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

April 28, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Apr-28 (PDF)

L023 - Wed 28 Apr 2010 / Mer 28 avr 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 28 April 2010 Mercredi 28 avril 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WIND TURBINES

WIND TURBINES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

CURRICULUM

SOCIAL SERVICES

PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

TAXATION

PEDIATRIC FORENSIC

PATHOLOGY INQUIRY

TAXATION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

CORONER’S INQUESTS

PHARMACISTS

TOURISM AND CULTURE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CANADIAN NAVY

GOLDMAN SACHS

GOOD COMPANIONS

SENIORS’ CENTRE

GARRY BACHMAN

ONTARIO ARTISTS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION

OF WOUND CARE

MARCH OF DIMES

10 DAYS ACROSS CANADA

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

GEORGE KERR

NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY

OPPOSITION DAY

WIND TURBINES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 27, 2010, on the motion for third reading of Bill 236,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act / Projet de loi 236, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos: It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill this morning. I’m pleased to be joined by my colleague and friend from across the way, who, I’m also pleased to point out, is adopting the sartorial custom of smaller-town Ontario. As he’s attired today, he would be welcome in places like Welland, Thorold, Port Colborne and Wainfleet. Indeed—dare I say it?—he’d be applauded as somebody who understands what the real values should be, and that’s not whether or not one wears an expensive cravat, but whether or not one has something valuable to say. Mr. Zimmer does, on so many occasions. Unfortunately, he’s pocketing a pen that is of, perhaps, dubious quality. Give the gold one back.

Look, this is serious stuff. The government is purporting to engage in pension reform. As I say when I mention the communities that I represent, the issue out there is really quite simple. As the celebrity chef on TV says, “It ain’t rocket science.” We’ve got a growing population of people in this province and across this country who are fearful of reaching their senior years, not because of the effects of old age or aging, and not because they know that they’re closer to their end than they are to their beginning.

As I’ve had occasion to comment so many times, when I was a kid growing up in the 1950s, I recall clearly that people used to worry about not living long enough. Now, as I meet people, whether it’s at the constituency office or, probably even more frequently, in the church halls or the Legion hall over on Morningstar, at the Welland market or the Port Colborne market or from time to time up at the St.

Catharines market, which is a fine farmers’ market in itself—Thorold has a small one and Pelham has a small one—I talk to seniors who are fearful of not being able to afford to live in their senior years, who are literally losing houses, losing homes, losing income, and they are sad and find it tragic that they’re unable to assist their grandkids—or some, now, great-grandkids—who are pursuing post-secondary education, or perhaps beginning young families.

There’s a crisis, and the crisis is one of pensions for people in their retirement years. Now, the government, some time ago, purported to address that crisis by saying, “Well, we’ll simply extend the retirement age. No more of this nonsense of people retiring at 65. What nonsense”—as if 65 were the prevailing number. We were defrauded by the advertising of Freedom 55.

Mr. Mike Colle: Freedom 85 is more like it.

Mr. Peter Kormos: That’s right, as the interjection appropriately puts it: Freedom 85, on a good day. As a matter of fact, that reminds me that Peter Worthington, just a couple of weeks ago—I presume he had been down in Florida during the winter months, and did a comment on the phenomenon of seniors working, the Walmart phenomenon. Again, look, I have mixed feelings about that. I know the seniors down in Welland who work at Walmart. Some take great delight in being out there and socializing and interacting with people, and the little bit of income doesn’t hurt.

Others, quite frankly, are obliged to work and feel this gratitude toward Walmart, which has so many other regrettable impacts on our communities and on our small-town retail sectors. They feel gratitude toward Walmart for giving them the opportunity to work, because they need the money.

The anecdote that Worthington told—I’m sure it’s not germane at all to this particular issue—was about the senior who was a Walmart employee into his 80s who was well liked by the customers and well liked by the other staff and was very good at his job but was perpetually late. The store manager simply couldn’t take it anymore, and this 80-plus senior citizen was called into the office after being late once again.

The manager said, “Look, we like your work, your co-workers like you, the customers like you, but you’re always late.” The fellow said, “Yes, it’s been a problem all my working life.” The manager said, “What did your co-workers say to you before you retired when you showed up late at work?” He replied, “They usually said, ‘Good morning, General. Can I get you a coffee?’” I don’t know whether that story is apocryphal or not—it’s amusing—but I think it does speak to the phenomenon of seniors being compelled to work.

Most of the seniors I talk to—as a matter of fact, I was over at the Legion hall on Morningstar Avenue down in Welland on Sunday, and who did I run into but Mike Bosnich. Mike told me he’s 92 years old now. He’s a veteran and also a leader in the progressive trade union community down in Welland. He was with the United Electrical Workers, which was the dominant union in Welland before they merged with the CAW. I remember him as a kid. He was one of my mentors; he and John Trufac and Bruce Smith from the UE hall. He decried the fact that he’s 92 years old.

But he was the sort of senior who, upon his retirement, didn’t want to have to go and work. He wanted to be occupied, he wanted to be able to do things, but he would have much sooner, and in fact did, volunteer and work with people who needed driving back and forth for various medical treatments and so on.

We’re down to, what, 30% of the workforce with pensions? Of those, only a fraction are defined benefit pensions, and the number with defined benefit pensions is decreasing regularly. More and more workers, when they do have unions, are being forced into signing contracts that create two tiers. One was just recently signed here in the province of Ontario—a rather large workforce—where new hires are forced into a defined contribution plan and only the senior workers are eligible for the defined benefit plan.

I suppose you do have to read the morning papers, the financial papers—we thought we were just recovering. You see, if you have a defined contribution pension plan, you’re a victim of the markets. There may be a few people left with faith in the markets—the Randites, who believe that the markets, in and of themselves, will order things in a way that’s to the benefit of the greatest number of people—but how many more lessons do we need?

Defined contribution plans are effectively RRSPs. The banks make a great deal of money on them, and the various people who do financial advice make a great deal of money on them with their hidden trailer fees. What are trailer fees? Trailer fees are kickbacks. For the life of me, this government takes on small-town pharmacists about what the government implies are kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry, but where is this government when it comes to protecting people and providing disclosure when it comes to kickbacks from the mutual fund industry to financial services advisers and so on?

The kickback is a percentage that they get. What that does, of course, is create a motivation. It takes the financial adviser out of the position of being entirely neutral and devoted solely to his or her client, to the point where they have a serious conflict, a real conflict of interest, because it’s in their interest to sell the funds that have the largest trailer fees, even though those funds may not be the most stable funds. Why do funds have large trailer fees? Because they want to give salespeople—financial advisers—an incentive to sell them and promote them.

As a matter of fact, what you’ll find is that the funds with the largest trailer fees are almost inevitably the funds with the largest management fees. How else do they afford those trailer fees, right? Yet the funds with the largest management fees are rarely the stablest funds or the funds with the best returns. So that’s what people are forced into with defined contribution plans.

Again, we thought we were recovering from a crisis. People whose investments, however modest or large—let’s face it, if you have millions of dollars invested and you lose 10%, you’re still going to be okay. If you lose 20% or 30%, you’re still going to survive; you ain’t going to be at the food bank. But if your life savings, and it does for so many hard-working people, consists of $80,000 or $100,000—that’s a lot of money where I come from. To lose 20% or 30% of that is devastating. It’s the difference between some modest decency during retirement and the indecency of lining up at food banks and soup kitchens and having to wait in a line for housing that has subsidized rent.

So that’s the crisis. There was a Premier back in the early 1990s, another Liberal, who designed—or adopted; he didn’t design it—the phrase, “too big to fail.” At the time, he was probably right; nobody disagreed with him. But we’ve learned in a very dramatic way that that Liberal Premier’s adoption of “too big to fail” was a serious error, because we learned—

Mrs. Liz Sandals: The Liberal Premier was Bob Rae.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Ah, my colleague Ms. Sandals from Guelph astutely points out that that Liberal Premier was in fact Bob Rae, who could be her next federal leader. I don’t know whether she’s a fan of his or not. I don’t know whether she intends to wear his button at the next federal leadership convention.

So I say this: You had a Liberal Premier who, back in the early 1990s, adopted the “too big to fail” model and said, “We can forgive these companies their top-up obligations, because their pension plans will surely be around five and 10 years from now.” Now, one of the problems was that it was never designed to be a permanent measure, but nobody got around to rescinding the exemption that these too-big-to-fail companies had; nobody—not to the present. But by now it’s too late, because those big companies in fact did fail, and of course the taxpayer then invested huge amounts of money.

I think most Ontarians support that type of investment, but I’ve got to tell you, my Atlas Steel workers in Welland—and I probably know 98% of them personally—their too-big-to-fail company failed: specialty steel, stainless steel; it was the only manufacturer of its type in the country. Governments of the day—and by now we’re into 1995-plus—had no interest in helping Atlas Steel survive. Some 600 or 700 employees lost their jobs. But the biggest tragedy was that the pension plan collapsed, not just for potential pensioners but for the de facto pensioners.

The de facto pensioners saw their pensions slashed in half, and they weren’t particularly big pensions to begin with, because you see, one of the problems with pensions is that even defined benefit pensions—and there are fewer and fewer of them, and the ones that are left are being wrapped up relatively rapidly—unless they’re the very, very good ones—and they’re rare, the very good ones—they fail to keep pace with the cost of living. So a pension income erodes naturally, never mind when it’s slashed by 50%.

The real absence of an amendment to the pension benefits guarantee fund legislation in this bill is of concern. New Democrats have been arguing for a good chunk of time—I’ve had bills before the House on behalf of the NDP, and other New Democrat members have—for increasing the pension benefits guarantee fund coverage to $2,500 a month. A rather modest proposal, ain’t it?

That $2,500 a month doesn’t buy a whole lot anymore: $2,500 a month probably doesn’t allow you to stay in your home, especially when you see property taxes and electricity rates going through the roof, natural gas rates going through the roof, and then when you’re confronted, come July 1—Happy Canada Day—with Mr. McGuinty’s HST, beating up once again on the lowest-income people, beating up once again on seniors, beating up once again on people.

See, in Toronto people live in apartments for any number of reasons. When you get to smaller-town Ontario, like Welland and Thorold and Port Colborne and Wainfleet and south St. Catharines, housing prices are relatively modest, compared to Toronto or Ottawa or London. People live in apartments by choice, but more often than not people live in apartments because they can’t afford to buy a house. When you can’t afford to buy a house in Welland, you’re struggling.

So when the landlord gets confronted with new costs like HST etc., and the government might say that the cap on the annual rental increases is going to be maintained, what will a landlord do? He’ll simply cut back in other areas of service, won’t he? He’s got to make up the difference somewhere.

Even the most benign landlord—and again, down in smaller-town Ontario, where landlords are known in the community, we don’t have the big high-rises and towers. We’ve got local people who—more often than not it’s a woman whose husband has passed away. She’s a widow; she’s renting the top floor of her house, which has been converted into an apartment. That’s what most landlords are down where I come from.

Oh, we’ve got a few of the developer landlords, but even they are probably far more careful about how they treat their tenants than some of big corporate landlords in Toronto, because they’re known in the community. They belong to the Club Richelieu or they belong to the Kiwanis or the Kinsmen. They shop at Pupo’s, just like everybody else does, or at Sobeys, so they can’t get away with this stuff. And they have no intention, no desire to.

Of course, there are some bad landlords, and we deal with them as best we can. But even the most benign and benevolent landlord is going to have to make up that increased cost somewhere, somehow. And mark my words—no, don’t mark my words; just pay attention after July 1—it will come from tenants. There’s nobody else for it to come from, is there? Whether it means cutting lawns half as often, whether it means increasing the rates on the laundromat downstairs—what about that? That’s not controlled by rental increases, is it?

Again, it ain’t rocket science to figure out the places and spaces where landlords are going to have to make up the difference. So the tenants will pay. Mark my words: The tenants will pay; the tenants will pay; the tenants will pay. And in most of smaller-town Ontario, those tenants tend to be lower-income people. People live in apartments for other reasons as well, but they tend to be lower-income people.

The absence of any reasonable topping up of the pension benefits guarantee fund limit is an atrocious omission. The failure to condemn defined contribution plans but rather to implicitly endorse them and encourage them by this government is another huge failure. The fact that work has changed dramatically—because this government, of course, has destroyed, what, 250,000 or 300,000 value-added manufacturing jobs, industrial jobs, good-paying jobs, wealth creation jobs? See, casino jobs don’t create wealth; they simply stir it around.

It’s like the butter churn: Centrifugal force takes the money to the outside, and other people pocket it, including the government. The poor sucker who blows his paycheque in there pays. So casinos don’t create wealth. And even at that, I have to tell you, down where I come from in Niagara, the casino jobs are disappearing. That speaks volumes. Recovery? Sure, there’s a recovery. There’s a recovery for the people who are playing the market; there’s a recovery for Bay Street. There’s not a recovery for Main Street, because it is, as so many have noted, so apparently a jobless recovery.

The absence of this government to address its role in government-sponsored public pension plans is another serious and atrocious omission from this legislation. The reality is that increasingly people are relying upon CPP, if they’re entitled to it. A whole lot of elderly women aren’t entitled to it, because they worked at home, raising kids. That’s not to say they didn’t work; by God, they worked.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Like hell; they worked hard.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Yes, they did, but they don’t get an entitlement to CPP. And as we know, old age security is but a pittance. The folks I talk to say that this government, any government, has a responsibility to address those and all of those issues.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to use two minutes to respond to the very important comments made by the member for Welland. In the broader scale, if you look at this bill, it is the start of a very long conversation. I hope the government under Premier McGuinty doesn’t take advantage of this situation, and tries to work co-operatively with the federal government. If he’s trying to change the CPP proposal on this in the next phase of pension reform, he’s shifting the tax burden, basically, to the federal government.

In fact, if you increase the RRSP room or the CPP contribution, both of which are tax deductions, which means they exempt the tax on it, or there’s less income for the federal government, these are really shifting responsibilities. I think the province needs to take ownership, because they are regulated by the province. In most cases, pensions are a provincial jurisdiction area. But there are a couple of interesting provisions in the thing. The grow-in provision is a very interesting one. But this topic is so complicated that a lot of people maybe don’t pay a lot of attention.

I think there are two things when we look at the pension benefit: the legislation under the Pension Benefits Act that requires that single-employer pension plans are entitled to this guarantee, if you will, that a fund have some assurance of money being there, but multiple-employer and joint pension plans are not entitled to the pension benefit. I think the member from Welland stood very strongly along with the people that these are troubling times for investors, and more importantly for pensions, which are long-term investments.

This bill doesn’t really do a heck of a lot, technically. We would be supporting it primarily because of the amendments in it, but I think we’re waiting for the other shoe to drop. Every time I hear a question raised on this, they try to blame Stephen Harper. So let’s listen to the full debate and see what the province actually does.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I had the opportunity to listen at length to my colleague from Niagara. He raises points that I think this government has to face up to. Yes, the government can try to duck and dodge and weave and try to imply that someone else is to blame and someone else ought to take responsibility. But the fact of the matter is that Ontario, Ontario specifically, has a pension crisis. We have literally dozens and dozens of pension plans in the province that are underfunded. Nortel is one example; AbitibiBowater is another; and I could go down the long list.

We have literally dozens and dozens of defined benefit pension plans in the province that are not adequately funded, which means people who have worked hard all their lives—in some cases people who have worked 30, 35, 40 years and contributed to a pension plan and were told when they retired that that pension would be there for them—are facing a situation where that is not true. This government can try to pretend that that isn’t happening, it can try every strategy of ducking and dodging and weaving and hope that they can keep this below the public radar screen, but it is not below the radar screen.

What the people of Ontario need to see and need to hear from this government is, what is the pension strategy? The bill that we’re debating now is very thin; it is very meagre. It is the thinnest of gruel, and it doesn’t answer most of the important questions. I think that’s what the member from Niagara correctly spelled out here.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I appreciated the opportunity to hear from the member from the riding of Welland. I always appreciate his comments and particularly the stories that he brings, both humorous, in the context of the elderly gentleman from Walmart, the general, as well as his articulation of the concerns that he has for constituents in his riding and how well he knows them and their concerns.

This is one pension bill. The minister has indicated there will be a second pension bill later this year. This addresses a number of technical matters. I was pleased yesterday when the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek spoke to the matter and said that there were a number of provisions in the bill that even he, as a New Democratic member, felt were important measures, although for him not going far enough.

As the member from Welland was saying, he would like to see more. We would anticipate that, with a subsequent bill, there will be more discussion around pensions, but this is a very good beginning that’s been long overdue, some 20 years since we’ve addressed this matter here in the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I’m pleased to speak to this bill because I’m becoming increasingly concerned, not just for the pensions that are failing, but in fact for the 70% of the residents of this province who in effect have no pensions. With the demographics of our society, we, as representatives in this House and prior, have really ignored this enormous problem which is coming at us like an express train.

I know that this government chose to bail out some individuals; in particular, $4.3 billion was given to the General Motors pension holders as part of the bailout, between the United States and Canada, of some $70 billion. Unfortunately, in my reading that $4.3 billion will not necessarily save the pension holders of General Motors, either in the United States or Canada. General Motors unfortunately just lost more money in the past year. Even though some $70 billion worth of debt was removed from their books, they still lost money.

I hope that they continue, become profitable and perhaps solve or alleviate the problem of their pension funds, both in the United States and Canada, because no one wants to see individuals who have worked so hard for a corporation, knowing full well that they would be able to retire with adequate income, find out that in fact they’re going to get little or nothing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Welland, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Let’s be very clear: New Democrats, yes, will support this bill. But at the same time, we’re concerned. We’re frantic about the fact that the real issues aren’t being addressed. The real issues are being ignored. There’s a head-in-the-sand attitude from the other side. It surely cannot be a Toronto-centric attitude because the issues around pensions are as applicable to Torontonians—and perhaps even more so because of the increased cost of living here—as they are to folks down where I come from or up in Kenora–Rainy River, where Howard Hampton comes from.

Surely, in the midst of this crisis we can gather the political will to address this very fundamental issue—and none of this bullfeathers of saying, “Oh, it’s up to the federal government to do something pan-Canada.” The federal government has pension jurisdiction; so does the province of Ontario. I depend upon federal legislators to deal with theirs, and I know that the New Democrats in Ottawa are working very hard in trying to make sure that the federal jurisdiction is being addressed by the federal government. They, again, have limited success because there’s a paucity of support for that proposition up there on Parliament Hill. But here in Toronto we have jurisdiction as well.

New Democrats have made some very clear proposals: (1) increasing the pension benefits guarantee fund to $2,500, as Arthurs recommends—end of story; and (2) develop a publicly sponsored defined benefit pension plan to which workers and non-traditional workers make contributions. The province can do it, and they should.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No, go ahead. Speaker, I don’t mind.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making that small correction.

I appreciate the opportunity here, only because I think the important part here is that our party is being supportive of this issue. We want to be clear that part of what we try to do here is educate each other by listening to each other’s comments. None of us here are experts on this; let’s be very clear on that.

We could start by just clarifying some of the preliminary explanation notes in Bill 236. I think, for the general public, which would include my constituents in the riding of Durham, pensions are a big issue, but a lot of people glaze over it and just skip over it; they don’t really pay too much attention until it affects them, and it’s now starting to affect people who worked for General Motors.

I see in northern Ontario some of the plant closures and the reorganization there. It’s a big issue there, where these plants—then you’d start dealing with worker-related issues, severances and other entitlements. If companies go over the cliff, often there’s no money there to deal with these issues, which is tragic. The government has a role here to ensure some minimum amount of coverage.

I guess you could say that the big issues on pensions—pension liabilities and corporate responsibilities—really lie with the federal government under the bankruptcy protection act. The claimant’s position of the payroll, basically, or anyone on a pension, is very low down, if at all, on the list. Also, the creditors, who either supplied services or materials, would be—and banks etc. Banks would be first, I guess, if they had loans outstanding. As you go down the creditors list, you find that the payroll is basically at the end, if there’s anything left.

We’re finding in Nortel that, if they go under CCAA protection, the payroll is finished. They just scoop up all the money, and there’s nothing left. That’s a problem, and I think the federal government should work on it without changing the rules dramatically and instantly to affect the investment in the province as well as in the country. These are important rules.

I would say that governments, at all levels, have a culpable responsibility here. What I mean by that is, the previous speaker from Welland and certainly the other members of the NDP were here as cabinet ministers when the real regulation change occurred under the Pension Benefits Act. That change was the funding and the actuarial formula for funding pensions. This is where you get the glaze over the eyes. Again, I qualify anything I say as more or less just from reading recently, because this is such an important thing.

The Algoma Steel pension had a large surplus in the early 1990s, as did many pensions, actuarially. In fact, I would say that all the actuarial assumptions on pensions are wrong. I’m not a mathematician or anything close, but they’re all wrong because the assumptions are based on a 7% return on equity. If you’re getting 7%, you ought to double your money on that one. They’re based on life expectancies in the 70s, and now people are living into the 90s. People are basically going to be retiring at 50 and living to 100. They may have only worked 25 years, so they’re going to be retired twice as long as they actually worked. It doesn’t work. It simply does not work.

Return on equity, life expectancy, and the third assumption, actuarially, is the number of people contributing. Corporations used to be shaped like a pyramid: one person retired and 10 working. A nice little logical—10 people paying and new people coming in all the time. The companies of the future are flat. They’re corporate, they’re integrated globally and they don’t have what you called successor employer relations. The young people, especially the pages here, who are very bright, will live in a completely different world. I worked for General Motors for 30 years and I worked for another company for a period of time before that.

There’s no pension in Ontario that’s funded—none. Even HOOPP, the hospital plan. They say it’s funded; that’s baloney. It’s not funded. And then they say there are surplus declarations. Well, a surplus means you have paid out all the money that you’re liable to pay out. Not based on age, the demographics and all these models they build—I believe that there’s no such thing as a surplus until a company is completely wound up and all debts and credits have been balanced.

When you get into the current

definitions of pensions, it’s very important to start with a good understanding of the actuarial assumptions. There are really two basic types of pensions, and the pension being discussed here is the defined benefit plan. A defined benefit plan is really problematic.

Now, let’s look—it’s easier to work with round numbers—at the sunshine list, the $100,000 list. If you’re making $100,000, the way pensions work is that it’s basically a factor times years of service. Let’s just take the 30-and-out scenario; let’s take the 85 factor. How does this all work? You have a defined benefit plan, which means you get a percentage of your best three to five years of employment. The factor is usually around a 60 to 70 factor, so you’re going to get about 60% of what you earned.

So if you’re making $100,000 and you have an 85 factor pension—you start when you’re 23 or 25—let’s make it easy; 25—work for 25 years, which makes you 50. When you’re about 55, you’re entitled to retire. Can you imagine retiring at 55 on a fully indexed pension? The pension would be around $62,000 a year, for life.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Must be an MP.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yeah, well, we could get into that one, too.

Now, if you’re making $200,000 a year, which some of the hospital administrators are—some of the very high-end people are making $200,000. On a defined benefit plan? Wait a minute here: If you’re making $200,000, that means you’re making about $130,000 a year on pension. Wait a minute here: 70% of people don’t have a pension, let me assure you of this. That’s the defined benefit. So really we should take a look at what’s being proposed here today.

What is actually being proposed around the world—I listened to a lecture when I was in London, England recently. I went to the House of Lords to listen to the esteemed debate there, and the debate, believe it or not, was all about pensions. They have a huge problem, worse than ours. It’s called legacy debt, way worse than ours. Europe is riddled with it. This is not unique to Ontario, period. We’re unique in the fact that we’re so young. It’s called legacy debt, and they’re all terrified of it because these obligations are contractual.

You can’t blame the employees. I don’t ever want to leave that impression. They, it could be argued, forgo certain kinds of rewards called payroll, called hourly rate, called benefits, so they can take a pension, which is income after they leave. So this is a huge issue globally.

But the world is moving to an argument called a defined contribution plan. The defined contribution plan is when I start with a company—it’s mostly contract employees—where pension mobility becomes a big factor. This is where the Canada pension kind of comes into this thing. I think there needs to be an overarching structure to regulate this thing.

Here’s how it works: The employee contributes $5, or whatever the amount is, and the employer contributes $5, and that goes into a fund. That fund is your future pension. Usually they have an array of benefits or plans that you can invest in, like mutual funds. There are very few options on the equity side. It’s mostly leveraged funds, monetary funds or mutual funds of some sort. They’re managed. You’ve got to watch the management fee. Often today, the management fee is outpacing the income on the fund. And some are front-end-loaded, meaning you pay an administration fee.

And some are rear-end-loaded—you don’t see it until you pull out the money, and then you pay the fee. Now that administration fee, by the way, is going to be taxed under the HST, which is, I think, a mistake, personally, when we’re trying to encourage people to invest, to protect themselves.

I do sort of support that, but it’s the idea of changing these rules like that. That’s just wrong. I think the employers and the employees and the government interventions and regulation need to take time to let this soak through.

We likely will move to a plan where there’s pension mobility and it will likely be a plan similar to a defined contribution plan. What’s missing in these plans is this: a separate fund that is a guarantee. I think we need a minimum amount, as said by the member from Welland earlier, so that people aren’t left stranded. That simply is wrong. It’s, in some respects, unethical when bank guys are making millions of dollars in bonuses and stuff like that and the poor person who was working as the teller or something has nothing. That is simply unethical and wrong, whoever’s government at any level.

So I think there needs to be some provisions put in so that—for instance, let’s say that you had a provision that you would make no less than a certain amount. This gets into the current problem that Ontario has. The pension benefits guarantee fund—I’m going to repeat that: the pension benefits guarantee fund—PBGF, is funded by the employers as an insurance against a downward market. It is completely inadequate, by the way, but it is a tax because it’s self-insuring. It’s debt risk attenuation.

Here’s the issue, though: The government sets those rules and they know full well when they go back to the 1993 decision on Algoma—I’m trying to make this come together here—they allowed them not to fund the plans. The government intervened. They became culpable right then in 1993, when they said that they’re too big to fail. Any commercial court would say, “Look, who changed these rules of the game?” Well, it was the government. The government allowed them to retool Algoma by using the pension funds surplus. It turns out the surplus wasn’t a surplus.

It vanished, meaning the money that was used to retool was taken out, there was no money and the employee portion of the contribution had shrunk because they retooled and modernized the plant. So they prevented a rule because it was “too big to fail,” which meant they could borrow. Ford did it, General Motors did it, Algoma did it, Inco did it—all of them did it. All of the big companies too big to fail did it. They took the money out, the surpluses.

What is the problem with Vale Inco in Sudbury? Pension debt is what it is—simple. They owe about $4.5 billion to $5 billion to the pension fund, and the new company—I think Spanish or Russian—Vale is saying, “Hey, wait a minute here. We didn’t buy the debt. We bought the ore in the ground and all of the tools on the top of the ground that crush the rock and make it into whatever it is.” This whole thing at Vale is about trying to switch them from a defined benefit plan—which was fairly honest, I guess, and generous, I guess; I don’t know—to a defined contribution plan where the employee shares the risk. This is a huge problem.

I remember sitting through some commercial hearings on these things when I was assistant to the Minister of Finance, and this is where I really got engaged in the issue. I sat through and listened to these actuaries arguing back and forth. What it comes down to is this: The big issue starts with who owns the surplus. Let’s say there is a windup in a company—and this Bill 236 does cover some of this—a partial windup or what they call a grow-in option. It gets too fuzzy to explain here. If I could have more time I would go on a bit; if people allowed me to, I would. I’d like to, actually.

But here’s the real issue: The provisions in these plans simply will not work today. You can’t explain any more than that. Companies are shaped differently; relationships with employers and employees are different. The employer itself, whether it’s GE or GE Capital or GE’s investment group—they’re multinational, integrated, subdivided groups. You’ll spend more time in court trying to find out who owes the money. So the employee and the employer both contribute an amount and it moves forward in some fund that’s regulated, probably by the federal government.

Canada is a very small market, actually, in terms of pools of capital. You saw yesterday what happened. The euro dropped. Canada dropped. Everyone ran to the US. It’s a big capital market. They may be in debt, they may be shaky, but there is more money moving there in a day than the rest of the world combined. When people get nervous they run to two places: They run to the US dollar or they run to gold. Watch gold in this whole market. It usually trades at a 50-to-1 ratio, so it’s important to keep your eye on it.

The point I’m trying to make is, government intervened in 1993, and under the defined benefit plan—there was the pension benefits guarantee fund. Most people don’t understand that most employee groups aren’t entitled to that fund. The only one entitled to that fund is what they call a SEPP, a single-employer pension plan. The MEPP, the multi-employer pension plan, isn’t entitled to that fund. Most people haven’t got this much understanding of the issue, period. That would include me, as well. That’s why I think continuing this debate is very important.

The substance of this bill is marginally important. The bigger debate is between Dwight Duncan and Jim Flaherty. There have been four or five meetings. One of them was in the Northwest Territories this past winter, headed by Flaherty and other finance ministers. I believe Minister Duncan was there as well. There has been a subsequent meeting. Now there is an expert panel group, and there was an expert panel report here in this province. So we know it’s a problem.

I think, in realistic terms, if you load it on to the employers, they’re going to run and hide. They’re going to go to other jurisdictions where they’re not required to have these things. If you load it all on the employee, that’s unfair. So I think there’s a role for government here, and I think you will see some of the recommendations in the expert panel’s report. The expert panel, federally, I think is a very important point—because any government that moves to saying, “We’re going to protect your income so it will allow you to invest it,” is going to lose the payroll income tax paid on that money.

And if they do, they’re going to lose revenue. Governments right now are all in deficit, which is future debt.

I’d also be very careful about debt itself and how it’s moving around today. These are fundamental questions. In Ontario, today’s budget is about $117 billion. Servicing the debt is about $10 billion a year. We spend more on that than we do on pharmacy products—the big argument about that is 90% baloney. Here’s the deal: If the interest rate goes up, we have a serious problem. It’s going to be the same problem that Bob Rae had. The more they borrowed, the bigger the debt, the more the interest—and start paying more in interest to foreign investors or bondholders—

Hon. James J. Bradley: You can’t ask any more “spend” questions.

Mr. John O’Toole: There’s no question on “spend,” but I think the government has to be cautious about the deficit.

When I look at your budget, I personally think it’s irresponsible. I think it’s completely irresponsible to be accumulating debt. Yesterday Mark Carney from the Bank of Canada said, “Watch how much debt you’re carrying.” He did.

These people with these huge mortgages: Get ready. Get a “for sale” sign and put it in the garage, because if it goes up and your insurance companies don’t want to cover that debt, you will have a designed conclusion.

Ending on a positive note, I think there is a real willingness on the part of the province and the federal government to try to find solutions without shaking up the world. If you have large pools of capital, large investments, you’ll get a better return on your investment.

Canada should have one investment fund. They say the teachers’ pension fund is the best because it’s our biggest. Our fund should be a Canadian fund, and that fund could leverage against the larger US funds and actually attract better returns and safer investments. So we don’t want to buy Greek bonds at 21%. It sounds good, but the liabilities are very high on those kinds of investments with Greece, Portugal and Spain. They’re going to collapse. This is going to be like a house of cards going over the cliff. My sense, though, is that in Canada you have a better system of controls. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that you were in this business at one time yourself. I believe others in the House were as well—Mr. Wilkinson was, I think, as well.

So it’s a very interesting time, but we all have a responsibility to make sure that we protect the people that we’re elected to represent in some way, at sort of a minimum amount. That’s my argument with the defined contribution: It’s a minimum threshold.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to say that from time to time there are some points of agreement that New Democrats have with the Conservative Party. The member from Cambridge also made reference to this. They’re both worried. Indeed, many Conservative members are worried about the fact that 70% don’t have any pension whatsoever. That’s a legitimate worry that they have and New Democrats have.

Of course, how we get to it in terms of the solution is obviously very different, but at least we’re talking about the fact that a majority of Canadians have no pension whatsoever. We need to deal with that. The member correctly says that the battle is at the federal level, and in his view it should be at the federal level. New Democrats disagree with that, because while the larger battle happens there, if nothing goes on—because it’s a meaningless pretense of a fight, or at trying to arrive at some conclusion—then you bring that battle here to the provincial level, is what New Democrats argue. If they are unwilling to do it at the federal level, we should be doing it. And I think we must.

So there are points of similarity that we have with the Conservative members, and points of disagreements as to how we get there, but at least we are both stating a concern, and that is that 70% have absolutely nothing. There’s a lot to be worried about. Until we deal with that, the insecurity will get worse—and indeed it is getting worse. They have every right to be feeling insecure and to be worried about it. No one is proposing suggestions except that we, the New Democrats, have put out a modest proposal that we think they should look at.

Monsieur McGuinty said, “Yeah, it’s a good idea,” although he hasn’t moved to support it. I’ll be speaking to that in about six minutes, and I’ll elucidate a little more.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I noted with great interest the member’s remarks in this regard. He had some interesting experience sitting in, as he did, on sessions related to the very complicated issue of pensions. One of the things we do know is that when individuals are working, they are in a much better position. The member would be, with me, pleased with the headline that we all would have seen in our local paper: “GM Puts $235 Million into St. Catharines.” I know the member, who has had experience with General Motors, will be happy when that happens.

There was some considerable criticism of our provincial government when we came to the assistance of General Motors and Chrysler, to help get them through a difficult time because of—and this member understands this probably more than most—the great impact of the automotive industry in the province of Ontario. Certainly in his region and in my region, we both recognize how important that is. So I was very heartened to see that that investment is going to be made at the engine plant in St. Catharines, securing up to 400 jobs. Of course, there’s also confirmation that the six-bead transmission work that is planned for St. Catharines is going to be implemented as well.

In both cases, this is new equipment; this is something that moves to the future. The member and I both know that when General Motors moves to the future—more fuel-efficient and more efficient overall—it is positive for the products that are going to be sold. All of this helps, because there are people who make contributions to pension plans. It allows the company to be able to do that. It allows for the viability of the plan. So I was pleased to see that the policy of this government had a positive impact on General Motors.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to add a few comments this morning on this bill.

What I’d like to do in the brief time I have is talk about something that I think is maybe just as important as the bill, and that is creating the appropriate response within the community at large. I don’t think that there has been enough understanding within the general public of the whole issue of pensions—defined benefits and otherwise. People have grown up feeling a security that I think isn’t matched by their bank accounts.

The kind of thing that I’m talking about is looking at, for instance—I think it’s Saturday mornings in the Globe and Mail—the continuing series on taking individuals and looking at their finances and projecting, “Are these people able to retire?”—giving, then, the readership an opportunity to have a look at how others are organizing their money. Very often, people in these series have totally unrealistic ideas about their ability to retire and maintain a lifestyle that they think would be appropriate.

I also had a conversation with a woman who does financing at a car dealership. She came to me with a real concern about the number of young people—I’m talking late 20s, early 30s—who’ve already declared personal bankruptcy, and then think, “Okay, now I’ve got myself straightened out and paid my charge cards off; I need to borrow money to buy a car.” And they have no concept of the implications of personal bankruptcy. They have no idea what lies in store for them—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

The member for Durham, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to thank the member from Trinity–Spadina. Yes, I do look forward to his remarks, and I was appreciative of the Minister of Municipal Affairs bringing some relevance to this.

In my remarks, I forgot to adequately thank the contributors to the Arthurs report, the expert panel in Ontario. Their work is very important, and I think it sets a benchmark where we can all learn a lot. I would recommend that people get a

summary or a briefing on it.

It’s really important to put this in context as well that in Ontario, 70% of people—those are our constituents—don’t have a pension and maybe don’t think about those kinds of things, but it’s very important that we set some sort—as the economy—for a lot of worthy reasons, often.

Ontario’s a big player in the overall scheme. There are 11,000 defined benefit plans in Canada, of which 4,100 are right here in Ontario. We need to make sure we carry our load on the redesign of whatever the solutions are, going forward. I think, retroactively, people under the best of understanding and the best of intentions did not deliberately choose a pension that would be bankrupt and then find themselves living under the bridge. I think of Nortel, but I also think of General Motors. When we read the headlines—I’m looking at one here this morning; this is under my search called “favourite stocks,” and this headline today that I’m reading says—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I remind the member that you don’t read from electronic devices in the Legislature, please.

Mr. John O’Toole: It says that General Motors is still called, “Government Motors” because they really still have an unfunded liability of $27 billion. This is not solved and will not be solved.

There are two ways of valuing pensions. The two ways, the solvency rules, are as a going concern or as a windup. If it’s a going concern, the rules for funding it, actuarially, are not the same as if it’s a windup, and the federal government has a provision as well under the—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I’m happy to speak to Bill 236,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act. I want to say that as is typical of so much of what this government does, it’s a timid approach to pension reform. It’s always very, very slow—don’t go too fast, don’t upset anybody, don’t do too much, because otherwise you will have a lot of people on your back, because even when you don’t do too much, you have a whole lot of people on your back. They’re so profoundly timid and worried and afraid, they sometimes don’t know what they want to do.

This is one big issue, I’ve got to tell you. I come from a family where my mother worked at home all of her life and had no pension, which was the case of many women in the past: They had no pension whatsoever for the work they did for a long time in the home. My father worked in construction. The pension he had, being in the union, was $70 a month—not a whole lot.

People are very insecure about their future. They were insecure in the past and they are more insecure now. You see financial markets melting and people are saying, “What’s going to happen to us?” and, more specifically, “What’s going to happen to me?” They have every right to be worried.

In Ontario, occupational pension coverage has eroded from a high point in 1985 of just under 40% of Ontario workers to about 34% in 2005. We’re in 2010; it’s probably about 31% or 32% at this time. It’s going to get worse, in my view.

Many observers predict a further significant decline in defined benefits coverage in the near future, especially in light of the decline of the unionized sector during the current recession. And a defined benefit plan is a plan that every worker should have access to.

No one understands “defined benefit,” “defined contribution.” If you ask a young man or young woman of age 25, 26, 27, 28, they don’t have a clue what it is. Most young men and women believe they are going to be working, and they’re going to be working for a secure future of sorts; they are going to have a job and it’s well paid, and you don’t have to worry about pensions, because you’re never going to get there until you get there.

So they don’t understand a defined benefit plan, where the contributions of workers and employers are put together in an equal manner so that by the end of 25 or 30 years, you have a defined plan based on years of work, and you’ve got a defined sum of money based on those contributions. It’s a good thing for workers. It’s a good thing for men and women who toil in every workplace in this province.

“Defined contribution” means the employer gives you a few bucks—maybe $1,000, maybe $2,000, maybe $3,000, maybe $4,000—and then you put that away into your own investment account. If the markets work well, God bless; you’ll have a few dollars. If they collapse, you’re in trouble.

Most of the defined benefit plans work well. Some have lost money, as la Caisse de dépôt in Quebec did, because they invested in those derivatives in the US. They lost close to $38 billion. Some have made some bad investments. The majority of our investments—while here the teachers’ pension fund lost some money, it wasn’t so bad. They’re still good, well-managed pension plans that give a greater benefit to workers than any other contribution plan that we have, that we have seen and that we have witnessed in the collapse of our markets in the last year or two.

We have seen a desire by employers to whittle away at pensions. They are eroding those pensions. They’re saying, “We can’t afford defined benefit plans anymore.” Oh? What can you afford? And what is good for workers? Insecurity? Less than they had? Less than they are entitled to, to be able to retire with some dignity, with a few bucks, to be able to say, “I feel okay; I can survive”?

It’s okay for the employer to say, “We can’t afford it.” It’s not okay for the men and women who have to rely on paltry sums after age 60 or 65 and after working for a lifetime to be able to receive some benefit that they can feel good about, so they don’t have to stress about where their money’s coming from.

What we as MPPs have, thanks to Mike Harris, is a contribution plan. God bless him; he left with a healthy sum of $800,000 or so. He was able to invest that. I’m sure he’s doing okay. I understand he’s earning $80,000 a month or something by serving on 10 boards at a time, because they pay former Premiers to be on the boards, just to sit there and say, “Hi,” and things like that. He did okay, and some of the old members didn’t do too badly. I only had four years and a half of vested money. If you add up what I might have if I retired now, I would probably have $15,000 a year in my pension for up to 20 years of service. The new members—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s everybody here; we are all at fault here.

The new members get absolutely squat. If you don’t have your own wealth, God bless you. Those who have a contribution plan, whether it’s in this place or somewhere else, are out of luck. With some good luck, assuming you’re still working and you’re able to put a few dollars aside, assuming you do that or assuming you can, it might not be so bad.

We might be better off than those seniors who have nothing but the Canada pension plan. If you’ve worked for 35 or 40 years, the maximum is $11,000 a year. The old age security maximum, I think, is $5,500. The guaranteed income supplement—I don’t know what that is, but that’s for people who are absolutely poor. But for those who have worked, your maximum pension is $11,000, assuming you’re entitled to the max, and the old age security is close to $5,000.

You’ve got $16,000 a year to pay your home taxes that are rising every year, to pay your gas bills and hydro bills that are rising every year, to pay for your cable, to pay for your telephone, to pay for just basic things. The majority of people just can’t make ends meet anymore.

I’m with those people who worry. I have been a supporter of the unions because at least with unions, the majority of them have managed to squeeze out a pension from their employers. They’re able to, through collective agreements, make sure that there are benefits and pensions. The majority of those who have pensions are in the unionized sector. God bless, because if they weren’t here, there wouldn’t be a pension for many of those workers.

Because of the pension workers and what they negotiate, those who are not in unions get the same benefit for sitting down and waiting for the unionized sector to get slapped around by the media and the corporate sector and everybody else for doing what they should be lobbying for as well, to deserve the benefits that unionized workers fight for. Unionized workers give those who are not unionized benefits that they don’t have to sweat for.

This bill is

an act to amend the Pension Benefits Act. Okay, we agree with a few things; we disagree with a few other things, but it doesn’t touch on this big, big topic: that close to 70% have no pension. Monsieur McGuinty, the Premier, and others say, “No, we’re lobbying the federal government.” Oh, yeah, that’s great; you’re doing a great job. They sure are listening to you at the federal level. Boy, you have a lot of clout at the federal level, because they’re sitting at the table, they meet every six months and they meet again every other six months. There are elections, and then there are more meetings.

Oh, yeah, you have such powerful suasion with the federal Conservative Party. It’s called motionless motion; nothing happens as we move.

Speaker, you know that the health care that we have at this moment wasn’t initiated by the federal Liberals or the federal Conservative Party; it began because Tommy Douglas fought for it in Saskatchewan. We have a health care plan because a New Democrat from Saskatchewan made it happen, and the Liberals, so afraid were they that he would get re-elected as a federal member, said, “We have to do something.

We have to institute a national plan.” Now, God bless, the Liberals take advantage of that fact and say, “We did it.” Thank God the Liberals have New Democrats to push them; otherwise, they would be in constant motionless motion, pretending they’re moving and never moving anywhere except standing still. That is the legacy of Liberals.

I say to you, provinces have the power to lead. McGuinty, mon ami the Premier, has the power to do something. That’s leadership. Leadership isn’t to say, “Yes, we’re pushing the federal Conservative Party,” that doesn’t want to do anything on this issue. That is not leadership; that’s motionless motion. Leadership means, “I will do something for my folks here in Ontario. I will bring in a plan and force the Liberal government to respond,” as the Liberals did with Tommy Douglas in the early 1960s.

Mr. Jeff Leal: No, no, no. There was a speech in 1960 in Kingston. I’ll get you a copy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Peterborough, order.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Send me a coffee, Jeff—a coffee from Peterborough.

He doesn’t want to admit that it was Tommy Douglas who did it. It just doesn’t want to come out of his mouth. He can’t help himself.

Mr. Jeff Leal: He was a contributor, but—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Oh, I see. Tommy Douglas was a contributor. That is nice. Tommy Douglas had his tires slashed. His daughter was intimidated. His whole family was intimidated. Tommy Douglas was intimidated and pushed by the insurance companies, even derided by the Liberals at the time, and other Tories—derided, pushed, humiliated, harassed.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I don’t know.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But not for Jeff, oh no. For Jeff it was Pearson, the great leader, who did this, and he was pushing the cart that Tommy Douglas was riding in. He was right behind him, saying, “We’re pushing; we’re right behind you.” Send me a coffee with that copy there, Jeff.

Anyway, I say to you, we’ve got big things. We’ve got to do some more serious stuff. We’ve got to introduce our own pension plan that should be flexible, that should be portable. Our fund, the one we propose, would be a defined benefit plan—not a contribution plan; a defined benefit plan with a guaranteed benefit, much like the CPP. Every worker in Ontario who is already enrolled in a good-quality workplace pension plan would be automatically enrolled in the plan, but would have the freedom to opt out.

All workers who have opted out would be automatically re-enrolled in the plan three years from the day they opted out, and would have to formally opt out again if they wanted to remain outside the plan.

Workers and employers would be required to contribute to the new plan equally. The full contribution rate would be phased in over time and employers would be required to contribute to the OPP as long as the employee remains in the plan. In other words, it would be voluntary for the employee but compulsory for the employer, should the employee choose to participate in the plan. Employees could top up their minimum contributions, but employers would not be required to match the top-up. There would be a cap on the maximum that an employee could contribute in any given year. We can do this.

Time is running out. It happens all the time.

We need some leadership. Our plan is a good plan for McGuinty to take. Just take it and make it yours. Take it and make it yours and lead. Don’t wait for Harper to do something, because he’s not.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1018 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This morning I want to introduce mothers and their children from the Massey Centre: Nicole Wahl, Victoria Hospedales, Emily Prowse, Jan Higgins, Yvette Reeves, Janicia Anthony, Amanda Cain, Ariel Lunanski, Marnie Pellman, Huva Eldaior, Rachelle Woldegiorgif, Zvart Dekarn, Ronetto Cobham and staff from the Massey Centre, Aleema Khan and Jennifer Morgan. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s a real delight for me to introduce two individuals in the members’ east gallery today: Pat Melanson, who is my executive assistant from Peterborough—Pat has been with me since the fall of 2003—and Matt Stoeckle, who’s a constituency assistant of mine and has been with me for about two years. His father John is a member of the Peterborough Lakefield Community Police Services, a board in Peterborough. We really welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It’s my pleasure to introduce to members in the Legislature today Mr. Lawrence Stasiuk, president of the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects; Linda Irvine, president of the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects; and Doug Carrick, president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects. It is a pleasure to have them with us. They hosted us this morning.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to introduce the mother of Sabina Midgen, who is one of our pages. Colleen Black is here with us in the Legislature today.

Mr. Dave Levac: Making his way into the House shortly is a constituent of mine. Visiting here to discuss some important issues with some of the members is Jeff McAllister, from my riding of Brant.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Today is the National Day of Mourning, when we pay our respects to the workers who have been killed, injured or suffered an illness as a result of work-related incidents. I’d like to seek unanimous consent from members for all of us to wear a black-and-yellow ribbon in honour of these workers and to show our commitment to preventing these tragedies from happening again.

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

I’d like to this opportunity on behalf of page Carrington Knight and the leader of the third party to welcome Carrington’s mother, Jean Lewis Knight; father, Steven Knight; and brothers, Devan Knight, Nelson Knight and Spensir Knight, to the members’ gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Just like his plan to teach sex education to six-year-olds, Dalton McGuinty thinks he knows better than families when it comes to industrial wind farms. Hopefully, just like his sex education plan, Dalton McGuinty will distance himself from what his minister said during question period, admit he wasn’t listening to families and offer to do a “serious rethink” of industrial wind farms. The opposition day motion I proposed is his chance to do just that. Can we count on your support for municipalities that want you to give back planning authority over industrial wind projects that you stripped away in your so-called Green Energy Act?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to take the question and have an opportunity to speak to this. We welcome the continuing debate. I do not support the position taken by my honourable colleague opposite, nor the position embraced by the official opposition.

We think it’s really important that we pursue clean energy opportunities in Ontario. We’re a little late, frankly, when it comes to this. They started harnessing the power of the wind in order to generate electricity, they tell me, in the 1880s. But I’m glad that we’ve gone from, I think, some 10 wind turbines to 700.

I look forward, in the supplementaries, to outlining in a bit more detail why I think it’s important for all of us that we find a way to move forward on this.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: To the families from Wind Concerns Ontario who are at Queen’s Park today, it sounds like the Premier thinks the reason he gave for a flip-flop that humiliated Ministers Pupatello and Dombrowsky on the need to consult families applies only to teaching sex courses to six-year-olds and not to industrial wind farms being built right outside their back door.

If he had seriously changed his ways, Dalton McGuinty would listen to families from Prince Edward–Hastings, Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Nipissing, Essex, Scarborough Bluffs and Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. They want input into where you put your industrial wind farms. They want an independent study that shows your industrial projects are safe for them and safe for the environment. Can you do better than offering the word of Samsung or Minister Gerretsen?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to welcome the families that are here today and I want them to know we are listening very carefully to the concerns that they are expressing.

But I want to say that we’ve taken a long time to consider the policy that we have put in place. The choices aren’t all easy when it comes to electricity. We’ve decided that it’s important to eliminate coal-fired generation. That’s something that compromises the health of our children and contributes to global warming, so we want to shut that down. Gas-fired generation is not easy either. It does contribute to global warming.

But when it comes to wind turbines, we now have in place the most aggressive policies in all of North America when it comes to location, noise emission levels and all those kinds of things—in fact, they’re some of the strongest in the world. More than that, we’re now funding a research chair devoted to putting in place a longitudinal study so we can ensure that we are in fact not compromising the health of Ontarians. I think we’re doing exactly what we need to do at this point in our history.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: This isn’t the same Dalton McGuinty who people thought they voted for. It’s not even the same Dalton McGuinty of last month, who called municipalities “a mature, responsible level of government.” This is the Dalton McGuinty whose Green Energy Act overrides municipalities and cuts out local families so he can drive his agenda of building industrial wind farms in everyone’s backyard but his own. Ontario PCs stand with families on deciding where to locate industrial wind projects in their communities, not so-called experts and elites.

Will you show that your humiliation of Minister Pupatello was not in vain and that you’ve truly taken to heart the need to consult families and support my opposition day motion today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I certainly support my colleague’s right to move ahead with his opposition day motion. It’s not something that I can support, of course.

Let me tell you about one of the other benefits, apart from us harnessing the clean power of the wind for Ontario families in a way that does not compromise their health. In addition to that, so far, the investments that we have landed—and they total over $16 billion—will translate into 36,000 clean energy jobs in the province of Ontario.

Some of the strongest support we have for our wind turbine program comes from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which is a really important constituent group in rural Ontario. We’ve given this a great deal of thought. We’ve listened to a lot of people who think it is important, as part of a progressive energy plan, to ensure that we’re harnessing the clean power of the wind.

WIND TURBINES

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Premier. The Planning Act allows families to have input into local planning decisions, whether it’s building shopping malls or condo developments or even some home renovations that get built in their community. Why are you blocking them from having that same say on where industrial wind farms are built?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think I explained very fully yesterday but I’m more than happy to discuss this today. There are numerous opportunities for public input and involvement in renewable project planning. In fact, the proponent of the project must—it’s not “may”; it’s “must”—consult with the municipality and the community. It’s not an option. Their concerns must—and I repeat, must—be documented in their application and must indicate how the proponent is addressing these issues and concerns.

Following the submission to the Ministry of the Environment, the application is posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights for 30 to 60 days. There is plenty of room for consultation on these projects. Municipalities must be involved in that decision-making.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: That’s a lot of talk, but you know what? My

interpretation of communication is two-way. Your communication is one-way: “You will do this.”

Last month the Premier said that he believed municipalities were “a mature, responsible level of government.” But apparently he did not mean when it comes to the fundamental role of municipalities, which is local planning. He dismissively waves off health and environmental concerns, but his massive industrial wind projects have barely begun and already media reports that blades of a windmill killed an eagle and local experts say that industrial wind farms are scaring animals from their habitat.

Why does the Premier think Dalton knows best when it comes to putting large industrial wind turbines in place?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Here we go again on the whole myriad of Tory contradictions. You stand in this place time and time again and talk about red tape, yet you don’t support our Open Ontario plan to get rid of red tape. You stand in your place to talk about red tape, yet today you’re standing here saying we should create more red tape when it comes to the approval of very important renewable energy projects. You stand in your place today and you talk about supporting municipalities, yet what did you do to municipalities when you were in power?

You took the most historic, draconian moves to download responsibilities to municipalities and costs: social services, housing, public transit, land ambulance, public health. And you forced on municipality after municipality amalgamations they didn’t want. Did you consult on any of those? No, you did not.

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Mr. Speaker, the minister went off topic again. We’re talking about democracy and you stripping municipalities of democracy. Families in Scarborough Bluffs were told of a plan to build up to 100 wind turbines from Leslie Street to Ajax. Some took their concerns to Toronto city council about this industrial project killing birds and wildlife, fouling water, ruining the waterfront and posing risks to health and safety. To nobody’s surprise, the city did nothing. They couldn’t do anything because your so-called Green Energy Act neuters municipalities.

Will the McGuinty Liberals support our opposition day motion and restore public accountability and public confidence in planning for industrial wind farms?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m going to respond to that in the words of the Orillia Packet and Times in their editorial today. They said:

“Something has to be done immediately to get the province, and the world population for that matter, to stop polluting the planet. And to that end, the McGuinty government is pushing through the Green Energy Act....

“But to make the change to green power from such old polluting technologies as coal, planning must be on a large scale.”

Unless the Tories can come up with another plan to get renewable energy producers up and running quickly in Ontario, they should accept that the government is doing what needs to be done. We are doing what needs to be done. We’re cleaning up the air of this planet so that future generations have cleaner air to breathe, so that we can improve the health of future generations, and we’re creating a green energy hub here in this province to create jobs. That’s in the interests of Ontarians, not the plan that you—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: Today is the National Day of Mourning for workers killed and injured on the job, but every day is a day of mourning in Ontario because an Ontario family suffers the agony of losing a husband, a wife, a child or a parent through workplace injury almost every day in Ontario.

Why is the McGuinty government allowing this carnage to continue?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: It is a day of mourning, and it is a time for us to remember all those who have lost their lives in the workplace, those who have been injured, those who suffer illness in the workplace.

Human suffering—often we may talk about it in this House or in policy as a statistic, but behind every one of those statistics is a life story. That’s why our government has doubled our efforts. We’ve doubled the number of inspectors we have out in the field to ensure that employers are adhering to their responsibilities, employing the best practices when it comes to health and safety. We want to make sure that anyone who goes to work in the morning does their work and comes home safe and sound to their family. That’s what we’re working towards every day. That is my number one priority at the Ministry of Labour.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Between 1999 and 2008, work-related deaths increased by almost 50%. More and more workers are dying due to the criminal negligence of their employers. Why isn’t the government prosecuting employers who are responsible for the death or injury of hard-working and responsible workers?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We are all saddened when there is a fatality in the workplace or a serious injury. Ministry of Labour inspectors, as I said, are out there in the field every single day, investigating incidents to ensure that the Occupational Health and Safety Act is followed and enforced. I can tell the member that over the last four years, the Ministry of Labour has successfully convicted almost 4,000 companies and individuals for workplace health and safety violations.

The member, I believe, is speaking to the Westray bill, which is federal legislation. Under that legislation, he would know that it speaks to criminal charges. It’s the responsibility of police and crown attorneys to determine when criminal charges are warranted for a workplace injury or fatality.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: You see, Speaker, that’s why I put the question to the Premier, because since 2004, the Criminal Code of Canada has enabled the prosecution of corporate executives, directors and managers who recklessly disregard the safety of workers.

Hundreds of workers have been killed on the job and millions injured in Ontario since the Criminal Code was amended in 2004. Holding employers responsible for workplace deaths is the only sure way to improve workplace safety. It’s this government’s Attorney General, Minister of Labour and Solicitor General who are responsible for ensuring that the Criminal Code is enforced in the province of Ontario.

Why won’t the government make full use of the Criminal Code and stop the needless and tragic killing of Ontario workers by sending bad bosses to jail?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Any one death is one death too many in the province of Ontario. But the truth is, to the member, that in Ontario we have seen a downward trend in the number of fatalities in the workplace. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that our workers are healthy and safe when they go to work and that they come home healthy and safe at the end of the day.

That is why we have a strong strategy, a plan. It’s called Safe at Work Ontario. We work with labour groups, we work with employers and we work with employees, because it’s everyone’s responsibility to make sure that people are safe when they’re at work and that they do come home safe and sound at the end of the day.

We’ve also launched an expert advisory panel led by Tony Dean. We’re doing a comprehensive review of our health—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. People along Toronto’s Eglinton Avenue corridor have been waiting more than 20 years for a dedicated transit line that would spare them the long commutes they endure each and every day. Eglinton corridor residents vividly remember Mike Harris’s decision to kill the Eglinton subway in 1995 after tens of millions of dollars had already been spent on construction by an NDP government. Will this Premier commit to having the shovels in the ground on the Eglinton LRT by the end of this year, or will he join Mike Harris in dashing the hopes of Eglinton corridor residents?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague will want to take the opportunity when chatting with her constituents to disabuse them of any notion that somehow our record when it comes to public transit is in any way comparable to the previous government’s record. We spent $9.3 billion in public transit across Ontario, which is $9.3 billion more than the previous government spent, and we’re very proud of that.

With respect to Toronto itself: $3.5 billion since 2003. In addition to that, we’ve turned over a portion of our gas tax. It’s a provincial gas tax. We’ve turned it over to our municipal partners. In the case of the city of Toronto, they’ve received close to $700 million over the first five years of the program. We are at present investing $870 million to extend the TTC subway to York region. I think that’s real, solid evidence of our continuing commitment to public transit in Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The Premier didn’t answer the question. The question was very simple: Will the Liberals commit to having the shovels in the ground on the full Eglinton LRT this year, yes or no?

I can only assume that the reason the Premier didn’t answer the question is that the answer is, in fact, no. The planning work on this vital project is complete. Eglinton residents shouldn’t have to wait any longer. Will the Premier commit to having the shovels in the ground on the Eglinton LRT by the end of this year, or is he prepared to go down in history as the next Mike Harris of transportation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That is surely the unkindest cut of all. But there’s something I want to refer my colleague to. In the Toronto Star there’s a piece submitted by Michael Warren, an expert with whom I’m sure my colleague is familiar. He says, in part, as follows:

“To be fair, McGuinty has done more to advance the transit agenda in this region than any Premier since Bill Davis. He has given tangible leadership to the idea that transportation is a regional issue and that it requires regional solutions.”

We want to continue to find ways to invest in public transit. In fact, we are doing that as we speak; that is, there are jobs that are under way right now. We look forward to working with Metrolinx and making sure we get the best possible responsible

schedule in place when it comes to investing in these new projects.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I just don’t understand, really, why the Premier refuses to answer a very simple question. I certainly know that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence would breathe a sigh of relief if the Premier simply answered, “Yes.” That Liberal member held an emergency meeting last night to try and justify his government’s $4-billion Transit City cut. I’m told that he had a really tough time offering up a truly legitimate excuse.

The Premier can make things easy for his Toronto colleagues and Toronto commuters. Will he commit to having shovels in the ground on the Eglinton LRT by the end of this year? Simple question, simple answer; will the Premier simply say yes or no?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I really wish life was that simple, but there are some complexities associated with getting the timing of these kinds of projects right. We have recently referred the scheduling of some really important projects over to the people of Metrolinx; they’ve got their eye on the big picture. We told them that we are going to provide all necessary funding. We won’t be able to provide it as quickly as we had originally intended because we were side-swiped by a global recession, and I think most people understand that.

I want to reassure my colleague, her constituents, the people of Toronto and all Ontarians that our resolve when it comes to investing in public transit remains as strong as ever, and we will find a way forward, notwithstanding the fact that we are challenged when it comes to some aspects of our finances right now.

CURRICULUM

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Premier. The confusion over the sex ed curriculum continues to grow. It appears the only people who are more confused than Ontario families about the government’s plans for the curriculum now are the Premier and his minister.

After refusing to engage parents, the Premier flip-flopped, hanging his Acting Premier and education minister out to dry in the process. He said the curriculum would be shelved, and on Monday, the education minister added that the sex ed curriculum would not be ready for fall because, “What’s important is we take the time to do it right.” But yesterday the Premier did it to his minister again, insisting guidelines will be in place for this fall.

Why would the Premier keep important details about his plan from the minister and, more importantly, from parents?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We look forward to engaging parents on the subject of a very important matter that affects all our children, which is sex education in our schools. I think it’s important that we take that time and listen to parents. That’s perfectly in keeping with the approach that we brought when it comes to improving the quality of our schools and education generally.

We listened to parents, for example, when it came to smaller classes. We listened to them when they said, “We want peace and stability in our schools; we are sick and tired of the labour strife that characterized our schools under the Conservative government.” They said, “Help ensure that our children graduate from schools,” and I’m proud to report that we have 16,500 more graduates on an annual basis. They said, “Help us get our test scores up.” We’re doing that; they are up 13%, on average.

We think it’s important to listen to the parents to ensure we are getting the education of our children right.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, through you again to the Premier, it’s little wonder that parents are confused, because there was no answer in that question. The Premier should not be surprised that parents are confused about his plans to teach sex education, beginning in grade 1: (1) there was no consultation with parents; (2) there was an attempt to bury the curriculum without any announcement; and (3) the plan supposedly had the support of Catholic bishops—we found out that this was wrong.

There was a statement that there would be one curriculum for all school boards, and then we found out there were secret negotiations for a different curriculum with Catholic school boards. No wonder parents are confused.

Why should parents trust anything that you say about your sex ed curriculum?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We look forward, as I say, to engaging parents in a matter that is very important to them, and it’s something that I think we all agree needs to be done. The fact of the matter is that the curriculum, when it comes to sex ed, is now 12 years old, and the fact is also that our children have much more access today to information, some of it reliable, some of it completely unreliable, and we think the best way to present that information to our children is through the classroom and through their teachers.

We want to listen to parents to make sure we get the curriculum content just right. That’s in keeping with the approach that we’ve brought to education generally. Parents told us, for example, they wanted more textbooks, so we’ve invested $500 million more, on an annual basis, in more textbooks. They said they’d like to have more music, art and drama in the classroom, so we’ve hired 3,700 elementary specialty teachers in those areas. They said they want clean and safe school buildings, so we have built 400 new schools and there are 12,000 repair and renovation projects complete or under way. It’s important to listen to parents when it comes to education.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Massey Centre, in my riding, provides support for teen mothers and their babies. A number of them are here today. It’s been on strike for a week now. The centre’s services keep teen mothers together with their babies, babies who might otherwise be taken into the child protection system at great expense and great emotional pain to all.

A decade of underfunding has driven the care workers out on strike. Will you commit to proper funding of this centre so it can settle the strike?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: As I have had the privilege to stand in this House and say before, I’m pleased to welcome the parents and staff from the Massey Centre here today.

As I have said, given the nature of the current labour dispute, I’m not able to intervene at this time, but I do continue to encourage both sides to work out and resolve this dispute as quickly as possible. As a mother myself, I want to say that I understand the importance of child care. It was very important to me.

I know it’s important to the members in this House that the child care centre at Massey is open and it will continue to serve the preschool-aged children. The prenatal residential program will be closed for the duration of the strike, but the Massey Centre has arranged alternate accommodation for all residents to ensure that they continue to get the supports that they need.

We believe in child care. Just yesterday, we announced $51 million in investments to stabilize the child care—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Back to the Premier, because the buck stops with you: Everybody understands that this recession presents difficulties. People understand that there is a dispute under way. They also understand that moms and babies need support. They know that children and families need daycare. They understand that the funds have been frozen for this centre for years, even when the economy was good. That has damaged the relationship between the staff and the centre. You have the power to fund this centre properly, to treat people with fairness. Will you do that?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We can all agree that the Massey Centre for Women does provide invaluable service to the community. I’m working closely with my colleague the Minister of Children and Youth Services on this matter. We both expect the parties to do all that they can, to work as hard as they can, to set aside those differences and get a collective agreement done. Our focus at this time is to ensure that we’re doing everything possible to support and assist the parties. As I understand it, the parties have agreed to meet for further talks with a Ministry of Labour mediator. This is a good thing.

We all know that a collective agreement is a stable agreement, a productive agreement and a fair agreement. This is what we want so that the Massey Centre can continue to do the great work they do every day.

PHARMACISTS

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. My constituents have been hearing from pharmacists that they do want to be paid directly for their services and that they do not want a rebate system. At the same time, large pharmacy chains are claiming that the elimination of professional allowances will result in health care cuts.

I want to be sure that my constituents and all Ontarians understand that the proposed drug reforms will benefit them. Seniors in my riding are especially concerned about the level of care they receive from their pharmacists. Minister, can you tell us how the elimination of professional allowances will affect Ontarians?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The biggest reason we pay so much more for generic drugs in this province is the payment of these so-called professional allowances from generic companies to the pharmacies. Twenty-six per cent of Ontarians say that they have not filled or renewed a prescription because they cannot afford to do that. By eliminating these professional allowances, we’re able to cut the cost of generic drugs by at least 50% and also clean up a system that was open to widespread abuse. Our proposed reforms will make our system transparent by removing these allowances. Instead, we will pay pharmacists directly for services that improve the health of their customers.

We’re also committed to supporting pharmacists in rural and underserviced areas. That’s why CARP, the seniors’ advocacy—

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

Mr. David Orazietti: Thank you, Minister. I know that Ontarians are now gaining a greater understanding of just how excessive our drug costs are, but it’s also important that my constituents know that the money previously spent on professional allowances will go toward lower drug costs and better services for every Ontarian.

There has been much discussion around consultation and negotiations with pharmacists. We’ve heard that the pharmacists want to talk about the proposed reforms. Our pharmacists are important members of our community and many people rely on their medical advice. Minister, what are we doing to ensure that pharmacists also have a chance to be heard?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want Ontarians and I want pharmacists to know that we want to talk to them. We’re determined to get lower drug prices for Ontarians and we’re determined to get fair compensation for pharmacists. I have sent the various pharmacy organizations a letter indicating that I want to have that healthy discussion with them and I want to have it soon. I understand that professional pharmacists are willing to start a constructive dialogue with government. I’m encouraged by this, especially after the industry officials have cancelled two previously scheduled meetings with my staff. They told me they couldn’t meet until late in May.

Ontarians have been asking me, “Why are we paying up to five time as much for drugs in Ontario than in states in the United States?” I want them to know that it’s unacceptable. We are determined to move forward with our plan to lower the price of drugs in Ontario. It’s the right thing to do—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Premier. As the countdown to July 1 looms, the McGuinty Liberals will again shrink family budgets with their greedy HST. Cliff Liddle of Guelph says he is in favour of conservation: “All our electricity bills will still increase, not to mention how the ... HST will increase our bills.” He’s right. After Dalton McGuinty’s energy bill adds $350 a year in taxes to energy bills, Dalton McGuinty’s revenue minister will add 13% HST to energy bills and more. The member for Guelph hasn’t asked, so I will: Will your greedy HST be charged on top of the $350-a-year energy taxes that you already intend to add to the energy bills of Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’ll tell you one thing about our member from Guelph: At least she knows how to add; at least she understands the nature of our tax reform.

I just heard the member opposite say that there is going to be a 13% increase on the price of energy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would remind you to go to our website, where the facts are clearly laid out. I know that perhaps you weren’t speaking to your federal member, who obviously does not agree with you since he voted for the fact that on July 1, the federal government will be the sole tax collector in regard to sales taxes in the province of Ontario.

What the people of Dufferin–Caledon want, what the people of Guelph want and what the people in my riding want are jobs. This tax reform is all about ensuring that our companies can compete for jobs in the 21st century. That’s exactly why we’re doing it and that’s exactly why we’ll—

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, what the people of Guelph want, what the people of Dufferin-Caledon want and what the people of Ontario want is some integrity and some honesty.

I asked a very basic question. The Minister of Energy has already added increases to energy bills. My question is, are you going to tack on to that the additional HST that is scheduled to start on July 1? Simple question, simple answer.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Why don’t we just get the facts on the record? Did you not just tell everybody here that the HST would be an increase of 13% on energy? That is factually incorrect, and I say to the member that it is absolutely important that we do not scaremonger. There will not be an additional—the federal government today charges 5% GST on energy in the province of Ontario. That’s exactly why, under the HST, there will be one set of rules.

The HST of 13% will apply to energy, and we’re taking all of that money and permanently cutting taxes for people in business, something that you used to believe in on that side of the House; something that we’re doing here to make sure that our businesses are competitive so that they, in turn, will be able to hire our children and our grandchildren in the future. That is why we’re doing this. There is nothing more important that we can do. The single most important thing—

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

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, you’re advertising full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds at selected schools, but parents have no idea who is going to provide the before- and after-school care. Without before- and after-school care, this is not really full-day anything. Are you prepared to guarantee that your plan will provide before- and after-school care, in the school, for every child enrolled in the full-day kindergarten program next year?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Actually, I do want to thank the honourable member for supporting the bill that was passed yesterday in the Legislative Assembly. We also appreciate the input that you have provided that has helped shape the piece of legislation that we passed yesterday and are now able to move forward with.

With respect to our commitment to full-day learning in schools, we have phase one that is rolling out in the fall. You know that that does include some 597 schools, so for families in the catchment of those schools, absolutely there will be full-day learning available for all of the students, the four- and five-year-olds, who are registered in those schools.

We are hoping to announce phase two schools very soon, and we expect that in 2015-16, all schools in Ontario will be providing the full-day learning program.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I’m looking for clarity; I’m not sure I got that.

Pascal’s seamless day means that parents drop off and pick up their child at one location—the school. It does not mean kindergarten in one location and before- and after-school care at a different location provided by a different system or different provider.

Your announcement yesterday will produce a patchwork of services and a hit-or-miss approach across the province. Some children will have before- and after-school care and others will not. Some children will have continuity of programming and others will not. Some children will remain at the school for the full day and others will be moving between two locations, the school and the daycare, twice a day. Some daycares might provide transportation between the school and the daycare; others may rely on parents to find their own transportation. Why are you creating this logistical nightmare for parents?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Actually, I think it’s important for the honourable member to appreciate that we passed the legislation yesterday. We are working on the regulations. The honourable member was present at committee, where some of the issues that he has just referred to today were identified.

We do want to do everything we can. Our expectation, of course, is that the before- and after-school programs will take place, operated by school boards, in a school location. We do know that there are some locations in the province of Ontario where, at the present time, other providers are providing the wraparound services. What we’ve said is that we want it transitioned so boards will be required to provide four- and five-year-olds programs, but we understand that there may be contractual agreements that they must respect for the—

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

TAXATION

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. My constituents up in Willowdale are kind of confused and anxious about this business of whether they have to pay the HST on May 1—that is, ahead of the July 1 implementation date. There seems to be confusion in their minds having to do with this business of pre-paying memberships and subscription dues and event tickets for future events—sporting events, cultural events and the like. Minister, what are the transition rules about early payment for future events and expenses?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. Just so that everyone knows, if you purchase a good or a service before July 1, you will be paying the current sales taxes, the GST and the PST, if applicable. If you purchase a good or a service after June 30, then it will be the HST rule; there will just be one sales tax in the province of Ontario. But starting on May 1, if you purchase or invoice for a good or a service that will be used after July 1—you actually get to use it after July 1—then you’ll pay the HST to ensure that the people who acquire something in July or after are treated exactly the same.

This transition rule is the same rule that will apply in British Columbia. It’s the same rule that was applied when the HST came into Atlantic Canada and is two months shorter than when the federal government brought in the GST.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Yesterday’s Toronto Star ran an

article which outlined a number of concerns that businesses have about the transitional rules and increased costs for supplies and equipment. I know that the ministry has held a lot of information sessions. There are copies of transitional rules out there and various postings on websites. But there are still a lot of organizations and businesses, a lot of them in Willowdale, that have concerns about the HST implementation.

Minister, quite specifically, what are you doing to help and to ensure that business is ready for the HST and that the transitional rules are widely understood by business?

Hon. John Wilkinson: The first thing we did was post these transitional rules in October of last year. We passed the legislation in this House in December.

What we’ve been doing is reaching out to business. I’ve been able to criss-cross Ontario. I’ve been to over 90 events and spoken to over 13,000 business stakeholders myself. I can tell you that some 1.3 million Ontarians have already gone to our website, www.ontario.ca/taxchange, where there is an accurate portrayal of what the current and new rules are. We encourage people to do that.

I know that the federal government, which will be solely responsible for the HST after July 1—the Canada Revenue Agency has been proactively calling out, particularly to rural businesses: some 80,000 calls to business owners. As well, small businesses are going to receive all of their input tax credits now at 13%. We’re cutting the taxes for small business from—

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

PEDIATRIC FORENSIC

PATHOLOGY INQUIRY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Premier. In 2008, Justice Goudge released his final report on pediatric forensic pathology. Public confidence was shattered, Premier. The Attorney General promised to create a legal review team to examine over 142 criminal convictions from shaken-baby death cases resulting from Dr. Charles Smith’s flawed reports.

More than a year later, there have been no answers. Premier, the Attorney General promised justice. This delay creates injustice. Why isn’t the review of these shaken-baby death cases a priority with your Attorney General?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Thank you very much for the question. It is a very important question. It’s also a very timely question.

Listen, we will tell you that in the justice ministries, we are very supportive of moving forward, and we are, in a very expeditious manner. We will continue to move forward clearly and carefully. Justice Goudge is very pleased with our implementation and the way we are rolling out his recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: In 2008, the Attorney General also promised to create a legal review team to advise him on a compensation process for families affected by the work of Dr. Charles Smith. But again, over a year later, a Liberal promise has amounted to nothing.

Premier, families were torn apart by Dr. Charles Smith’s flawed reports. Premier, for too long, these families have waited. I ask for them: When will they have answers?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The families are already getting answers, and the member across the way knows that.

We’re implementing the recommendations of the Goudge inquiry. We’re doing that in a very proactive but expeditious way. We will continue to do that.

I am proud of the changes we’ve made to the chief coroner’s office. I am very proud of the changes we’ve made with regard to death investigation and oversight. I am very proud of those recommendations that we’ve put in place to develop a system so that history will not repeat itself.

He should be very proud, as we move forward, that the government of Ontario has listened carefully not only to the people of Ontario but also to Justice Goudge.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. The transition to the McGuinty Liberals’ HST starts this Saturday, May 1. Businesses are suggesting that people prepay to save the HST.

Hon. John Gerretsen: We just answered that one, Michael.

Mr. Michael Prue: No, no. They are suggesting that you can save 8% on gym memberships. They are suggesting that you can save 8% on a new bicycle. They are suggesting that you can save 8% on a summer vacation flight.

If the Premier thinks that businesses will pass on all their savings to consumers, as he has said in this place many times, will he advise consumers to ignore this “buy now" message?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I have said in this House many times that, because of the transition rules, there is an opportunity for consumers to purchase prior to April 30 events that they’ll consume after July 1, and they’ll be able not to have to pay an extra 8%. We’ve said to people that it’s important that you understand those rules and that you can beat the tax.

I say, as the taxman of the province of Ontario, we have set out one set of rules, and they’re very clear. If businesses want to use that as a reason to accelerate their sales, we welcome that, but again, for those businesses it’s April 30. After May 1, if you’re selling something and invoicing something for your customer and it falls after July 1, then the HST rules and the tax will be payable to the federal government after July 1.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The real issue here is that the businesses are not likely to refund or reduce their prices by the 8% you have suggested in the past because they can’t. Come July 1, people will see 8% tacked on to everything from the gas pumps to monthly Internet fees.

This government has gone to great lengths to stop people from knowing how much the HST is going to cost them. They’ve refused questions and have blocked freedom-of-information requests. Now the HST is nearly here—coming Saturday. Will this minister finally tell Ontario families how much the HST will cost them on big ticket items like gasoline?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I never heard from the members opposite the mention of the word “jobs.” The reason we’re doing this is that we need to have jobs in this province. How many times have we heard the members say, “You need to spend more money”? Well, that comes from taxes. Taxes come from people who have a job and from businesses that are making a profit.

Coming out of this great recession, the most important thing we can do is have a great recovery. That’s why we’ve decided to harmonize our sales tax, something that governments in the past have not been able to do. I want to thank the federal government, because they have worked in partnership with us to ensure that Ontario will be even more competitive than it is today, generating the jobs, the wealth and the taxes that pay for the public services we value so much. It’s why it’s important for businesses to get ready for the HST, to understand those transition rules and to ensure that consumers understand what those rules are. We’ll continue to work our very hardest to make—

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

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question this morning is to the Minister of Transportation. My community of Peterborough is a vibrant mix of skilled labourers, farmers, university students and young families. They rely on the province’s network of roads to travel, do business or visit family and friends in the GTA. Many of my constituents are looking for a faster way to get through Durham region and into Toronto.

Last January, the previous Minister of Transportation announced the government was building an extension of Highway 407 from Pickering to Clarington. The Highway 407 extension would provide a faster and easier option for my constituents to get through the Durham region and into Toronto. Would the minister please provide an update on the status of the Highway 407 project?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you to the champion for Peterborough for his question.

We do understand that it’s important to have a strong network of highways and roads in place, and we know it’s important that we relieve the congestion in the Durham area. That’s why we’re moving ahead with the 407 east extension.

Here’s where we are: Last August, the Ministry of Transportation completed the environmental assessment for this project and submitted it to the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment is looking at that, reviewing the EA. Once the EA is approved and the necessary property is purchased, we’ll begin construction of the highway.

MTO is continuing to do some of the other support work that needs to be in place, including archaeological investigations, mitigations for species at risk and utility relocations.

I want to thank the member for Peterborough for his advocacy on this. This will make a huge difference to the congestion in the eastern part of the region.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Interjections.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I know the member from Durham is interested in this project, too.

I know my constituents will look forward to hearing more about the 407 extension as it moves forward.

Highway 7 is another important road for many people of Peterborough. It provides a direct connection between the Peterborough region and other municipalities. I’m happy to say that since we’ve been in government, much has been done to improve highway conditions and safety on this very busy highway.

With the arrival of spring, many of my constituents are anticipating the beginning of the construction season and want to know if any further improvements are planned to Highway 7 this year.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can you please tell us what projects will be going ahead in my riding of Peterborough this summer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I do look forward to updating the member on the 407 as that work progresses.

We’ve already done a lot of work on Highway 7, as the member said. In 2006, we invested $1.2 million for intersection improvements at Parkhill Road, and we have also invested $7.2 million for resurfacing, intersection improvements and passing lanes from Fowlers Corners west to Omemee. Last year, we invested $18.4 million for the resurfacing and the addition of a left-turn lane from Drummond Line to Peterborough. We’re going to continue to maintain.

This year, we’re going to continue our $16.7-million expansion project from Highway 28 to Drummond Line. We’re currently widening Highway 7 east of Peterborough from two to five lanes; that’s four through lanes and one centre left-turn lane, as well as undertaking entrance improvements and resurfacing.

The other issue here is, this creates 112 jobs, which is also important for the community. We look forward to that continuing work.

CORONER’S INQUESTS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. It has been more than 18 months since the release of the Goudge inquiry, and to avoid the tragedies that occurred after Dr. Smith’s cruel and flawed reports, you promised to strengthen oversight at Ontario’s coroner’s office. One

section of Bill 115, the Coroners Amendment Act, created the legislative framework for this oversight. To date, it is the only

section of the bill that is yet to be proclaimed.

You promised in this House that Bill 115 would help prevent the injustices that occurred in the past—and you know how serious they were. Minister, why are you breaking your promise to Ontario families on this very important issue?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The fact of the matter is that nothing can be farther from the truth. We are moving on the recommendations that were recommended by Justice Goudge. We’re moving very expeditiously. We are moving to ensure that the system we have in place will protect against ever having to repeat the history of the past. The recommendations that Justice Goudge provided us with are an excellent framework to move forward. The member knows full well that we are moving forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, you say that accountability and transparency are important within the coroner’s office; however, you haven’t even created a timeline for the death investigation oversight council. And despite heated opposition, despite my amendments at committee that were ignored, you foolishly removed ministerial oversight. As a result, there is absolutely no oversight mechanism in place, as we stand, at the Ontario coroner’s office.

The Farlow family, whom I’ve met a number of times—and they’ve been to my office—lost their baby, Annie, and they’re trying to access an oversight system at the Ontario coroner’s office. There is no oversight, so they have come to our office for assistance.

Minister, why have you weakened a process of accountability that you promised to strengthen with Bill 115?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I guess it’s all in

interpretation, because we’ve made it stronger. We don’t believe that there should be political interference. We believe that the experts should be the ones who decide whether or not an inquest is held. When

section 22 was a part of the legislation, it was never used by any government in the province of Ontario. They can yell and scream and do all—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member just asked the question. He knows if he’s not satisfied—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): If you’re not satisfied with the answer, you can call for a late show.

Minister?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: They can yell and scream all they want. The fact of the matter is, all the legislative recommendations that Justice Goudge recommended in his report will be implemented. We have committed to that. We will not allow for political interference in the calling of an inquest. We think that’s wrong. Previous Tory governments—

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

PHARMACISTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. Many of the drugstores in my constituency of Kenora–Rainy River are small, independent pharmacies. In many cases, there is one pharmacy for the community. They serve not only the local community but the surrounding rural area and First Nations.

For example, the independent pharmacies in Red Lake, Emo and Rainy River, if they were forced to close, would have literally thousands of people having to travel, in some cases, 100 kilometres or more to the next pharmacy. They are concerned that they may have to close, because they see your scheme as a one-size-fits-all strategy that ignores communities in northern Ontario. Why are you ignoring these communities and putting their pharmacies at risk of closure?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question, because it really gives me an opportunity to address this myth that’s out there in the community.

We are absolutely committed to supporting those pharmacies in small towns and underserviced communities. We are proposing that we increase the dispensing fee for those pharmacists by up to $4. Pharmacists across the province will have an increase in their dispensing fees. I’m talking about the fees that we as a government pay for people on the Ontario drug benefit plan.

In those small communities, because we value the work they do, we want to make sure that they remain viable. We will increase the dispensing fees in those communities.

These reforms are important for all—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: That’s the McGuinty government’s version of events. I want to read to you a letter from the young woman who owns the pharmacy in Rainy River. She is the only pharmacist. She doesn’t have other pharmacists on staff.

She says, “our dispensing fee has only been increased by 54 cents over the past 20 years,” that “we are being reimbursed a mere $7 for filling prescriptions while the actual cost to the pharmacy is almost $14,” and that “the number of prescriptions being filled per year is growing much faster....” She says that adding $3 or $4 to the prescription fee isn’t going to make up for the money that her pharmacy will lose. She then goes on to say that she has done the numbers and she may be forced to close.

She asks what happens to the 4,000 people in that community and surrounding area when they don’t have her to do the work for them.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This, of course, is a concern I have heard from members of my own caucus who are speaking to pharmacists in their communities in rural areas. As I said, it is an issue that we are determined to address appropriately.

But I have to ask, does the NDP support reducing the prices of drugs for vulnerable people in this province? Are you opposed to the changes that we are making that will bring down the prices of drugs for people who are living on the edge?

Let me quote Susan Eng. She’s the vice-president of advocacy for CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons: “Lowering the cost of ... prescription drugs is a major priority for our members, regardless of whether they are covered by the Ontario government, private drug plans or paid out of their own pockets. They and all Ontarians will benefit from the direct savings in drug costs and the redirection of the public savings”—

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

TOURISM AND CULTURE

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. In the past week, I’ve noticed many media outlets have reported on the introduction of Culture Days in Ontario. I understand from the reports that Culture Days is a national movement to strengthen grassroots engagement across the country. This movement is the first of its kind in Canada and it will be the largest-ever collective public participation campaign undertaken by the arts and cultural community in Canada. It will help increase awareness and promote greater participation in the cultural industry.

Minister, what can I tell the cultural groups in Guelph that our government is doing to increase awareness and promote greater participation in the cultural industry?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank my colleague from the city of Guelph for the question. Novelist Ayn Rand once famously wrote, “A culture is made, or destroyed, by its articulate voices.” Ontario’s articulate voices are the Ontario task force on Culture Days and the Ontario Arts Council. They represent