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

April 16, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Apr-16 (PDF)

L069 - Thu 16 Apr 2015 / Jeu 16 avr 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 16 April 2015 Jeudi 16 avril 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Order of business

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Energy policies

Power plant

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Sexual violence and harassment

Doctor shortage

Privatization of public assets

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Mount Sinai Hospital nurses

Government accountability

Holocaust Memorial Day

Holocaust Memorial Day

Government accountability

Leading Women, Leading Girls, Building Communities

Rouge National Urban Park

Hospice care

Speed skating / Patinage de vitesse

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Petitions

Curriculum

First responders

Student safety

Environmental protection

Alzheimer’s disease

Water fluoridation

Hydro rates

Hospital services

Protection de l’environnement

Taxation

Automotive industry

Student safety

Alzheimer’s disease

Private Members’ Public Business

Protecting Passenger Safety Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection de la sécurité des passagers

Housing Services Corporation Accountability Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la responsabilisation de la Société des services de logement

Long-Term Care Homes Amendment Act (Preference for Veterans), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée (préférence accordée aux anciens combattants)

Correction of record

Protecting Passenger Safety Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection de la sécurité des passagers

Housing Services Corporation Accountability Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la responsabilisation de la Société des services de logement

Long-Term Care Homes Amendment Act (Preference for Veterans), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée (préférence accordée aux anciens combattants)

Orders of the Day

Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 57,

An Act to create a framework for pooled registered pension plans and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, 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 on Monday, April 27, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Tuesday, April 28, 2015, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., 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 57:

—notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—witnesses are scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis; and

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

—the deadline for written submissions is 6 p.m. on the last day of public hearings; and

—that the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29; and

—that the committee be authorized to meet on Monday, May 4, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Tuesday, May 5, 2015, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, 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. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed, pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, May 6, 2015. 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 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. Bradley has moved government notice of motion number 17.

Mr. Bradley.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Pooled registered pension plans are a new type of voluntary, tax-assisted individual retirement savings vehicle. As a new low-cost retirement savings vehicle that is professionally managed and portable from one workplace to another, they’re intended to make it easier for employees and self-employed persons to save for retirement. Simply put, PRPPs are a vehicle for the self-employed to be available to invest their retirement savings at a low cost. Contributions are locked in, and benefits at retirement are based on accumulated contributions and investment returns.

The federal government implemented PRPPs for sectors under federal jurisdiction, and also applies to persons employed or self-employed in Yukon, the Northwest, Territories and Nunavut. The federal Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act and associated regulations came into force on December 14, 2012.

Legislation must be passed by each province before PRPPs can be made available to individuals employed in provincially regulated sectors and to self-employed individuals working in the provinces. As a result, PRPPs will not be available to the majority of Ontarians until legislation is passed by this House and proclaimed in force, once supporting regulations have been made. That is why we need to move ahead expeditiously with this bill.

The purpose of the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2014, is to provide a legal framework for the establishment and administration of PRPPs in Ontario. It would apply to individuals employed in provincially regulated employment, the self-employed in Ontario, as well as individuals employed in federally regulated industries in Ontario whose employers do not offer PRPPs. Given the desire to harmonize PRPPs across the country, the proposed legislation adopts many of the key features of the federal PRPP legislative framework.

Our government recognizes that increasing retirement savings in the province is a complex challenge that requires a multi-faceted approach. Establishing pooled registered pension plans is just one step in our plan, which will encourage investment in voluntary retirement savings tools. That is why I ask the members of this assembly to support Bill 57.

I know that there is a lot of support from members on all sides of the House. The honourable member from York–Simcoe, who had introduced a similar bill previously, said: “I think PRPPs are indeed good and necessary. Obviously, the federal government realized this some time back and passed the legislation that would allow the provinces to implement PRPPs, establishing the minimum standards that all federal PRPPs would have and that PRPP administrators must meet. Each province is responsible for enacting its own PRPP enabling legislation. Quebec has already launched its version of voluntary retirement savings plans. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have also passed legislation.”

We couldn’t agree more that the time is right to move ahead with this bill.

We also have the honourable member for Nepean–Carleton speaking to this bill and saying, “We in the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus certainly do appreciate the ability to pool pensions and to have that ability for investment....”

Finally, the MPP for Leeds–Grenville stated in debate, in reference to Bill 57, “I’d really like to have at least one of those members that spoke earlier talk about the government’s plans to move this bill through committee and ultimately come back to the House for third reading. That’s a request, through you, Speaker, to whoever is finishing the two minutes.”

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, it is time we move forward with Bill 57. 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. That’s compared to more than three quarters of bills that were passed going back to 1990.

Voters of Ontario sent a clear message last June. They wanted our government to get on with the business of governing in their best interests.

Speaker, as you know, we introduced this bill in December. There has been considerable debate on this bill. We’ve heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. It is time, in our view, that we end second reading and refer the bill to committee.

In committee, stakeholders will present their views and committee members will have an opportunity to move amendments to the bills. At the same time, the House can move to substantive debate on other 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 to the legislative process; for instance, Bill 6, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act; Bill 9, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act; Bill 37, the Invasive Species Act; Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act; and Bill 66, the Great Lakes Protection Act.

We’d like to spend time to debate some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we cannot do so until Bill 57 is dealt with. I urge all members of this House to support this motion and help pass this bill as soon as possible.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s my pleasure to rise today and have an opportunity to speak to Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. As you know, Speaker, our caucus has long advocated for PRPPs. In fact, as the member for St. Catharines mentioned earlier, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2013, was introduced in this Legislature by our own member from York–Simcoe, Julia Munro, who is here today.

We, as a caucus, strongly believe that Ontarians deserve the right to choose how they save for retirement. It’s no secret that we would like to see this bill go forward, and we’re very proud that the member for St. Catharines supported the federal government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper by putting this bill forward.

However, I need to take a moment to highlight my concern over the way in which the government has decided to move this bill forward through the motion that the member for St. Catharines just tabled, a time allocation of this bill.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Why do they always time-allocate?

Mr. Steve Clark: I don’t know. I think the government’s willingness to fast-track bill after bill through this House without meaningful debate is perturbing.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I haven’t spoken to it yet.

Mr. Steve Clark: And that’s a good point. My colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke makes a very good point: On several occasions this session, I’ve had over half of the members in my caucus eager to speak to legislation, to voice the real concerns of their constituents in hope that the government would listen. But time after time after time, this government has forced closure on bills without adequate debate.

For example, Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act: I had 16 members who were here and willing to speak to that bill.

Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act: I had 14 members of my caucus who were willing to speak to that bill, a very important bill on agriculture.

Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act: I had 18 members who were willing and eager to speak to that bill.

Finally, Bill 31, the Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act: I had 16 members who wanted to speak to that bill prior to the government choking off debate. I’m going to get to that term “choking off debate” in a few moments.

It’s extremely difficult to stand in this House during question period and hear the Deputy Premier repeatedly say, “The easy part of being in opposition is that you get to oppose. The harder part of being in opposition—and it’s a big responsibility—is to propose better ideas.” Or, “The easy part of being in opposition is that you get to oppose. But the part where you have a real responsibility is to actually provide constructive advice.” That is her quote.

I want to assure you, Speaker, that the Ontario PC caucus has tried, and they will continue to try, to put forward constructive debate and amendments to improve legislation that passes through this House. That becomes extremely difficult when the government continues to present time allocation motions and shut down debate at every turn.

It appears as though my colleagues on the opposite side have forgotten an essential element of the democratic process. I would like to give them a reminder of our invaluable democratic rights, the rights that wars have been fought over to establish and protect. I believe it was best described by the esteemed member for St. Catharines on December 11, 2001. Here is Mr. Bradley’s quote: “We are operating in this Legislative Assembly at this time almost exclusively on what are called time allocation motions.

That’s most unfortunate, because it’s what you would call anti-democratic.... [T]his government has consistently used these motions to pass legislation through this House even after this government imposed upon the Legislature drastic changes to the procedural rules of this House to grease the skids for legislation that it deems appropriate for the province.

“The best way to deal with legislation is to have the government sitting most of the year so that it can receive careful analysis and debate in this House and in committees and, in fact, in committees that travel across the province to get meaningful input. We do not have that.”

The member for St. Catharines—

Mr. John Yakabuski: He sure changed his tune.

Mr. Steve Clark: He sure has changed his tune.

The member for St. Catharines was absolutely right. It is anti-democratic to speed legislation through this House without adequate debate from all parties. It’s not fair to silence the voice of individuals who have reached out to their MPPs with concerns on particular bills, in hope that they’d be able to bring their concerns right here to this House and to have thoughtful debate around ways to improve legislation.

I want to go back, Speaker, in the little bit of time I’m going to take, to quote from another speech from Jim Bradley, the member for St. Catharines, this time from May 30, 2001: “I regret that we are dealing once again with yet another time allocation motion, which is a motion that chokes off debate in the Legislative Assembly. It is my observation after a number of years, and I think talking to people who have observed this Parliament for a number of years, that it has been diminished so remarkably by this government that it has become almost irrelevant.”

I’ll go through to later on in his speech: “[O]n all sides I think members have something to contribute: the opposition to concede when the government has made moves that are acceptable and good, and the government members to find problems that might exist in government legislation. But that is virtually gone. It is virtually dictated now by the Premier’s office. The speeches we hear in the House tend to be speeches which seem to originate from the government caucus service bureau, and I understand the need for some research for speeches, but they are virtually meaningless, because they can’t influence the government or the procedures that take place. That’s most unfortunate.”

Those quotes were from the member for St. Catharines, from 2001.

I can agree with this speech from that member—not the speech he gave this morning. Frankly, I’m surprised that the member is willing to be a party to, and to be involved in, such behaviour and such disrespect for the principles of democracy he wholeheartedly defended that day.

I’m just going to use one final quote from the member for St. Catharines, this time from November 24, 1993. He says, “I wish to speak to the closure motion which is before the House by once again indicating my concern at the number of closure motions which have been forthcoming from the government House leader and under the NDP government of Bob Rae....

“I can well recall that he felt very strongly about the fact that the opposition should have the opportunity to fully canvass all the arguments on any of the bills before the House, and he was a very strong defender of that particular opportunity....

“I’m concerned about the closure motions because I think they limit legitimate debate. I recognize that a government ultimately might have the opportunity to close down a debate that’s been going on a very long period of time. But as I’ve indicated to the House in days gone by, the purpose of these debates is to canvass public opinion, to make the public aware of what is happening.”

The member for St. Catharines expressed many truly excellent ideas by his remarks that day about respecting and valuing the role of individual members. I know the member was sincere when he made that speech 22 years ago, and I believe he feels the same way today.

So again, I appeal to the member for St. Catharines and all the MPPs on the government benches to consider carefully the path you’re treading. When you are elected into government, you not only are given power, but you’re also given the trust of the people. Don’t silence the voices, even though they’re opposition voices, by shutting down debate and forcing time allocation.

Our party will be voting against this time allocation motion, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Before I begin, I want to say that I’ll be sharing my time with the member for Windsor–Tecumseh and also the member for Nickel Belt.

I was really looking forward to participating in the debate this morning on Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, because I have something to say on behalf of the people I represent in London West. I can’t express enough how disappointed I am that the context for me to be offering the perspective of my constituents in London West is around a closure motion to shut down debate on Bill 57, the PRPP act.

This is an issue that is vitally important to the people I represent in London West, to the people that all members of the NDP caucus represent, and many of us have not had an opportunity to yet participate in this debate. We have an obligation to bring forward the concerns of our constituents and to make sure that the fundamental issues of retirement security are addressed appropriately by this Legislature, and that there is an opportunity for all of us to offer the perspectives of the people that we represent and to bring forward some concerns and issues with the legislation.

So I’m going to offer the comments that I had prepared on Bill 57, because I want to be on the record about this legislation and about the impact of this bill on my constituents in London West.

I just wanted to share with you a shocking statistic that was reported in the 2014 VitalSigns report by the London Community Foundation: a 300% increase in the poverty rate among seniors in London. That’s based on the most recent data from Stats Canada.

Ensuring that seniors can retire with dignity and are not forced to live in poverty is absolutely critical to me and to the people I represent in London West. Of course, there is no issue nearer and dearer to the hearts of New Democrats than pension reform and improving retirement security for Ontarians and, indeed, all Canadians. It’s one of the bedrock principles that has long identified our party and that New Democrats have fought for, for decades, at both the federal and the provincial levels.

Sadly, Bill 57 does nothing to address the real crisis in retirement security faced by Ontarians, which is one of the reasons that New Democrats are so concerned about this closure motion and why we believe that debate should continue on this legislation.

We have to stop for a moment and reflect. The inspiration behind this legislation, the impetus for the creation of pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs, is none other than Stephen Harper. This alone should make people think carefully about the real purpose of this bill, who it is actually designed to help, and who will benefit from this legislation. Certainly, it’s not low-income seniors. It’s not those increasing numbers of seniors who are living in poverty in London and across this province, who are having difficulty making ends meet. These are not the people who will benefit from this legislation.

Bill 57 is modelled after the federal pooled registered pension plan legislation that came into force in 2012. That was based on proposals that were brought forward by the life insurance industry. Bill 57 includes some adaptations for the Ontario context.

The passage of that federal legislation came after four years of determined advocacy by labour groups and by seniors’ groups. It also followed seven federal-provincial finance ministers’ meetings. These meetings drove home the reality that Canadians were not saving nearly enough for their retirement, and in fact, almost one-third of Canadians do not have any retirement savings at all. They simply have not been able to put money aside.

The meetings also highlighted the need for a safe, affordable and reliable retirement savings vehicle for the two thirds of working Canadians without workplace pensions. We know that such a vehicle already exists. It’s called the Canada Pension Plan. We really need to be looking at enhancing the CPP rather than offering these new types of private sector retirement savings options.

As a result of these four years of advocacy, as a result of the seven meetings that were held, a two-pronged strategy was developed. It included the federal PRPP legislation, but it also included a commitment from the federal and provincial governments to look at a modest enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan act to complement the private sector PRPPs and improve retirement security of Canadians.

But of course, it did not take long for the Harper government to backtrack on that commitment. Shortly after the introduction of the federal PRPPs, Stephen Harper made clear that his government was not going to proceed with any enhancement to the CPP. His solution—his only solution—to ensuring retirement security for Canadians was the federal PRPP legislation.

Since only 15% of workers are federally regulated, and most already have workplace pensions, the private sector organizations that had supported the federal PRPP legislation in the first place began to lobby strongly for Ontario PRPP legislation, because they saw that as a great potential market opportunity. These private sector organizations included the life insurance industry, the banks, the CFIB, the Canadian Chamber Of Commerce and others.

In responding to this lobbying campaign, it has been very interesting to watch the evolution of the thinking of the Ontario Liberal government. For years, Ontario Liberals had stood with the New Democrats and supported CPP enhancement as the best and only option. But with the push for PRPPs, the Liberals announced that they would proceed with provincial PRPP legislation, but only if it was accompanied by a federal-provincial agreement to enhance the CPP. After Stephen Harper rejected enhancing the CPP, the Wynne government nevertheless decided that it would proceed unilaterally with PRPPs in the absence of that CPP enhancement.

What Bill 57 does is allow for the establishment and administration of pooled registered pension plans in Ontario, so it’s the Ontario version of the federal legislation, with a few differences.

Bill 57 recognizes the impact of family law on PRPPs and includes provisions dealing with the treatment of spouses, and options following marriage breakdown. This is similar to the treatment of spouses and former spouses under the Pension Benefits Act.

Also consistent with the Pension Benefits Act, Bill 57 protects funds that are in a PRPP account from creditors. It gives the Ontario Superintendent of Financial Services regulatory authority over PRPPs and establishes a process for a PRPP administrator to object to or appeal decisions of the superintendent.

Finally, there are also amendments included in Bill 57 to various other pieces of legislation, specifically adding PRPPs to the definition of a pension plan. Bill 57 also identifies PRPPs as one of the permitted vehicles to which pension plan assets can be transferred by former plan members or eligible spouses, which means that, of course, registered pension plan administrators will have to review whether the terms of their existing plans permit transfers to PRPPs, and they may have to look at amending their plans to enable this option.

The purpose of pooled registered pension plans is to pool risks of companies. In that way, very large pooled funds are created and, in theory, the argument goes, this will keep fees low. But we have a major concern about this theory, based on past history.

First, PRPPs give managers, who are employees of the banks and the insurance companies, basically a monopoly to offer these kinds of retirement savings options. We know from experience that RRSPs and other private sector retirement savings options include hefty private sector management fees. The higher the management fees, the lower the returns to the beneficiary.

Currently, Canadians pay twice as much, or even more, for administration of their RRSPs than do those Canadians who are enrolled in large public pension funds. The CPP investment board, like OMERS and other large provincial public sector workplace pension plans, has been able to keep administration costs very, very low, at less than 1%. This is a major contrast to the private sector experience with RRSPs, and it really makes public sector pensions, like the CPP or OMERS or other plans, a much better sponsor for a retirement savings vehicle than the insurance industry or the banks, which charge 2% or more for RRSPs, which is double the management costs for CPP.

But there are other equally concerning problems with PRPPs. There are no employer obligations to contribute to a PRPP, and just like RRSPs, benefits are based only on what an individual worker can contribute.

Employee participation is strictly voluntary. There’s no mandatory enrolment such as we see in other provinces, like Quebec. There’s no defined benefit. Workers end up with whatever the market returns are at the date that they decide to retire. So just like an RRSP, employees who are thinking about retiring with a PRPP, if they’re thinking about it at a time that the market goes down, may realize that they actually can’t afford to retire and will be forced to stay in the workplace.

So the question is, why? Why did the government decide to bring in another private sector retirement option? When you look at the experience with RRSPs, the model that many of us contribute to, it’s really hard to make the case that another option was needed.

Canadians are contributing about $40 billion a year to their RRSPs, and there has been an increase in total RRSP contributions over the last couple of years. But the number of people who are contributing has been virtually unchanged. In addition, there is an estimated $80 billion in unused RRSP contribution room. As one analyst put it, the RRSP savings pool is getting deeper but not wider. We see the same number of people contributing, and they are contributing more, because these are people who have the means to invest in a private sector pension plan.

More concerning, these savings plans are concentrated in a very small percentage of families, as I just mentioned. According to Stats Canada, 25% of families hold 84% of RRSP assets, and three out of 10 families have no private pensions at all.

RRSPs and other tax-free savings accounts and other private sector options do play an important role for many Ontarians, but they only work for those who have the ability to contribute.

We cannot build a fair and equitable system of retirement security around private sector savings vehicles. When people are living in poverty and barely getting by, buying an RRSP or a PRPP is simply not possible. This is especially the case in my community and, I’m sure, in other ridings across Canada or across Ontario, because of the level of need in the community. The VitalSigns report that I mentioned earlier showed that London’s poverty rate has increased over 6% since 2000. We now have a poverty rate that is almost 32% higher than the national average.

Londoners absolutely need a publicly funded system that will support them in savings for retirement. They do not need another private sector option.

Before I close, I wanted to talk a little bit about the impact of PRPPs on women. I am the women’s issues critic for the Ontario NDP caucus, and I think that it’s important that we apply a gender lens to the issues that we discuss in this Legislature.

We’re all aware that Ontario’s population is aging, but we may be less aware that Ontario’s seniors are predominantly female. Women live longer than men. They make up a larger proportion of people over 65, and they make up the overwhelming majority of people who are in the oldest age groups.

At the same time, senior women are almost twice as likely to live in poverty as men, especially if they are single. Almost one third of elderly women who are on their own live below the poverty line. They are much more likely than men to have to rely on income security programs, like OAS and GIS. In 2008, only 28.6% of senior women’s total income was made up of pension and retirement income, compared to 36.6% of senior men’s income. We know that immigrant women are particularly vulnerable. Many immigrant women over the age of 65 who have lived in Canada for 10 years or less are without any income at all.

In 2013, the OECD did a study on global pensions and found that rising poverty among Canadian seniors is most acute among elderly women, especially those who are divorced or separated. These higher rates of poverty among senior women reflect the reality of the persistent and widening wage gap, which was a finding of the OECD.

Next week, we will be marking pay equity day here in Ontario, which marks how much longer women have to earn into the next year in order to generate the same level of earnings that men had the year before. This year, women have to have worked all of January, all of February, all of March and three weeks into April before they have earned the same salary that a man earned the previous year.

We know that women also make up the majority of minimum wage earners in Ontario; almost 60% of minimum wage earners are women. They are more likely to have part-time, contract or temporary jobs and other forms of precarious employment, which, as we know, do not come with workplace pensions. They do not come with earnings that enable women to put money into RRSPs or PRPPs or other private sector retirement savings vehicles.

We know that women still shoulder most of the responsibility for caregiving. They have to juggle work and family responsibilities, and often move in and out of the labour force, which has long-term consequences for their income security when they retire, because they may have had to stop their CPP contributions, which of course will reduce their future benefits.

These factors mean, as I mentioned, that women are unlikely to have the advantage of workplace pensions. They are unlikely to have the means to be able to save for retirement. These factors are compounded by women’s longer life expectancy, which in effect means that they have to save more than a man would, to be able to retire with dignity and security, because they are living longer.

So what we are seeing in Ontario is that instead of retiring, Ontario women are continuing to work. There was a recent report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that found that the number of women who stayed in the workforce after age 65 doubled between 2007 and 2013.

We are also seeing that more than half of working women aged 65 to 69 are now working full-time. These are women who should be able to retire, who should be able to look forward to living their final years with dignity, enjoying their grandchildren, but they are now having to stay in the workforce. At no time in the last decade have so many women aged 65 or older been in the labour market.

The problem with PRPPs is that they do not take any of these issues into account. They do not take into account the number of women who are employed in precarious jobs, the number of women who work at minimum wage jobs, or the number of women who do not work in paid employment at all because of family caregiving commitments, because of disability or other factors.

The PRPP is a classic example of a policy initiative that does not include a gender lens. Despite the government’s stated commitment to gender-based analysis, by bringing forward this policy they are discounting and excluding the experience of women.

I’m going to now turn over to my colleague the member for Windsor–Tecumseh to offer some additional comments on the closure motion and on Bill 57.

Certainly, New Democrats will be voting against the closure motion. We will be continuing to push for enhanced CPP on behalf the Ontarians who do not have workplace pension plans and we will be holding the Liberals to account to ensure that any public pension option includes mandatory employer contributions, automatic enrolment, low administration fees and defined benefits.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s tough to follow my colleague from London West because she always puts so much passion into her very well-researched speech on Bill 57.

Once again I am honoured to be able to stand in this chamber and be the voice of the people in Windsor–Tecumseh. Today, we’re discussing time allocation on government Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2015. Let us not confuse this proposed legislation with Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act.

Though I must say, Speaker, there are those who—I’m sure—like this confusion that is out there, this bit of smoke and mirrors over these two bills, and perhaps that confusion has led the government to bring in time allocation.

My constituents in Windsor–Tecumseh are good, solid, hard-working people and retirees who understand the value of a good, reliable pension plan. They may not understand why the government doesn’t want us to keep talking about pensions in this House, or why the government wants to restrict the time that we’re allowed to do so, but they do accept the fact that in Ontario—indeed, in Canada—we should all be able to retire with dignity.

Our senior years, the days we spend in retirement, were once called our “golden years.” I’m not convinced that’s the case anymore, unless, of course, you happen to work at the top of the heap at one of our banking institutions.

I was on the train home back to Windsor–Tecumseh on Thursday, the day before Good Friday. By chance, I happened to pick up a copy of the Globe and Mail. I took all the time in the world to read it, unlike today where we’re having time allocation on Bill 57. The Globe, as you know, Speaker, is not a bad paper. I’m sure you’ve heard of it. Tucked away in the Globe’s Report on Business section, I stumbled across an

article with the headline that read “CIBC’s CEO Retirement Pay Surprises Many.” Who in this House wouldn’t read on after having that headline in front of you?

The opening paragraph grabbed me right away, and here’s why: “The outsized compensation packages Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce promised to pay two retired executives has corporate governance specialists scratching their heads—and has even rankled some Bay Street professionals.” Who in this chamber wouldn’t want to keep reading once you’ve been intrigued with that? I had to keep going.

In the interest of full disclosure, Speaker, I’m not a banker. I’ve never worked in a bank. Sometimes I do my banking at ATMs. That’s because, like Stephen Leacock, every time I go into a bank I get rattled. The tellers rattle me; the wickets rattle me; the sight of money rattles me; everything rattles me.

A reporter for the Globe and Mail, Tim Kiladze—I don’t say I pronounce his name properly. I’ll spell it: Tim K-I-L-A-D-Z-E. Obviously, Tim doesn’t get rattled around banks and bankers. Well, he might, if he only had so much time given to do his banking, like we have only so much time today to talk about Bill 57, because of time allocation.

Tim was poring over the CIBC’s proxy circular. I know none of us are ever going to do that. I’m not; that’s for sure. But Tim discovers the small print that discloses that the CIBC is continuing to pay Gerry McCaughey, its former CEO, and Richard Nesbitt, its former chief operating officer, very well after they retired from the bank last fall.

Speaker, you and I may disagree on what being paid handsomely means, just as we may disagree on time allocation. So let me try not to get too rattled when I tell you this, but the CIBC will lay out $25 million to their former senior executives. They do have to split it, of course, just like we’re splitting our time on time allocation today. While the rest of us in the non-banking sectors would struggle to pay the hydro bills and put food on the table, and try to maybe squeeze in a short holiday somewhere warm in the colder months, the CIBC is continuing to pay the base salaries, perks and bonuses for many more months to come.

The Globe and Mail found this information tucked away. I mean, who would want to go around to the bank’s customers and tell them straight up front what their fees and commissions are paying for, right? By next April, Mr. McCaughey will be handed an additional $16.7 million, and Mr. Nesbitt will be paid $8.5 million by this October. It’s nice work if you can get it, Speaker.

The

article also quotes a York University professor, Richard Leblanc, who is also an adviser on corporate governance. I guess I’m surprised that they’re time-allocating this, but Professor Leblanc was surprised by these CIBC terms. In fact, he’s quoted as saying, “This can raise outrage.... It sends the wrong signal to the rank and file”—no kidding—just as time allocation sends the wrong signal to the people in this province that the government wants to limit debate on the controversial bill.

These two guys who are getting all this extra money are not on the payroll as advisers. They’ve retired. Like Elvis, they’ve left the building. They’re gone. They’re not doing anything else for the bank these days. Yet somehow, for some reason, your bank fees, Speaker, your interest, your investments are being used in this sweetheart deal to keep paying these two fine gentlemen.

I guess there is actually a law that makes it legal, just as I’m sure the government has a law that allows them to bring in time allocation when they want to silence the voices of the opposition. You see, since both men had earlier given notice that, a couple of years down the road, they wanted to retire, this allowed the board to say, “Well, if you go now, we can give you all this extra money.” Nice work if you can get it. So they’re kept on the payroll. Some laws are fashioned for a very few, and the rest of us have to deal with everything else that’s left over.

According to Jane Milburn, a labour lawyer who specializes in Bay Street clients, not everyone has to do exactly what the CIBC says, just like nobody really has to time-allocate a bill unless they’re trying to silence the opposition. You see, if you put on the books that—apparently, you can put in a policy or a contract that says, “If you resign, we have a policy for that. It doesn’t mean we’ve got to pay you two years’ salary for going.” I mean, who knew?

Speaker, I repeat, this was all published in the Globe and Mail on April 2. On that same day in the same newspaper, there was another article, with the headline “New Pension Reality Hits Banks’ Corner Offices,” this one written by David Milstead. It appears the banks have learned their lesson. At the Bank of Nova Scotia, Richard Waugh retired in late 2013. His pension will hit the max at $2 million a year. The man who replaced him, Brian Porter, won’t be able to get more than $1.5 million in annual pension, and that’s only if he serves 10 years in the top spot.

Over at the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. Milstead tells us that last July, at the age of 57, Gordon Nixon was pensioned off at $1.75 million a year. Speaker, you’re in the wrong business. You should have been at the top of one of these banks. If he had stayed on until he was 60, he would have qualified for a pension of $2 million a year.

Here we are talking about pooled pension plans.

RBC’s new CEO, a gentleman by the name of David McKay, is not so lucky. If he stays until he turns 60, he can qualify for an annual pension of $1.25 million a year, but if he opts out at age 55 in October three years from now, he’ll still get $700,000 a year.

Mr. Michael Mantha: That’s it?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: That’s it.

Bill Downe, D-O-W-N-E, at the Bank of Montreal, has hit his cap of $1 million a year, but somebody was thinking ahead. He gets his $1 million a year in American funds—Canadian banker; American funds. I suspect someone on the government side was thinking ahead on this, too, when they brought in time allocation on Bill 57.

Let’s turn to my bank, Toronto-Dominion, TD Canada Trust. Here’s a name we’ve all heard in this House for the last days and weeks and months, and making big news this morning: Ed Clark, with Mr. Clark, who is making decisions on so many issues affecting all of us, each and every one of us here in Ontario these days, making a big announcement this morning. According to the Globe and Mail, Ed Clark retired last October with an annual pension of $2.5 million a year.

Here’s a guy out there now making decisions that affect us all, those of us struggling on the old age pension and the Canada Pension Plan: $2.5 million a year for Mr. Clark—a nice chunk of change. I know a few retirees who would love to live just on the interest on $2.5 million. I’m one of them, Speaker, and I’m sure you are as well.

Good for Mr. Clark, I say. I’ve never met the man. I’m sure he’s a fine gentleman. Perhaps I’ll never meet him. I hear he’s a very generous man. Well, I guess he can afford to be.

Now, this isn’t meant in any way as a slight to Ed Clark, or any of the other bankers raking in the big bucks in their golden years. I just think it would be nice to share more of that gold with the people who made it possible: the customers of Canada’s banks. We all do our banking at our Canadian banks and trust companies, credit unions.

The clients of these banks, those of us who take out the loans or get cash out of the ATM—by the way, after Ed Clark retired with his pension of just under $2.5 million a year, the man who replaced him, Bharat Masrani, had his pre-CEO pension frozen and will accrue $110,000 towards his CEO pension each year he remains in the top job until he hits the max at $1.35 million a year.

Back to Mr. McCaughey for a moment. According to the Globe and Mail, he spent 10 years at the top of the CIBC, but because he worked for a number of years at other CIBC-related investment banking companies, the board, in the board’s wisdom, gave him nearly 22 years of extra service credit—21.9, actually, Speaker.

Back to Ed Clark for a moment. He was entitled to a full pension when he turned 62. He decided to stay on a little bit longer, so when he stayed on past that date, TD gave him a stock option award with a value of $4.7 million in an agreement to cap his pension payouts.

Well, I know we’re working on time allocation, but the little guy seems to be getting lost in this debate. In case you’re wondering, unlike Bill Downe at the Bank of Montreal, Mr. Clark’s $4.7 million is in Canadian funds, not in American.

I thank the Globe and Mail for making all of this information public. I believe everyone in Ontario should be aware of how well our banking institutions treat their senior executives. Maybe this information will be used by some of our constituents as they consider their career options—it’s a good job if you can get to the top in the banking industry—or, indeed, their banking choices.

Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2015: The sad, sad fact of life, Speaker, as you well know, is that two thirds of us in Ontario do not currently have a workplace pension plan. That wouldn’t be so troublesome if our personal savings were such that we could rely on them to top us up, but who are we kidding? We’re not bankers. We’re not senior corporate executives. Our pension planning comes on Wednesday and Saturday, when we buy a 6/49 ticket, or a Lotto Max on Fridays. For many of us, that’s our pension plan, or that’s what we’re hoping to get out of it.

We hold out hope to make it eligible for the Canada Pension Plan, the CPP, but even so, that maxes out currently at, what, $12,500 a year? That’s the top of the scale. Many of our constituents will only get the average of $6,800. Believe me, no one’s going to time-allocate their views on that.

Speaker, I want to skip ahead a bit because I know that the member from Nickel Belt, who is going to use up some of the last of our time, wants to jump in and make some notes. Let me just go ahead for a moment, if I can.

Mr. Michael Mantha: That’s the problem when you silence debate.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Yes, that’s the thing: You want to keep talking and you can’t, right?

This PRPP—and I stress the “PP,” because this plan will trickle huge amounts of money into the coffers of the big banks and the insurance companies like that one. We know they need as much as they can get to pay for those wonderful, generous pension plans for their senior executives. It will also allow employers to get away without making contributions.

PRPPs are a commodity, a product, a revenue tool for banks and insurance companies, where administrative fees are charged instead of benefiting retirees the way they should.

Speaker, at that, I thank you for your time this morning. I say to anyone who’s listening, thinking about what kind of career they’re going to get into in Ontario: Get into the banking industry. Work hard; get to the top. You won’t have to worry about pooled registered pension plans.

With that, I’ll turn the rest of our time over to the wonderful member from Nickel Belt.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? Last call for further debate. The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Speaker. I didn’t want to rise right away because I didn’t know if any of my colleagues from the Liberals or the PCs were going to stand up. I will use my two minutes wisely.

Basically, Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, doesn’t do a whole lot of things that don’t already exist. Any one of us in Ontario who has money can contribute to a bank RRSP. The lucky ones of us who have a little bit of money at the end of the month, we do that. But for a lot of people, it’s not a question.

What you have to realize here is that what the government is doing is actually giving the banks and the insurance companies that will hold those pension plans the right to deduct money from your cheque, whether you want to or not.

Right now, in order for them to deduct money from your cheque, you have to consent. But if you work for an employer who decides that one of those pooled registered pension plans is just the ticket he needs—they won’t have to contribute to it. They won’t have to do anything. The bank will do everything for them. Then, if your employer does this, you have lost the right to hold onto your cheque.

If we pass this bill and your employer signs a deal with a bank or an insurance company—and the member from Tecumseh certainly made it clear as to how much money those people have—if we pass Bill 57, then they will have the right to take money off your cheque.

The NDP does not think that this is something that Ontario needs. What Ontario needs is security in retirement, not giving the bank and the insurance company access to your paycheque, no matter how small it is, so that they can pay themselves millions of dollars.

We think that this is wrong. We disagree with what this bill does, but we agree we need to do better to make sure that people live their final years in retirement in financial security.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? Last call for further debate.

Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion number 17. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be taken during deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 15, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant la protection et le rétablissement du bassin des Grands Lacs et du fleuve Saint-Laurent.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m very pleased to have this opportunity this morning to speak to second reading of Bill 66,

An Act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin, the Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015. I found out precisely 30 minutes ago that I would be given this opportunity, so I’m really excited about the chance to speak. It says something about how the House is developing its plan as it goes; it’s a very exciting that we’re here this morning to discuss this important issue.

I think it’s important to put this legislation in some sort of fiscal context because, as we know, the Ontario budget is going to be tabled in this House on April 23. It’s quite late, Mr. Speaker. Normally, in recent years, the budget has been tabled around the end of the fiscal year, sometimes before the fiscal year concludes, towards the end of March; and now we’re into the month of April. But at least we finally do know the day that the budget will be presented: April 23.

The economic numbers that I’m using are the ones that the government presented in the fall economic outlook and fiscal review, which was tabled in the House towards the end of the year. We know that in that important document which the government presented to the House last fall, the government was projecting a $12.5-billion deficit for the fiscal year 2014-15. That is the fiscal year that ended at the end of March, just a few weeks ago.

It’s also important to point out that the government has informed us that they have revised the deficit number for that fiscal year that’s just finished. They now anticipate a deficit of $10.9 billion—somewhat less than they presented in the House. Again, that makes us question where this original number came from and what changed in the interval. Was it a case of the government overestimating the deficit so that it could come into this House and then crow about having done something positive by reducing that deficit number—if in fact that deficit was artificially inflated when it was presented in the House in the fall?

But it’s also important to point out that the deficit in the previous year was $12.5 billion. The government would have us believe that they are, in fact, reducing the deficit each year such that they can balance the budget by 2017-18. The reality is that even if the deficit number for the fiscal year just finished comes in at $10.9 billion, as they’ve said recently, it’s still an increase, year over year, in the deficit of some $400 million.

If they’re going to balance the budget by 2017-18, as they lead us to believe, as they repeatedly say, you would think and assume—and most people would agree—that the deficit should be coming down year over year such that it comes down to zero by 2017-18. In fact, as I said, we see the deficit actually increasing.

The fall economic statement projected a net provincial debt leading up to the end of the fiscal year, the end of March, of $287.3 billion. I think it’s important to point out that the debt was actually $139 billion in 2003, which is of course the year of the provincial election when the Liberal government took power. The deficit has doubled during that time—sorry, the debt, rather; the provincial debt, the net debt, has doubled since the Liberals took office.

The provincial government spending that was projected in the fall economic statement: $130.2 billion, up from $126.4 billion last year. The net debt per capita—

Mr. Joe Dickson: Point of order: Just to remind the member to speak to the bill. It’s Bill 66, the Great Lakes Protection Act. We’re all over the world, but let’s deal with the real issue at hand: the Great Lakes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’m listening to the member carefully, and I would ask him to come around to the bill that’s in front of us.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. You’re absolutely correct. It is important that members speak to the bill, and I feel I am speaking to the bill because I’m talking about the fiscal context in which this bill has been introduced.

I’ll just finish up here. The net debt per capita in the province of Ontario from the fall economic statement: $21,003, up from $11,339 in 2003—almost a doubling of the net debt per capita. In effect, the amount of each of us in Ontario owes because of years of provincial government overspending has almost doubled since this government took power. It’s the amount that each Ontarian owes—every man, woman and child—because of years of government overspending.

The interest payments on the debt: $10. 8 billion. This is the third-largest item in the budget after health and education, and, again, expected to increase about $1 billion a year for the foreseeable future. By 2017-18, the government’s own documents suggest and project an almost $14-billion annual interest payment because of the growing—and exploding, really—provincial debt.

Again, I put these numbers on the table in the context of this debate because, with the fiscal profligacy of this this government, I think it’s important to remind Ontarians, and the House, in fact, that we are facing a severe financial problem in this province of Ontario because of overspending on the part of the Liberal government. All of the legislation that is debated and discussed in this House has to be put in some sort of context. The financial problem that we face is growing more severe by the day as we borrow more and more every day, every hour of every day, because of this government’s unwillingness to show fiscal restraint.

Bill 66: As we know, Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of this bill is “to protect and restore the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin; and....

“to create opportunities for individuals and communities to become involved in the protection and restoration of the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.”

The bill, if passed, would create a guardian council, as the government calls it in the bill, and the minister would, “as he or she considers advisable,” extend invitations to individuals from a variety of stakeholder groups to participate in this council. The council would be required to meet within one year of the act coming into effect and at least one meeting in every subsequent calendar year. So this guardian council would be expected to meet annually if this bill were to pass.

The council would be established to provide advice but not be a decision-making body. The stated purpose of the council would be to provide a forum to identify priorities for actions, potential funding measures and partnerships, and facilitate information sharing. The minister would ultimately be the one who would decide on initiatives—I assume in consultation with cabinet.

The legislation would not call for the presence of specific groups as mandatory at meetings; nor would it require balanced representation from the hundreds of communities attached to the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River basin.

The bill would require the government to maintain Ontario’s current Great Lakes Strategy and require the strategy to be reviewed by the end of 2018, which is just a few years away, and at least every six years afterwards. The minister, in consultation with the other Great Lakes ministers, would table progress reports to the assembly every three years.

After consulting with the other Great Lakes ministers, the minister would, if empowered by Bill 66, “establish qualitative or quantitative targets relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin” that would have the power to overriding existing legislation—for example, the Nutrient Management Act that was passed by this Legislature some years ago.

Within two years, the minister would “establish at least one target ... to assist in the reduction of algae blooms in all or part of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin....

“The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry may, after consulting with the other Great Lakes ministers, establish one or more qualitative or quantitative target in respect to preventing the net loss of wetlands in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.”

Of course, if we look at the issue of geographically focused initiatives, any member of the public would be able to submit geographically focused initiatives, or GFIs as they’re called, to be considered by the council and approved by the minister, essentially making the council, we say, perhaps a pointless layer of red tape that could be avoided through direct ministry submission.

The act would undoubtedly lead to greater loss of municipal autonomy; I think that’s clear. According to the bill, despite any other act and initiative, a GFI, a geographically focused initiative, would prevail “in the case of conflict between a designated policy set out in the initiative and,

“(

a) an official plan;

“(

b) a zoning bylaw; or

“(c) ... a policy statement issued under

section 3 of the Planning Act.”

If there is a conflict with existing legislation, “the provision that provides the greatest protection to the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin prevails.”

Our caucus critic on the environment file is Lisa Thompson. She is the member for Huron–Bruce. She’s doing an outstanding job of responding to the government’s policy with respect to the environment. We are engaged in our role as opposition, pointing out the flaws and drawbacks of the government’s legislation.

In recent days, of course, the government has committed to a new cap-and-trade policy that they say is an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the province of Ontario. They’ve signed an agreement with the province of Quebec and the state of California to enter into this cap-and-trade scheme.

We’ve asked a lot of questions about this issue in the Legislature. This is an important environmental issue, Mr. Speaker, so I think it’s important to discuss it in the context of this Bill 66 debate. We have said that the real motive behind cap-and-trade is actually to disguise a massive revenue increase, in the order of $1 billion to $2 billion, and that it in fact is a tax by another name.

We see that there are many valid questions about cap-and-trade and we really have not had an answer to the most basic and fundamental question: How much will it cost the average Ontarian and how can we get assurance of where the money will go? I’ve asked the rhetorical question through Twitter: “Will the Premier issue a public challenge to all Ontarians to reduce their carbon footprint, before she gets on a jet to California?” I would anticipate and expect that there will be cabinet ministers jetting off to California to monitor the progress of this initiative. I think it’s important to ask that question as well.

The government’s stated commitment is that the money, whatever money is generated as a result of cap-and-trade, will go towards, I believe, transit initiatives or other initiatives with respect to the environment. I would ask if in fact the money is going to be set into a dedicated fund in that regard or if it’s just going to be funnelled into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As we’ve seen in the past with the government’s health tax—they call it the health premium—that they introduced in their first budget after coming to power in 2003-04, we were told that the health premium would be going towards health care.

What we found out later, of course, was that in fact the money generated from the health premium was just going into the Consolidated Revenue fund and that it was a brand new provincial income tax; it was not even a health premium. So the government has the record of a shell game with respect to the health premium, which is really, as I say, a brand new provincial income tax. We would question, again, whether or not they’re being sincere with this commitment.

I would also ask: Why is it that the Premier’s first instinct when it comes to working with business is to be hostile and punitive? Why isn’t she prepared to work with our job creators to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

I would also suggest that we see across the world, where cap-and-trade has been introduced and has been established, that there is not a single jurisdiction where the process isn’t being gamed by the participants.

Lastly, I would ask again that the government table an independent economic analysis of cap-and-trade in the Legislature so that we know what the pros and cons are and how many jobs are in fact going to be exported as a result of this policy.

Getting back to Bill 66, Mr. Speaker, our position as a caucus is this: The role and purpose of the guardian council remains largely unclear. We ask: What are the benefits of creating this council that cannot be achieved through other legislative tools and public consultation processes?

We say that, as it stands, the proposed guardian council will become a tool by which the government can appease its Liberal friends, and the minister is only mandated to invite those stakeholders “that he or she considers advisable.” This limits the—thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Order of business

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You may know that the Premier and her cabinet have organized two lock-ups, followed by a press conference this morning, that were organized in such a way as to conflict with question period. They are announcing this morning what will more than likely be the single biggest policy initiative to be carried out by this government in the 41st Parliament: the sell-off of Hydro One.

They have by design organized this in such a way that one must conclude that the only reason they are doing so is to manipulate control of the message of this policy initiative. They are attempting to game the timing of their announcement in such a way that it avoids the immediate scrutiny of question period.

I’ll be very brief. O’Brien and Bosc says question period “is this part of the parliamentary day where the government is held accountable for its administrative policies and the conduct of its ministers, both individually and collectively.” I would add to this that the government has been clear that this announcement will form the basis of its budget’s fiscal framework for this year.

I say, is this a budget? No. But Speaker Carr’s ruling on the Magna budget, on May 8, 2003, had some questions that equally apply to the decision by the Premier to do an end run around this House.

I am not going to quote Speaker Carr at length; I only have two points. Speaker Carr said in his second point, “If left unchallenged, will this incident ... embolden future governments to create parallel, extra-parliamentary processes for other kinds of events that traditionally occur in the House?” And I would argue that question period is one of them.

His third point is, “Why is an extraordinary parliamentary process needed if there is already a process in the House? If the answer is that it enables direct communication with the public, to what extent does such an answer undermine the representative, scrutiny and accountability functions of” this House?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you adjourn question period after introduction of guests so as to allow sufficient time for the Premier and her cabinet colleagues to return to this House so that we, the opposition, on behalf of the public and beholden to our parliamentary responsibility, are able to question the government in regard to what will prove to be the single biggest shift in government policy in the 41st Parliament.

The last point I will say: I also want to inform you, Speaker, that New Democrats believe that this action by Premier Wynne is a breach of our parliamentary privilege, and we will be providing you with arguments to that effect later.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On the same point of order, the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I feel very strongly, as does my colleague beside me, the third party House leader, that this government can’t run roughshod over standing orders and the traditions of this place. Question period, in our Westminster system, is the opportunity for the opposition to hold the government to account. This is a long-standing tradition. For the government to make these decisions today on major government announcements and then absent themselves from this Parliament, to me, is unconscionable.

I believe you need to rule, and the government needs to realize that this place, for all 107 MPPs, is a place that we cherish. We need to be able to provide that opportunity to hold the government to account.

This is disgraceful, these government benches. I hope you will take Mr. Bisson’s point of order seriously. I know members of my party will do the same.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I would be remiss if I did not present to you facts in relation to the point of order that was raised by the House leader from the third party.

Speaker, I think the facts are as follows: For some time, the Premier has outlined that she has an advisory council that has been doing some work on asset optimization and that at some point, that advisory council would be tabling its recommendations to the government. Today is such a day; the advisory council is presenting its recommendations. What the Premier is merely doing is responding to those recommendations.

The Premier has been available in this House in a large majority of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I intend to hear the points being made by everyone clearly, and I do not want interruption.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker. The Premier has been available in this House question period after question period, answering to questions of the opposition on a myriad of issues, including the issue around the work that the advisory council on asset optimization has been doing. The Premier fully intends to be in the House next question period and beyond to answer questions.

Any government policy that will be deliberated upon will be presented in the formal budget that will take place on April 23, next Thursday, as announced by the Minister of Finance.

The members of the government’s executive council are in the House today to participate fully in question period and answer any questions that the members of the opposition would have in that regard, so I urge you to disallow this point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A continuation of the point of order? The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: A continuation, Mr. Speaker, and very briefly: I just say again, the government is in control of the timing. It’s clear that they have gamed this in order to be able to not allow the opposition to ask questions. They could have done this any other way that would have allowed that; they did not. I think Speaker Carr’s ruling was pretty clear—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I—

Mr. Steve Clark: Disrespect of the House: That’s what it is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would appreciate an opportunity—with silence—to respond.

It is understood that no one is compelled to attend and that the government provides information to the opposition of their presence in the House as a courtesy. It is not demanded by protocol. The member from Timmins–James Bay has indicated that there is a concern that it might be a breach of privilege, which is different from a point of order on this particular topic. So I will allow that to happen and anticipate that it will happen.

As far as the point of order is concerned, they are not compelled to attend, and, quite frankly, that’s my ruling. It’s something that can happen without breaching any orders. So that’s it. That’s my ruling.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, I understand it’s your ruling, but I’ve also asked you to adjourn this House until such time as the Premier and her cabinet are here to answer questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not a point of order in terms of a request of the House, so that’s not going to happen.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to introduce Mr. William Stevens. He’s the CEO of Mushrooms Canada, and he came in from Guelph this morning.

I would also like to introduce Susan McBride, who’s the director of human resources for Highline Produce Ltd., the largest employer in Prince Edward county: the Highline Mushrooms factory.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like welcome page captain Ashton Corr’s father, who’s here today: Stephen Corr. I’m not sure where he is but I’d like to welcome him. I know he’s in the building.

Congratulations to Ashton for being the page captain today.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It is with great pleasure that I welcome participants and leaders from the Royal Bank of Canada Career Launch Program. I was with them earlier when this program got going early this year. We have Susan Uchida, Rehana Ciriani, Judy Dobbs, Lindsey Hartshorn, Elynn Wareham, Peggy Capitain, Vanda Hudak, Joshua Wittingham, Neelam Sian, Daniel Mayer, Erica Baillie, and Christopher Lee-Hon-Siong.

All are here in the members’ gallery. Please join me in welcoming them here to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce Dennis Prouse in the members’ gallery, from CropLife Canada. Welcome, Dennis.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I would like to introduce Craig Saunders in the gallery from OPSEU. He’s here today to observe.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to welcome, from Simcoe Community Services, Marion Graves, the CEO, and Jamie Hall of stakeholder relations.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to introduce Carmela Betel and her friend Lucy Shaar, who came down today to hear the statements on Holocaust Memorial Day and Yad Vashem, as well as to attend the reception which will begin at 11:15 in room 228.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to Queen’s Park four constituents from the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West: Robin Pilon, Jacques Pilon, Maddy Pilon and Dan Howell, in the east gallery.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I am very pleased to welcome Bridget Girard and her daughter Jacquie, from our lovely riding of Durham. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’m happy to introduce my father, who is in the members’ east gallery, who was 90 years young yesterday—welcome—and my partner, Chris Van der Vyver, the most loyal partner that one could ever hope for.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It’s a pleasure to have in the House, from CropLife, Dennis Prouse, vice-president of government affairs, and also a constituent of Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I just want to welcome two folks who are former students of mine at York University: Dibya Pal and Vinayak Nagarajan. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jim Wilson: This question is for whoever is Acting Premier today. Hey, lucky man.

Speaker, to the Acting Premier:

Section 50.3(1) of the Electricity Act reads: “All proceeds payable to Her Majesty in right of Ontario in respect of the disposition of any securities or debt obligations of, or any other interest in, Hydro One Inc., a corporation established under

section 50, a corporation or other entity established under

section 50.1 or an arrangement made under

section 50.1 shall be paid to the financial corporation.”

Acting Premier, are you going to follow the law? Are you going to pay down the $27-billion hydro debt with the money you get from the sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for the question. First of all, Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we know that Mr. Ed Clark will be tabling his recommendations later today. I think it would not be wise to pre-empt what’s in the report.

What’s clear, and something that the Premier has been very clear about, Speaker, is that we want to find opportunities to unlock the value in the tremendous assets we have in our province and be able to use that value to fund critical public infrastructure that is needed in the process, such as our highways, our transit and our transportation infrastructure. That’s something that we presented to the people of Ontario in the last election, and we continue to work on that to build Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: To the Acting Premier: The reason we put the law into place was to ensure that the money from any sale of Hydro One would be used to pay down the debt and provide relief to hydro customers through lower electricity rates. After all, it’s the hydro customers that own Hydro One. You’re planning on doing the exact opposite. You’re going to run off with the sale proceeds and leave customers with a $27-billion debt to pay. That can only mean higher hydro rates.

Deputy Premier, can you guarantee hydro customers that a sale of Hydro One will not result in higher hydro bills for decades to come?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I think it’s ironic to get this question from the party and the member opposite, who actually saddled Ontario taxpayers with this enormous stranded hydro debt. They are the ones who left this unsavory legacy to the people of Ontario that they are working hard towards paying off. In fact, it’s this government that, year by year by year, has been paying off that stranded hydro debt, to the point that we can now proudly—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, over the last 12 years, we have been paying off that debt that was left by the previous Conservative government. We are up to the point that we will be removing the debt retirement charge from the consumer ratepayers, because they have played

part in that case.

We will continue to make sure that the stranded debt is paid. That’s something that was left behind by the official opposition when they were in government.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: The majority of the $27-billion debt comes from David Peterson’s decision to not have Darlington come in on time and on budget—in fact, $14 billion over budget; that’s the majority. The rest of it was incurred by the old Ontario Hydro before I was even born and before you were even born. So get your story straight—

Applause.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —and stop telling falsehoods to the people of Ontario.

You have an obligation under the law not to fritter the money away, not to rob Peter to pay Paul—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In between the applause, I did hear something I would like him to withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

You have an obligation, Minister, and I say to the government, to pay down that debt. It’s legacy debt. It’s debt that has been there for a long time. We’re paying big interest on it. Hydro customers own Hydro One. They should be the ones who benefit through lower rates, or at least stable rates, for the next few decades. That’s the purpose of the law.

We knew some scoundrel would come along at this point in history and try and steal that money for other purposes, to patch up your mismanagement of the last 12 years. Do the right thing and follow the law.

Interjections.

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

Before I continue, I’m going to offer a caution that, as we move along in this, I’m starting to hear some on-the-edge stuff and something I actually asked to be withdrawn. Let’s just keep it within parliamentary language, please.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s rather rich to get this question—

Mr. Todd Smith: You’re right. It’s rich.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —from the official opposition, who made a mess, a big mess—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —of the hydro system in this province—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe North.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —when they were in government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I am going to repeat myself, to ensure that those who were making noise while I was speaking—the member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order, the member from Simcoe North will come to order and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, that’s the party that, when in government, made a mess of the hydro system in this province. They had too many false starts. They were burning dirty coal to produce electricity in this province, polluting our air, causing asthma in our children. They’re the ones who had that momentous blackout in our province; burning diesel in—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We have been working hard over the last 12 years in rebuilding the energy system in this province, making sure that we clean up the energy system by shutting down coal-fired generation, making sure that we have renewable green electricity in our system and a reliable source of electricity for Ontarians.

Energy policies

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: To the Acting Premier: The Premier herself claimed the cost of gas will increase over three cents under the Liberals’ pay-to-pollute scheme, and with this Liberal government’s track record, we know it will end up costing much more.

Even if we pretend it will only be three cents, as you claim, that will cost Ontarians an additional $700 million a year. That’s another $100 to Ontario families, to shoulder your burden of mismanagement.

In rural Ontario, people don’t have the choice not to drive. How are rural families, who must buy gas to get to work and get to school, regardless of the price, going to be able to afford this increase?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, I want to congratulate our Premier and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for taking a most important and momentous decision when it comes to ensuring that we actually deal with the issue of climate change in our province by introducing the cap-and-trade system. The official opposition needs to get their head up out of the quicksand. They’ve got to choose a lane. Are they going to continue to deny climate change or are they going to stand up for Ontarians and the future of our province when it comes to a cleaner environment and a better and stronger economy?

I guess now we know what the PC Party stands for. It’s the pro-coal, pro-carbon party of Ontario. They’re the only ones who are standing in support of carbon. The whole world is moving forward in making sure that we put a price on carbon and that we deal with greenhouse gas emissions because it is essential to the future prosperity of our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the Acting Premier: This isn’t the first time that the Liberals have copied a European energy plan before they saw the evidence. Your Green Energy Act was supposed to save the environment, reduce pollution and create jobs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Instead, it caused energy prices to skyrocket, made your Liberal friends rich and drove jobs out of this province. This pay-to-pollute scheme will be the Green Energy Act 2.0. However, this time, it won’t just be electricity rates that soar. It’s now a tax on everything. The Green Energy Act costs each household $1,100 a year.

Acting Premier, how much more will your pay-to-pollute scheme cost Ontario households?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I am—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Continue.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m fascinated by this line of questioning, Mr. Speaker. The party opposite put a cap-and-trade system on nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide. They traded between companies. They’re down 46%. Mr. Speaker, you can hear that this is a very sensitive issue for the party opposite given how loud they’re being right now.

We are about to design a cap-and-trade system. Where it is in place, in places like California and Quebec, it is actually enabling higher productivity. A carbon price in BC saw accelerated GDP growth and lower costs for everyone. When they learn something about the difference between cap-and-trade and taxes, which is sort of 101 for an MPP, they should—

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the Acting Premier: The degree to which this government has lost touch with reality is mind-boggling. One day, they rise in the House to tell us how Ontarians are not saving enough for retirement. The next day, they create a tax on everything that will take money right out of their pockets, right out of their savings accounts. Higher costs mean less disposable income. That means less money to save and less money to spend to keep the economy moving. That is basic economics.

Acting Premier, how much money will your tax on everything take from the retirement savings accounts of Ontarians?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I think it’s time for a little lesson in basic economics here. Tembec—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh yeah, we’ll get that from you, Glen. You of the million-dollar toilet.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Well, that got you your second one. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order, and the member from Lanark, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tembec, a great Ontario forestry company, reduces its emissions and improves its plant. The average GHG emissions from an average forestry company, let’s say, is 50%. We set the cap at 40%. Tembec is at 30%. Tembec then has a surplus. It may sell it to Cascade, which may need two or three years to do that. Cascade then can buy the time. The money Tembec gets back is reinvested in a higher-productivity plant, more jobs. That’s how it works.

It’s a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Acting Premier. First, the Liberals showed how they disrespect Ontarians by keeping their plan to sell Hydro One secret during the election campaign. Now they are disrespecting Ontarians and this assembly in the way that they’ve rolled out the Clark report.

My question to the Acting Premier is: Can he phone the Premier and tell her to get over here and answer the questions of the opposition?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m compelled to indicate that if this continues, I shall pass the question and move to the official opposition.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As stated, I’m indicating to the third party that if this continues, I will pass their questions and move to the official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now I’m not going to do that if I continue to hear it from this side.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is the official opposition prepared to ask the next question? I recognize the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Power plant

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Acting Premier. Acting Premier, yesterday, the Globe and Mail uncovered yet another sordid

chapter in the ongoing saga of the gas plant scandal. One of the Liberal Party’s favourite companies, Eastern Power Ltd., has gotten special treatment yet again.

The company at the centre of the gas plant scandal has been given another sweetheart deal wherein they get natural gas at far below market value. Over the next two decades, this will save them millions of dollars.

The Ontario Energy Board is supposed to be there to protect consumers. How do consumers benefit from this decision? With this ruling they’re going to be fleeced yet again by your government due to higher natural gas prices for consumers.

Acting Premier, when you cancelled the gas plants during the election of 2011, did you promise Eastern Power that they would get cheap gas in the future so that they would keep quiet on your cynical, unethical, Liberal seat-saving decision?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I don’t know if it’s something that I said that got the third party all worked up, but I thank the member from Renfrew—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay will come to order. The leader of the third party will come to order. The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay will come to order. The leader of the third party will come to order. The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay is warned. The leader of the third party is warned. The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane is warned.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay is named.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Sergeant-at-Arms will dismiss the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Bisson was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Sergeant-at-Arms will dismiss the leader of the third party.

Ms. Horwath was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane is named.

Mr. Vanthof was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The remaining members of the third party caucus will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The remaining members of the third party will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The remaining members of the third party caucus are warned.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Sergeant-at-Arms will dismiss the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Parkdale–High Park, the member from Nickel Belt and the member from Toronto–Danforth are named.

Ms. DiNovo was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Sergeant-at-Arms will dismiss the member from Nickel Belt.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I refer to the standing orders,

section 15(c): “If any member on being named and directed to withdraw from the House refuses to obey the direction of the Speaker when summoned under the Speaker’s order by the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Speaker shall call to the attention of the House that force is necessary in order to compel obedience and such member shall thereupon, without motion, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the session.”

Interjections.

Mr. Tabuns was escorted from the chamber.

M me Gélinas was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, the member from London–Fanshawe, the member from Hamilton Mountain and the member from London West are named.

Mr. Singh was escorted from the chamber.

Ms. Armstrong was escorted from the chamber.

Ms. Taylor was escorted from the chamber.

Ms. Sattler was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The members from Algoma–Manitoulin, Windsor–Tecumseh and Niagara Falls are named.

Mr. Mantha was escorted from the chamber.

Mr. Hatfield was escorted from the chamber.

Mr. Gates was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The question having been put by the official opposition, I will allow the Acting Premier to respond.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. I think I can hear things again now. Apologies to the members of the community here in the public gallery for the question period they have witnessed so far.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I may not be finished naming people.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As the member opposite I am sure knows, private sector gas distribution companies are regulated by the Ontario Energy Board. The OEB is an independent regulator with a mandate to protect the best interests of energy consumers in Ontario. As an independent regulator, the OEB has the authority to enforce its statutory powers.

I understand that in this particular case, the OEB has ruled that it will grant the certificate to Greenfield on the basis that it is in the best public interest and that customers will not be unduly burdened. The government supports the board and its processes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, where was I? Acting Premier, there is an odour around this OEB decision and it has nothing to do with the smell of natural gas. This sweetheart deal is going to result in higher prices for consumers. After 12 years of Liberals in office, energy customers can hardly afford further increases to their cost of living.

After all of the scandals during your long reign in power, the people of Ontario know how you do business: special deals and favours for well-connected Liberal insiders who scratch your back when election time rolls around.

Acting Premier, I ask you once again: How can voters believe that you did not offer Eastern Power cheap gas so that they would go along with your Liberal seat-saving plan back in the 2011 election?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I am confident that the member opposite very well knows the kind of system we have in place in Ontario. The regulation around pricing and approval process in the energy sector is done by an independent regulator called the Ontario Energy Board. It is a quasi-judicial body; it’s arm’s length from the government. The government does not intervene in the matters or the affairs of the Ontario Energy Board. It has a very robust process, in fact, where the public and proponents and opponents can participate. We respect the process and the decisions that the Ontario Energy Board makes. I ask the member opposite to respect their decision as well.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: Speaker, we will not be participating in this question period—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did not recognize the member—

Ms. Cindy Forster: —until the Premier arrives.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Simcoe North.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Education. When asked about OSSTF walking away from negotiations during the scrum yesterday, you simply shrugged it off. You implied that this was just a tactic and they would be back in no time.

We’ve been saying it for years: You have severely mismanaged the province’s finances and as a result of that we are broke. Because of that, on Monday, children in Durham might show up at a school to face a picket line, and other boards will follow soon after. Your Liberal mismanagement will force thousands of kids out of the classroom.

Minister, please don’t shrug this off. Will you get serious about negotiations and prevent this strike from happening?

Hon. Liz Sandals: First of all, I must say that that was a serious misrepresentation of what I said yesterday. What I said yesterday was that we remain absolutely committed to being at the table and negotiating and that I am, in fact, very concerned that OSSTF chose to walk away from the provincial table.

What I would also point out is that they said they suspended their participation at the provincial table. They did not say they ended their participation at the provincial table. I did point out the accurate words that were used to the media.

What I also said was that I was very concerned that, having suspended their participation at the provincial table, this greatly increased the probability of a strike in Durham, and that very much concerned me.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, the other side of the table has said you aren’t serious about discussions and negotiations. That’s very clear; that was in their memorandum.

You keep saying you won’t “negotiate in the media.” Well, apparently you won’t negotiate at all, and apparently a number of boards won’t negotiate at all, along with your central bargaining. Your budget is already forcing other school boards to cut special education teachers. You’re fast-tracking the closure of school community hubs right across this province, in as short as nine weeks.

Now, just weeks before graduation and prom, your years of financial mismanagement are coming back to haunt you, and the people who will suffer the most are the students and parents across this province. Because of your mismanagement of the economy, parents might not be able to see their child walk across the stage to graduate.

Minister, what are you going to say to those parents with this mess you’ve got on your hands with the fiscal mismanagement of this province?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Well, the first thing I would say to the member opposite, and to everyone in the province, is that I continue to believe that what we need are negotiated settlements. We have nine central tables. Discussions are currently ongoing at eight of those central tables. I fully anticipate that we will have discussions ongoing at nine of those central tables when we get over this “suspension,” and that we will work very hard to negotiate collective agreements. And we will negotiate them at the table, because everything I’ve learned about collective bargaining over the years tells me that when you negotiate in the media, negotiations fail.

So our goal is to get to the table and to negotiate settlements, because negotiating is the way we deliver programs for students.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, last week, the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment travelled to northern Ontario to hear first-hand from service providers and victims. During the meeting in Sioux Lookout, the committee heard a presentation from two RNs from the Sioux Lookout Meno Ya Win Health Centre who expressed concerns over staff training within their assault care and treatment program.

Currently, there are only four full-time RNs hospital-wide qualified to provide care to sexual assault victims. In order to gain the proper skills, these nurses need to travel to urban settings like Toronto to complete the full forensic training. The RNAO has stated that, in the past, when the programs were originally funded, they were monitored under priority programs at the ministry level, but they have since been transferred to the hospital, which is burdensome on their budgets.

Minister, will you commit to providing the necessary funding for training nurses, especially those in northern communities, so they can properly treat these victims?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question and the opportunity to respond.

I first want to recognize, Mr. Speaker, the important work that that committee, the committee on sexual violence and assault, is doing on behalf of all Ontarians. This is incredibly important work and we are all looking forward to the recommendations, as well as to implementing the important policies and procedures and systems that are required to backstop those recommendations. It’s a very important issue to me personally—as well as, of course, as Minister of Health—and to the government as a whole.

Sexual violence and harassment are, unfortunately, a reality in every community in this province. We must continue to work hard to address it, fundamentally to prevent and stamp out sexual violence and assault where it occurs, but unfortunately, where it does occur, we need to respond in appropriate ways. The member opposite is reflecting one of the many ways that the province is involved in providing a response. I’m happy to address it specifically in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: These small, rural hospitals, especially those that are located in remote communities like Sioux Lookout, need dedicated funding to ensure that nurses have the proper training to care for victims of sexual assault, especially in the collection of the forensic evidence to prosecute the offenders. When evidence isn’t collected in a timely manner, sexual assault charges can be thrown out by the court. In this case, with only four full-time RNs qualified to provide care, it can take anywhere from 24 to 72 hours before a victim may even be seen.

As hospitals work to balance their budgets, the sexual assault/domestic violence treatment centres have experienced deep program cuts. Minister, you can act today. Will you commit to the funding before the budget, so we can ensure the RNs in small rural hospitals, especially in northern Ontario, are able to receive this important training? Please, Minister, act today.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, I thank the member for the question. This is a very important issue. In fact, the government currently funds 35 hospital-based sexual assault and domestic violence treatment centres right across the province, including—I believe there are eight in northern Ontario specifically. These are centres that provide comprehensive and timely support to women, children and men who are victims and survivors of sexual assault or domestic violence.

All of these 35 centres across the province are staffed by health care professionals specially trained to deliver high-quality care. Evidence collection—all of those centres have access to rape kits and other processes that are required to collect and provide that evidence in a timely fashion, as the member opposite has indicated is so important. They also provide education to other health care providers and community agencies in the general public.

There is always, in everything we do as a province and as a government, more work to be done. I hear the specific question with regard to training from the member opposite. I will be following up.

Doctor shortage

Mr. Toby Barrett: Also to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: We have a problem in our riding. A Simcoe doctor is retiring with a roster of 4,600 patients and has no successor. This exacerbates an already fragile situation.

In June 2013, another example: A Port Dover physician with a roster of 2,000 retired, again without a replacement.

Over the years, I’ve met with a committee trying to build a new health centre in Port Dover. They’re enthusiastic, but they need doctors. I wrote you on January 22, seeking possible solutions. I await a reply to that letter.

Minister, I’m asking: Could you provide us with some advice and some action to help our community down in Norfolk county attract physicians and also help attract physicians to other underserviced areas?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. It is a very important issue in terms of physician supply around this province. It can be challenging in certain parts of the province, more challenging than in others, to gain that supply of physicians that’s so important to provide that primary care support to residents.

We have a number of initiatives that are under way—work by HealthForceOntario that specifically targets underserviced and regularly serviced areas that are facing challenges with regard to physician supply. We also have a program called Health Care Connect that aims to attach unattached patients to new family doctors.

But it’s important to recognize as well that we have made significant progress in this province in terms of attachment of patients. We now have about 94% of Ontarians who have a regular primary care provider—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —that’s a physician, but it may also be another primary care provider. In the supplementary, I’ll talk to other investments that we’ve made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you, Minister. There’s a Norfolk General Hospital recruitment team and also this Port Dover committee.

One option, I feel, is that they need an empty family health organization to better enable them to attract doctors. I’m also told of a need for an additional health organization in west Norfolk, down in the Port Rowan and Delhi area.

Minister, you have indicated previously in question period that you would like to see more family health teams in small towns and in rural Ontario. However, I understand there is a cap, allowing something like only 20 new family doctors a month in the entire province. We graduate something like 500 a year from Ontario’s medical schools. In the summer, I was in Norfolk; we need another 14 doctors, according to the formula.

My question, Minister: Why will you not create new family health teams or other empty family health organizations, for example?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know the member knows that I was born in Norfolk General Hospital, so this is a part of the province that I know very well, and he’s acknowledging that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: There’s a plaque on the wall.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There’s no plaque.

This is a very important issue. The fact is that, in the last 10 years—there are 2,300 more family doctors practising in this province than there were before. That’s an almost 25% increase.

But there is still more work to be done. Nothing prevents family doctors, for example, if that’s what we’re talking about, from setting up shop anywhere in this province. They can do so through fee-for-service. They can create a family health group as well, where they can get together with other family doctors. They can work as locums as well. They can replace a retiring physician, for example, on a family health team.

But also, we have allocated 20 spots per month for underserviced areas around the province. We’ve specifically looked to our LHINs to identify, for the purpose of employing these family health team doctors, what parts of the province should be included. It may be that this part of Ontario is part of that designated area. We should know in the next several weeks.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Acting Premier: Acting Premier, earlier in question period, our leader asked you about what would be done with the proceeds of the sale of Hydro One. He pointed out very clearly that under the Electricity Act, the proceeds of that sale must go to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp. in order to pay down the electricity debt in this province.

I’m going to ask you a very simple question: Do you intend to obey the law of the land here in the province of Ontario with respect to the disposition of those funds, or do you plan to break the law and put this burden onto the backs of the electricity consumers, who have already paid for that debt?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m also going to caution again: Going through to something unparliamentary also includes accusing someone of a criminal act. I’m going to offer him advice not to go down there again.

Please respond.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to restate the fact that we have worked extremely hard over the last 12 years in rebuilding the energy system in this province. A lot of concerted effort has been made in making sure that we have got the security of generation in our province and that we have a secure transmission and distribution system in our province.

We have worked hard in eliminating coal as a source of generating electricity in our province. In fact, we are extremely proud that we are the first province in North America to be able to do so. It’s one of the single largest greenhouse gas emission-reduction projects, in fact, to the point that even the Conservative Prime Minister of this country is trying to take credit for that action, after opposing that decision again and again.

Speaker, not to mention—to ensure that we have renewable energy, we will continue to work on our energy sector to make sure that it meets the demands of our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I don’t believe I got an answer there. But, Minister, it is not the responsibility of the electricity consumer in this province to bail you out of your financial mismanagement of the past 12 years. It is not their job to now pay for your infrastructure plans. They pay for the electricity system. Now that you’ve decided that you’re going to sell off a portion of Hydro One, it is the law, under the Electricity Act, that that money must go to pay off the electricity debt. The money is not there for any other purpose.

I’ll ask you in a different way: Will you stand in your place today and tell the people of Ontario that, as a minister of this crown, you will obey the law?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: This government—and the people of Ontario—has been working extremely hard over the last 12 years to clean up the mess that the party opposite left behind when they were in government. They are the ones who settled—

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Break the law again and we’ll have to bring in the OPP again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe North is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, the party opposite saddled Ontario with a massive stranded hydro debt, which we have been paying year after year.

We’ve been very clear with the people of Ontario that our priority is to build Ontario up by investing in critical infrastructure in all our communities. In fact, I hear members opposite standing up all the time—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We hear members from the opposite party standing up all the time, asking for critical, important investment in our infrastructure. Be it our highways, our roads or our public transit, this government has ambitious plans. We’re going to invest in our infrastructure to improve the quality of life for Ontarians.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a deferred vote on the motion for allocation of time on Bill 57,

An Act to create a framework for pooled registered pension plans and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1145 to 1150.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion number 17.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Takhar, Harinder S.

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Clark, Steve

Dunlop, Garfield

Forster, Cindy

French, Jennifer K.

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

McDonell, Jim

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 48; the nays are 21.

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

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no further votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1153 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Gila Martow: I would like to introduce two of my three sons, who are here—Evan Martow and Mitch Martow—and my niece Ella Gladstone-Martow. I want to introduce my friend Esther Milstein, who is here with her mother, a Holocaust survivor, Genia Brykman; another Holocaust survivor, whose daughter Judy I’m friends with—Carmela Betel, and her friend Lucy Shaar; and we have children of Holocaust survivors: Howard Ganz, Mindy Ganz and Fay Ganz, as well as Marshal Cohen and Ari Gold. Thank you so much for coming.

Members’ Statements

Mount Sinai Hospital nurses

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m pleased to rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of Mount Sinai Hospital nursing staff and the recent awarding of the designation of Magnet status for excellence in nursing and patient care.

Mount Sinai is the only hospital in Canada to be officially awarded this designation, which is granted by the American Nurses Credentialing Center. Magnet status recognizes health care organizations for quality patient care, nursing excellence, and innovations in professional nursing practice. To achieve it, the hospital must demonstrate strong leadership among its nursing staff, excellent interprofessional relationships among its health care team, and high levels of employee satisfaction, engagement and professional development.

I’m pleased to say that Mount Sinai not only achieved the required levels but in many areas surpassed the levels of other comparative Magnet organizations. For example, Mount Sinai had a significantly lower turnover rate than others, it had a higher average length of employment for its registered nurses, and a higher percentage of its nurses had graduate degrees.

This is a wonderful achievement and, in addition to being a great accomplishment and acknowledgment of the care that Mount Sinai provides, it is likely to have additional benefits, such as the attraction and retention of nurses who are keen to work in this type of professional environment.

I can’t conclude my remarks without acknowledging Joseph Mapa, Mount Sinai’s chief executive, and Mary Agnes Beduz, the vice-president of professional practice and chief nurse executive at Mount Sinai. Mary Agnes, of course, is the mother of our former PC staff member Alex Beduz, who worked in this building for many years.

Congratulations to the wonderful nurses at Mount Sinai for a job very, very well done.

Government accountability

Ms. Cindy Forster: Today during question period, the Premier released the Clark report, which the government has been clear will form the basis of the province’s fiscal framework, with implications for at least a generation. This report is the most significant shift in public service delivery in the last 25 years, and question period is the part of the parliamentary day when the government is held accountable for its administrative policies and the conduct of its ministers, both individually and collectively.

In his decision on the Magna budget, Speaker Carr warned about the dangers of circumventing the scrutiny of the Legislature. He said, “I have a lingering unease about the road we are going down, and my sense is that the House and the general public have the same unease.... It is one thing not to make the traditional budget speech in the House because the government is backed into such a decision by an ongoing House process, or a budget leak; it is quite another for the government to have a deliberate plan not to do so.”

Obviously, this government learned from the Magna budget, but instead of respecting parliamentary process, it has done exactly what Carr feared: It establishes a new way to circumvent the checks and balances of this Legislature.

Speaker, it’s a sad day for transparency and accountability in the province of Ontario.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Mr. Monte Kwinter: In a ceremony at Queen’s Park later today, we will recognize and honour 12 Holocaust survivors whose stories of anguish, suffering and survival of both body and spirit are a testimony to the human will to live. These Holocaust survivors, who are in the House today, came to Ontario, rebuilt their lives and will be honoured for their wonderful contributions as citizens of Ontario. Those to be honoured are: Irving Bart, Sam Bart, Jan Blumenstein, Gitta Ganz, Dave Gold, Max Iland, Lore Jacobs, Martin Kulbak, George Landesman, Manny Langer, Norman Srebrolow and George Stern.

Today we recognize Yom ha-Shoah V’Hagvurah, Holocaust Memorial Day, a day designated for Holocaust remembrance in communities around the world. This is the 22nd year the Ontario Legislature has observed Holocaust Memorial Day. I’m proud to say that Ontario was the first jurisdiction in the world, outside of the state of Israel, to officially recognize it.

As we mourn the death of the six million victims, we also celebrate the lives of those who survived. I have visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial and museum in Jerusalem, several times. The memorial is dedicated to preserving the memory and the story of each of the six million people who died in the Holocaust. As a Jew, these memories strike the heart and the soul.

Every Jew is touched by the Holocaust. We lost loved ones, family members or friends. All members in the community lost someone. The Holocaust echoes through generations. The loss is extraordinary. At Yad Vashem, that loss is made real. It is concrete. You can touch it.

In the Valley of the Communities, you stand before wall after wall, carved out of solid rock, listing the names of more than 5,000 communities that lived, breathed, had life, in which men and women loved, married, raised children, worked, laughed and worshipped. Today, in most cases, nothing remains of these Jewish communities except for their names, forever frozen in the bedrock of Yad Vashem. It was there that I found the name of the city where my father was born, Czestochowa, and the city where my mother was born, Sosnowiec.

The Holocaust reaches out of the past and touches the shoulder of every Jew. For years, survivors walked among us with tattoos to mark the horror they lived through. Their stories, their scars and the numbers carved callously into their skins made the Holocaust real, personal and powerful for generations to come. There are fewer and fewer survivors still living. Fewer people are telling first-hand accounts of personal experiences. Soon the tattoos will be seen only in pictures, movies and museums while the stories slowly fade and with them the hard-learned lessons for those who survived, rebuilt and rose up.

The central theme of Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Day 2015 is “Seventy Years Since the End of the War: The Pain of Liberation and Rebuilding a Life.”

The partisan Abba Kovner used to tell about a Jewish survivor whom he had met in Vilna when accompanying the liberating Soviet soldiers when they arrived to the destroyed ghetto. The woman and the little girl she carried in her arms hid in a small nook for almost a year, and with the liberation came out for the first time from their hiding place. Seeing her mother crying while telling her story for the first time, suddenly the girl asked in Yiddish, “Mother, are we allowed to cry already?”

Holocaust Memorial Day commemorates all who died in the Holocaust, not just Jews. We also remember those whom the Nazis targeted for their race, their religion, their politics, their disabilities or their sexual orientation. It’s important to set aside time to remember all these victims whose lives were taken by the Nazis. In remembering, we bear witness to what these men, women and children endured