide, why not just clear the air? Will the Premier do the right thing and call a commission of inquiry into the awarding and management of public contracts in the energy sector? Yes or no?

Hon. David Orazietti: The OPP investigation will take place. It will take place as an independent investigation. We’re not going to interfere in that in any way, nor should we.

The importance of this is to ensure that we continue to raise the standard around record keeping and record retention. That’s what our government is doing.

In fact, the Information and Privacy Commissioner commented on that and specifically said, with regards to Bill 8—which they voted again