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

March 31, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-31 (PDF)

L063 - Tue 31 Mar 2015 / Mar 31 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 31 March 2015 Mardi 31 mars 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Visitors

Oral Questions

Electoral reform

Health insurance

Privatization of public assets

Infrastructure program funding

Crown attorneys

By-election in Sudbury

Sexual violence and harassment

Government fiscal policies

Executive compensation

Infrastructure program funding

Road safety

Child care

Bicycle safety

Executive compensation

Employment standards

Municipal planning

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Hydro rates

Family Responsibility Office

Max Khan

Ken Monteith

CarePartners

United Way of Greater Simcoe County

Hockey championships

Le Rêve de Champlain

Alex and Tyler Mifflin

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on General Government

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Visitors

Petitions

Curriculum

Off-road vehicles

Environmental protection

Landfill

LGBT conversion therapy

French-language education

Environmental protection

Hospital services

Employment practices

Curriculum

Long-term care

Fishing and hunting regulations

Orders of the Day

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l’Ontario

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 25, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When this was last debated, the member from York–Simcoe had the floor and has time remaining. The member from York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to continue from the point at which I left off last week.

Just to provide a little bit of an overview, we’re looking at Bill 57, which deals with pooled registered pension plans. Since pensions and pension plans are certainly something about which many people are interested but may find confusing, I think it’s important—just in carrying over from my remarks last week—to review exactly what it is we’re talking about. What does it mean to be pooled? What does it mean to be registered? Obviously, other pension plans are registered, so that’s not quite as potentially unknown as the pooled part.

This is a legislative initiative that comes from the leadership of the federal government, in being able to provide people with a savings instrument that could take them anywhere across the country. So the umbrella legislation has been passed federally—I think almost two years ago—and various provinces have picked up the opportunity that it represents and provided their constituents with companion legislation that would then allow that notion of the pool.

In 2013, I introduced a private member’s bill which the government picked up in its 2013 spring budget. Naturally, I was very happy to see that happen. Because of the general confusion around pensions and pension plans—and people from all walks of life have commented on the problem of financial literacy—I think that this is a tool that can also help the growth of financial literacy.

The point I would begin with is that there are difficulties for people who find themselves in their 20s or 30s, being called up—they’ve declared bankruptcy and didn’t realize they couldn’t go out and buy a car. There’s a great deal to be done in that field of providing better financial literacy, and much has been talked about what should belong in the elementary panel and in the secondary panel in order to allow our next generation to have a better sense of this.

The pooled registered pension plan, as I say, is a tool that the federal government has provided, and we are now making an opportunity available to the residents of Ontario to become part of a pension plan that is pooled.

One of the things we know about pension plans is that they need lots of members. If you’re going to be able to act in the best interests of the pensioners, then you have to have enough money to be able to go out and make good investments. It’s much easier, obviously, when you have a larger number of participants. That’s the notion of the pool: that it goes into, exactly, a pool, and from there, decisions are made that provide interest on the money that’s being collected and, therefore, the availability to go out and make investments on behalf of the pensioners.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like a quorum call, please.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): A quorum call, please.

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Call in the members.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: As I was saying, the larger the pool, obviously, the greater the investment choices are for anyone with a pension plan. This is one of the keys to this initiative because by pooling and by registered—by the way, it would be registered in your name, as the owner, so to speak, of this part of the pension plan. That means it’s portable. That means that you can go to an employer, whether it’s in Ontario or in another province—and the whole idea is to give opportunity to people through a flexible plan.

The flexibility, then, of being able to take it anywhere and have it in your name reduces the sense and the complexity of people today who have a pension in one location. They’ve moved on, and the pension, then, waits for their whatever pensionable age is. It’s far more complex. This is like your own personal savings.

The details of the pooled registered pension plan are important to understand because they’re different than other pension plans. Participation is voluntary; an employee will have 60 days to opt out of a PRPP. It’s interesting to note that in Britain where they have a NEST program, their opt-out is 8% of people.

The contributions can be voluntary by employers, and the employer, then, would determine whether or not to contribute to the employees’ PRPP—again, giving choice and the possibility that, when appropriate, an employer may want to contribute. It would certainly put them in a more competitive market for employees.

As I mentioned, one of the most important features is the portability and the ability to move with the employee when changing jobs.

The contributions would be locked in until an individual reaches the retirement age of 55.

The other thing that we hear often about—the RRSPs, and the space that’s left in them, that people don’t put the full amount in, and the costs and things like that—all of these are taken into account when you look at a pooled investment system. Individuals have their accounts in a pooled plan for investment purposes. That means that you have low cost and better investment. PRPPs provide professional investment management at a low cost to plan members by pooling the funds of all the individual accounts for investment purposes, as well as limiting the investment options provided to plan members.

A plan member can choose 100% in one category, or different categories and different percentages, and that means then they have the choice and the control.

Similar to registered pension plan contributions, employer PRPP contributions as well as employee contributions are tax-deductible. Contributions are not subject to employer health tax, employer insurance premiums, Canada Pension Plan contributions or workers’ compensation premiums. It’s very important to see that this is avoiding—which is legal—some of these other costs.

PRPP members’ contribution rates would be determined by the plan administrator.

There’s a general interest in the PRPPs, and we should look at some of the interest that others have taken in this. The first one that I’d like to use is the Portfolio Management Association of Canada. They have written to the government in support of PRPPs. They’ve also written to the government opposing the Ontario registered pension plan. Probably no other group understands the value of PRPPs and the dangers of an Ontario pension plan to Ontario.

This is an excerpt from a letter to Minister Hunter: “We are pleased that Ontario has recognized the advantages of a PRPP program and has moved forward with PRPP legislation. PRPPs provide the opportunity to participate in a simple and straightforward pension plan.”

The portfolio managers continue: “PMAC has been an active supporter of the development of the PRPP federal framework and believes it is a better retirement savings vehicle versus comprehensive or overhaul changes to CPP or the” Ontario registered plan.

“We believe that PRPPs provide more flexibility and choice for Canadians and their employers in how they save for retirement and leverage off the existing infrastructure around the administration of similar plans.

By leveraging off the existing systems/staffing/training and servicing resources that many financial institutions have already developed in virtually all the cities and towns in Canada, this will seemingly greatly accelerate the rollout time to launch PRPPs, and ultimately improve overall cost-effectiveness (i.e. same resources already in place, servicing the $100 billion in the 50,000” defined contribution and group RRSP “plans, and the hundreds of billions” of dollars “in individual RRSP plans serviced by some of these entities so these costs can be spread over this existing asset base). This will also further strengthen the three pillars around retirement funding for Canadians.

“It is important for governments at the two senior levels in Canada to realize that there are other safety nets besides pension plans. In addition to the $1.6 trillion in pension assets in Canada and the non-registered savings of Canadians, the RRSP/RRIF/TFSA pool of assets now exceeds $1.4 trillion. As at 2012, these registered plans are growing almost $70 billion a year on new contributions alone. Furthermore, the unused room for RRSP now looks to be $828 billion, and many policy objectives could be obtained if the government could incentivize Canadians to utilize this unused asset.”

Another supporter is Advocis, and they write, “Advocis is not in favour of a mandatory supplemental provincial pension plan as described in the consultation paper that does not allow for a level playing field with the private sector’s long-established group RRSPs and DC plans....

“In principle, Advocis therefore supports the Ontario government’s intention to introduce PRPPs as an example of how the private sector can work with government to develop solutions to pressing long-term financial challenges that affect all Canadians ... thus the efforts of the Ontario government to engage with the federal ... framework and its emerging provincial counterparts are to be lauded.”

That was Advocis on February 13, 2015.

“Modernizing our retirement income system to ensure Canadians can save more for their retirement is among the most important jobs....

“This is why the Association of Canadian Pension Management ... has championed the concept of pooled registered pension plans.... ACPM believes that this kind of innovative new arrangement is key to creating the kind of retirement security that working Canadians deserve.”

That’s from Chris Brown, the president of the Association of Canadian Pension Management.

I think the last quote from the Association of Canadian Pension Management captures the essence of this issue. We need to modernize our retirement income system to ensure it is sustainable and makes sense for future generations. As the reality of employment and workplaces change, with employees switching jobs more frequently, we need to ensure that we create a savings culture.

The PRPP would surely go further in promoting a savings culture rather than an ORPP, which will be mandatory and will not give people a choice in their retirement savings plan.

Today, if Ontario passes the PRPP legislation, almost 90% of Canadians will have access to PRPPs. This will likely lower the administration costs of the pooled registered plans, increase the potential purchasing power of the plans and reduce barriers of interprovincial movement and trade. We need Ontario to be part of the Canadian PRPP landscape, as the more contributors to a pension plan, the better the investment opportunity and returns, meaning a healthy pension fund.

Currently, there are many pensions with unfunded liability, which means that if the pension fund were to be wrapped up today, it would not be able to fulfill its payment promises. PRPPs are a promising addition to the array of retirement savings options that are available to Ontarians and Canadians.

We need PRPPs, not an ORPP. PRPPs are mobile and in the employee’s name. The PRPP can go where they go. PRPPs are also low cost, have simple administration and are voluntary. However, the ORPP is an expensive, mandatory, government-driven entity and, if we look at the QPP, is a model that just does not work.

I fully support the passage of Bill 57 and encourage all Ontarians, especially those without a pension plan, to consider investing in a PRPP.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and once again find myself speaking about pensions and retirement security in the House in response to the comments from my colleague from York–Simcoe, as she had been speaking about the PRPPs being a pooled option, which is, I guess, a step better or a step in the right direction from RRSPs in that they have that ability to pool investments and, therefore, grow larger.

I was interested by some of her comments that perhaps the government should incent Canadians to invest in these products. I would argue that with the number of people I have met, it isn’t about being incented to save; it’s about having money to save. It’s about having income security now through their working years in order to maybe one day have any kind of retirement option.

The government has been talking about offering options in retirement and options for retirement security. I guess this is what they’ve been talking about—options. These options, though, really are for the companies and not for the individual. Because with the PRPPs, as we’re seeing in this bill, if an employer chooses to give these plans to their employees, those employees don’t have a choice; they have to buy into this idea, they have to take this choice, so to speak, and they don’t have an option. As she said, they’d be locked in. Once the choice is made for them by their employer to put money in this vehicle, it is there.

Unfortunately, unlike other pooled registered plans that are actually pensions—okay, I’ll talk about it in my lead.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I’m pleased to rise in the House and add my comments to the speech that was given by the member from York–Simcoe. This legislation is part—it’s only a part, but it’s a part of our government’s economic plan to build a strong and secure retirement system so that everyone can afford to retire here in Ontario. PRPPs, as we’ve heard from the member from York–Simcoe, would give especially small and medium-sized businesses a new way to help employees save for retirement. We know that many people in Ontario are not saving enough for their retirement, and this is a part of the government’s solution to the problem.

PRPPs would also provide self-employed individuals an additional retirement saving tool. Legislation must be passed before a province can make PRPPs available and this is why this legislation is in front of us. We are joining four other provinces that have already passed this legislation, and this is because the system is not going far enough. We do know that workplace pension plans are less common than they used to be. Two thirds of Ontarians do not have access to a workplace pension plan, and many Ontarians are not taking full advantage of retirement saving opportunities.

We’re living longer here in Ontario—that’s a good thing, but at the same time we have to help Ontarians who may, most likely, outlive their plan to retire in comfort. That is the intent: to help. This is one of the many solutions that the government is proposing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Nepean–Carleton for further questions and comments.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s always a pleasure to rise and debate in the assembly. I want to congratulate my colleague from York–Simcoe for once again demonstrating in this assembly her profound knowledge and sense of understanding of the pension situation, not only in the province of Ontario, but again, in all of Canada. She has a profound understanding of what is needed for a secure retirement system for today’s seniors, but also for tomorrow’s seniors—the youth of today.

We in the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus certainly do appreciate the ability to pool pensions and to have that ability for investment, something that I would like to remind this chamber was brought in by the federal Conservative Party. That is, I think, something that’s quite significant: that we are able to pool it.

What we do not support on this side of the chamber—and that’s important for folks at home and in the gallery to understand—is a mandatory Ontario pension plan which amounts to a job-killing payroll tax. We don’t agree with that. We think Ontarians should have an ability to pool their money and their resources for a more secure future. What we don’t think is that this province can afford any more job losses by putting a mandatory pension plan on the backs of hard-working employers and hard-working employees in this province.

Again, to sum up what my colleague from York–Simcoe has said—and, by the way, I think she has forgotten more about pensions than most of us will ever know—it is yes to pension pooling, it is no to an Ontario pension plan. I know, in the weeks ahead, as the Progressive Conservative caucus stands up here to debate what will be the Ontario budget, we will vigorously oppose an Ontario pension plan, while supporting this type of pension pooling.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I think there are a few things that everybody in this House all agree on about pensions: that it makes for a way healthier society when people do have access to pension incomes once they retire. Where we disagree is on how we achieve this. I come from Sudbury, a community that is highly unionized, a community where a lot of people have a defined pension income; that is, they contributed through their entire career and now they reap the benefits. It completely changes a community. Because Sudbury has over 50,000 people who get a cheque every month—because we have a lot of mining retirees in Sudbury—it changes everything. How do we get there, though?

The instrument that we’re talking about right now is a pretty weak one. First of all, your employer does not have to contribute, so I can see that every insurance company, every bank, will be knocking on the doors of every employer and saying, “Hey, get your employees to buy into our product. This way you won’t have to do anything. You won’t have to contribute to their income.” I can see a whole lot of employers being quite happy to sign up with those pooled retirement plans just so that they do not have to contribute.

It’s all fine and dandy; they will have signed up and they can say, “Oh, yes, we do have a pension plan.” But what will that really mean once people retire? Once you are retired, chances are you’re not able to go back to the market and work and earn an income, so you will have to live with that money. That money, I guarantee you, Speaker, will come nowhere close to if you had had another instrument to invest in. This is a cop-out.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the original debater from York–Simcoe for her final comments.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Thank you to the members from Oshawa, York South–Weston, Nepean–Carleton and Nickel Belt. When I spoke, I tried to stress the fact that this is one of a suite of things. This is trying to come up with a modern version that recognizes the mobility of people, the fact that they don’t stay in the same job for 42 years. That’s fine for the people who do, and have the kind of pension circumstance that the member from Nickel Belt mentioned, but when you look at today’s young people, they don’t expect to be in a job for more than two to five years. So you have to have something that’s theirs, that they can take with them.

I would argue that this instrument will do a great deal to improve the financial literacy of participants, more than any anything else. Because the individual’s name is there, the individual will have made a choice from a group of investment choices, and they will then be engaged and they will see that their money is growing; they will see how it works. They might open a TFSA next. I think there’s that kind of opportunity to have a better understanding.

As I said in my remarks, we need a savings culture. It’s all very well to talk about worrying about who has a pension and who doesn’t, but what we all need is a savings culture. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just before I begin, I’ll let you know that I will be sharing my time.

Ontario is experiencing a retirement security—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Sorry. I understand you want to share your time; I’m just not sure with whom.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I beg your pardon. The member for Kitchener–Waterloo.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

Ontario is experiencing a retirement security crisis. Two thirds of Ontarians do not currently have a workplace pension plan, and personal savings are not enough to fill the gap.

The Canada Pension Plan serves as the backbone of our retirement security system, but with a maximum yearly benefit of $12,500 and an average yearly benefit of only $6,800, the benefit that is currently available is simply not enough.

The Canada Pension Plan was first established on a simple principle: Being a senior should not be the greatest indicator that an individual is living in poverty. But that is the direction in which we are headed again. It is from that initial belief that one of our country’s largest, most inclusive social programs was born, and it is because of this belief that we know that we need to do more.

Ontarians are facing real challenges. Precarious employment, the rising cost of living, and a declining median income all contribute to the growing instability that has become the norm for too many families, and it has made it nearly impossible to adequately save for retirement.

To put it in perspective, in 2012 the median income for Ontarians over the age of 65 was $26,720, or $2,227 per month. The average monthly cost for seniors’ housing in Ontario last year was over $2,750. That’s a $500 shortfall every month, only taking housing into account.

Since being named the NDP’s pension critic in July, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with countless experts and stakeholders and have been nothing short of amazed by the breadth of knowledge and the depth of commitment that exists in this field. Everything that we have discussed has been looked at through a single, critical lens: All Ontarians deserve the right to retire with dignity. And resoundingly, the experts have agreed that action is needed. But simply taking action isn’t enough; it is about taking the right action.

In this chamber, we disagree on a lot of things. We disagree on what should be done, we disagree on when it should be done and, most often, we disagree on how we should go about doing it. There are a lot of things that we disagree with the government about, but one thing we do agree about is the strength of the CPP, and that strength is not by accident; it is by design. The CPP provides portability, universality and economies of scale, but most importantly, it is administered with the sole purpose of benefiting retirees.

It is because of this unwavering focus on beneficiaries that the plan remains efficient and uncompromising. It is why New Democrats believe in public services: because they benefit the public.

That is not to say that there is not a place for the private sector in our retirement savings. RRSPs and tax-free savings accounts play an important role for many Ontarians, but the key is that their role is supplementary.

This brings me to the topic of the day: Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, PRPPs for short. I should start by saying that the name of this bill and of these plans serves to mislead. To refer to them as pensions implies that they provide a greater service to their members, but in actuality, PRPPs are little more than group RRSPs. What that means is that PRPPs have similar advantages to group RRSPs, but they have similar disadvantages as well; namely, the fact that the beneficiaries are not the only ones to benefit.

The Canada Pension Plan boasts extremely low investment fees because the only shareholders they have to worry about are the ones collecting CPP. Private options, however, have to work in an extra layer of costs to ensure that a profit is made.

PRPPs have hugely expensive administrative fees that end up benefiting insurance companies and banks more than retirees. As a general rule, in a private plan such as PRPPs, individuals can expect to lose roughly half of their benefit to fees over their lifetime. Mr. Speaker, this is not an insignificant amount. It can mean the difference between security in retirement and struggling to get by.

Think of it like any other product. How much cheaper would a pair of jeans be if the people selling it didn’t expect a profit? Now think of the CPP as a store selling you their product at a cost. It’s not a perfect metaphor, but I think you get the picture. The point is, PRPPs are a product. They are a revenue tool for banks and insurance companies, and, as a result, their benefit to retirees is diluted.

This is our concern, Mr. Speaker, and it is why we will not be supporting Bill 57—which brings us to the question of why this bill is before us today. I’m a teacher by trade, so permit me to launch into a bit of a history lesson, if I may.

The story begins with the federal government. After years of steady prodding by labour and seniors’ groups and seven federal/provincial finance ministers’ meetings, the Harper government was forced to admit that Canadians were not saving enough for their retirement. Those without workplace pensions—two thirds of working Canadians—needed a safe, affordable and reliable retirement savings vehicle.

At their December 2012 meeting, federal and provincial finance ministers agreed to consider a “modest” CPP enhancement to complement the private sector PRPPs they had already endorsed at a previous meeting. In 2012, the federal government passed PRPP legislation based on the model put forward by the life insurance industry. By 2013, however, the federal government had made it clear it would not be proceeding with any sort of enhancement to the CPP. So, not surprisingly, PRPPs became the Harper government’s version of a solution to the retirement security crisis altogether.

However, because 85% of workers are provincially regulated and most federally regulated workers already have workplace pensions, those that would benefit from the sale of PRPPs began lobbying for Ontario provincial PRPP legislation to copy the federal legislation.

For years, the position of the Ontario Liberal government was that they would not proceed with provincial PRPP legislation, in favour of enhancing the CPP. But, as we can see, something has changed along the way and the government has shifted its priorities, whether they want you to know it or not.

From this historical context, it is clear that the government has shifted directions, but it’s not so clear from their rhetoric. The government continues to hold the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, or ORPP, up as the pension policy that they are pointing to and prioritizing, but, as we all know, the government’s rhetoric and its actions don’t always line up.

Towards the end of the fall session, the government introduced two pieces of legislation related to retirement savings. In fact, they even released them on the same day.

First, Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, is the first of three pieces of legislation that will eventually comprise the ORPP. This bill is little more than a framework, mostly reiterating information that was already established during last year’s budget, and provides little new or substantial policy.

Second, Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, is a fully fleshed-out piece of legislation that will allow PRPPs to hit the ground running once the bill receives royal assent.

Speaker, it is almost too transparent. This government has gotten a lot of mileage off of their claims of being progressive, but the only thing they did to put the ORPP ahead of the PRPP was list it one position higher on the order paper. I can only imagine the strategic discussion that went on in the caucus room about making sure the ORPP was Bill 56 instead of Bill 57.

If this government were truly committed to public pensions, then that is where they would have focused their energy. PRPPs would have been an afterthought instead of the secret prize in this government’s pension shell game. We’ve seen it far too often: The government tries to hide its true intentions on both sides, and the policy suffers as a result. In order to appease their friends on Bay Street, the government knew that they had to give PRPPs a head start on the ORPP, but to avoid compromising their progressive image, they made sure to pass something ORPP-related on the same day.

Fortunately, in our parliamentary system, our job on this side of the aisle is to hold the government to account, and we plan to do just that. We’ve all seen enough Liberal spin to make ourselves dizzy, but when their actions are this obvious, it makes our job a little bit easier.

Now that we’ve covered some of the historical context, Mr. Speaker, I’ll come back to the question of whether PRPPs really fill an existing gap, like the government claims they do.

Over the past six months, the government has spoken at length about the importance of voluntary options. But this does not take into account the fact that a multitude of voluntary options already exist. Whether it be RRSPs, TFSAs, ETFs or any other financial acronym you can think of, PRPPs are not so much filling an existing gap as piling into an already crowded space.

To illustrate this point, I would like to read from an interesting

article I came across on this very topic. The

article is by Greg Hurst, a Vancouver-based pension consultant with Greg Hurst and Associates Ltd., and it is titled, “Does Anyone Need a PRPP?” It begins with a quote from Dr. Seuss’s Sleep Book:

At the fork of a road

In the Vale of Va-Vode

Five foot-weary salesmen have laid down their load.

All day they’ve raced round in the heat, at top speeds,

Unsuccessfully trying to sell Zizzer-Zoof Seeds

Which nobody wants, because nobody needs.

The

article goes on to explain the significance of this passage as follows:

“Both small business and insurance industry leaders exhorted the pooled registered pension plan (PRPP) as a preferable option over the ORPP. But PRPPs may be akin to Dr. Seuss’s Zizzer-Zoof Seeds, at least outside of Quebec.

“Only the federal government has fully implemented a PRPP regulatory framework. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia have all tabled or passed PRPP legislation, but regulations have yet to be completed. Under all of these jurisdictions, PRPPs would be voluntarily offered by employers and employees would be able to opt out of participation.

“Quebec has implemented the Voluntary Retirement Savings Plan (VRSP), which is similar to the PRPP, except that it will be mandatory for employers with more than five employees and without a registered pension plan or payroll contributions to either an RRSP or TFSA to implement a VRSP with automatic enrolment of employees. Employee contributions will ultimately be at the rate of 4% of salary, however, employees may opt out. Employer VRSP contributions will be optional.”

He continues: “Outside of Quebec’s mandatory VRSP version, does anybody need a PRPP? Does anybody want a PRPP? Or is the PRPP like Zizzer-Zoof seeds, ‘which nobody wants, because nobody needs.’

“The early bloom on the PRPP rose bush was that employers could provide a retirement program while at the same time avoiding fiduciary responsibility. This bloom soon withered as most commentators observed that employers would still have responsibility for selecting and monitoring a PRPP provider (which activities may have fiduciary characteristics), and this doesn’t seem much different from existing responsibilities relating to group RRSPs or DC plans.”

The

article finishes by summarizing quite neatly, “As long as DC pension plans, deferred profit-sharing plans and RRSPs are available, and there is no mandatory requirement for an employer to implement a pension plan, nobody needs a PRPP. I suspect nobody will want them either.”

So there is little to support the government’s claim that PRPPs will fill a gap in the retirement security system, and we are left to question their true motives for bringing this bill forward.

We agree that Ontario has a retirement savings crisis, but the answer is not yet another private sector savings vehicle. To illustrate this point, allow me to share some of the numbers on RRSPs in Canada: $683.6 billion—that’s the total unused RRSP contribution room as of 2011; 24%—that is the percentage of eligible tax filers who contributed to an RRSP in 2011; 22.7 million—that was the number of Canadians with RRSP contribution room in 2011. As you can see, the RRSP system is not stretched in our country.

In 2012 in my riding of Oshawa, 95% of those aged 65 or older received income from CPP, but only 9.4% received income from an RRSP. Canadians now contribute about $40 billion annually to their RRSPs, but that still leaves an estimated $80 billion in RRSP tax deferral room that has not been taken up.

RRSPs play an important role in our retirement savings, but the vast majority of Canadians continue to have ample room available for additional savings; yet the government continues to tell us that PRPPs are a needed addition. The more you really look at PRPPs, the more they look like those Zizzer-Zoof Seeds, which nobody wants and nobody needs.

Let’s take a look at what is actually in this bill. Bill 57 would, if passed, permit the establishment of and provide for the administration of PRPPs in Ontario by largely adopting the federal legislation that came into force in 2012. Bill 57 would also extend regulatory authority over PRPPs to the Ontario Superintendent of Financial Services—the superintendent—and sets out a process for a PRPP administrator to object or appeal decisions of the superintendent.

Finally, Bill 57 would amend other legislation, including the Pension Benefits Act—PBA—to add PRPPs to the definition of a pension plan and add PRPPs to the list of vehicles to which a plan can permit a former member or eligible spouse to transfer pension plan assets. As you can see, it’s quite a bit more substantive than the legislation we so recently discussed on the ORPP, but I guess that comes as no surprise at this point.

It is not so much the provisions of this bill that we oppose as it is the impact that PRPPs will have in general and whether their presence is the necessary addition that the government claims.

I briefly touched on our concerns with the increased fees associated with private plans earlier on but I would like to elaborate further. The single biggest problem with private sector retirement savings options such as the PRPPs is the private sector management fees. Canadians pay 2% or more for administration of their RRSPs,

whereas the large public pension funds, such as CPP and OMERS, pay well less than 1% for fund administration. High fees erode returns.

PRPPs are supposed to be very large funds designed to keep fees low, but the legislation leaves the setting of acceptable fees to regulation. The CPP Investment Board, like the large provincial public sector workplace pension plans, has managed to keep administration costs very low. This makes them a better sponsor than the insurance industry and banks for a retirement savings vehicle. As I stated earlier, across a lifetime, the difference is immense and we don’t want to see Ontarians losing half of their retirement savings to bank and insurance fees.

Let’s take this opportunity to compare a defined benefit Ontario-wide plan with a PRPP investment plan. Pensions are locked in. PRPPs are also locked in. However, with pensions, plan members put money into the plan; employers put money into the plan. The money is amassed in a huge pool that is locked in and individuals can’t take it out before retirement. Because the employers match and contribute to the plan, money is doubled as it is saved, and this huge pool can grow tremendously through investments and effective plan management. The original investment accounts for a fraction of what it will be worth after years of investment growth.

PRPPs do not require obligatory contributions by employers so the money put into the pool is half that of a regular pension plan. There is less in the pot to invest and therefore there is less growth. The 50% rule guiding pensions means that employee contributions, with interest, can pay for half of the value of pensions. The contributions have to come from both the employee and the employer. That is the basic concept of a pension. However, with this PRPP legislation, this government is opening up the market to plans that are pretending to be pensions but that are exempt from the 50% rule. They are saying that these wannabe pensions are employee problems.

PRPPs are interesting in that the banking and insurance industry will essentially be cannibalizing their own market. RRSPs will likely disappear; they won’t be able to compete. PRPPs offer the benefit of a pooled investment and they can be offered across many employers and across the province but they can’t yield the predictable benefit of a defined benefit plan because they are vulnerable to the market. There are no guarantees upon retirement that the market will be favourable to retirees. PRPPs neither oblige employers to contribute nor do they guarantee a definite benefit upon retirement.

They do, however, offer a choice, but to companies. This government talks about options and choice, so let’s do that too. PRPPs, as we said, are locked-in investments. Once employees have money locked into these plans, it is there until retirement—well, the money that isn’t taken out for fees is there for retirement, but that’s a separate point.

The choice the government talks about has, interestingly, not been about choice for plan members. It isn’t choice for employees. It isn’t choice for Ontarians. It is choice for companies and employers. Companies may choose to have these pooled piggy bank products for their employees or not. Companies may choose which one from which insurance firm they want to have. Here’s the choice point, though: If a company decides to have a PRPP—which they don’t have to pay into, remember—all of their employees are enrolled; they have no choice.

If they work there and their company decides that this is the savings vehicle for them, then they, as automatically enrolled plan members, have no choice but to save in this vehicle.

Let me say it another way. You work at a company. Your company gives you a shiny new piggy bank with “PRPP” written in fancy script on the side. That’s their gift to you: a place to put your money. But they won’t be putting any money into it, and you can’t crack it open until you retire. And it will cost you fees to keep it. When you retire, they hand it back to you and now it’s your responsibility. You can buy an annuity, perhaps—a product sold to you by an insurance company—but you’ll never really know how much per month goes to decumulation fees; you’ll just know how much you’re getting every month.

With a defined benefit pension plan, you put money into the piggy bank and so does your employer. They match what you put in. You double your money right off the bat. While you work, it grows, and when you retire, you don’t have to figure out what to do with the piggy bank. You get a definite amount, a defined benefit, every month. No matter what the market does, you have a predictable, stable, dependable income stream and you aren’t paying hidden monthly fees. The money in the piggy bank continues to be managed, and you continue to participate in your economy into your retirement.

Let’s also consider the basic reason for pensions versus pooled profit plans. Pensions are for protection. People want protected and predictable income into their retirement. PRPPs, however, are intended to offer a savings service to customers and a profit to the plan managers—protection versus profit. PRPPs are not like pensions because there is no defined benefit, no obligation for the employer to contribute, the fee structure is unregulated, and it is voluntary for the employer to even opt into. If the employer opts in, then all employees are automatically put in and they can’t opt out.

Like a pension plan, the money is tied up until retirement. Like any DC plan, the benefit isn’t guaranteed. If the market does badly, so does your investment. Unfortunately, there goes your predictability into retirement.

Banks and insurance companies are a part of our financial fabric, granted. But they have a finger in every pie during every life phase. Pensions should be about security and protection, not fees and profit. We are offended that this government is succumbing to the pressure of their Bay Street friends and rolling out this piece of legislation before their own pension plan.

Speaking of their own pension plan, I have been appreciating the opportunity to hear from Ontarians on the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, ORPP, in committee. During committee hearings, we have heard from those who want a made-in-Ontario plan and those who do not. There are many intelligent people from across our province representing different industries and different perspectives. While standing here as a progressive New Democrat, I can’t say I agree with some of the viewpoints, but I respect them and I’ve learned a lot from them. It would seem that across the province, the best option for improving the savings picture is an enhancement of the CPP, full stop.

As I said before and I will say again, I’m looking forward to a change in federal leadership when Tom Mulcair becomes our Prime Minister. When he does, we can look forward to his support of an expanded CPP. But I digress.

We should focus on the challenge before us. The Ontario Liberals tabled two bills on the same day: one setting out a framework for an Ontario pension plan, Bill 56, and one allowing the sale of pooled profit plans, Bill 57.

During the Bill 56 hearings, we are hearing various themes and concerns. Some of the themes are that more people should benefit. A benefit plan like the CPP should benefit everyone in society. This government, however, before working out any details, has put into Bill 56 that some plans should be exempted and not included, that some plans should be considered comparable and, therefore, their plan members would not be able to participate in the ORPP.

While I wholeheartedly agree that more people should be able to participate and retire with a defined benefit and defined level of security, I did think it was fascinating that there were unexpected supporters of the same idea that plans shouldn’t be exempt, but for different reasons. If some plans are exempt and others aren’t, we will see an uneven playing field from a business and competition perspective. Exempting some plans and not others will create disparity, disadvantage and, really, an administrative and financial nightmare for whoever manages this Ontario-wide plan. It really ought to be modelled after the CPP and include everyone.

But let’s look again at this notion of “comparable” and what might be considered comparable for the sake of exemption. As I have tried to explain clearly, PRPPs are not pensions. They might pretend to be. In fact, they call themselves pensions, but they are not, nor should they be.

We have been hearing strong, reasoned arguments for various defined contribution plans and various established investment plans, and for them to be considered comparable. I maintain, however, that none should be exempt. But that isn’t up to me to decide. The government will have to ultimately commit to leaving people out or bringing people in.

When it comes to PRPPs, though, nothing about them makes them comparable to pension plans. The first concern we had about PRPPs was whether they would be considered comparable to and subsequently exempt from the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. I asked the question more than a few times during question period, but both the Minister of Finance and the associate minister responsible for the ORPP were not willing to give a concrete answer.

So after the third try I submitted my question on the order paper and anxiously awaited the government’s response. To my colleagues with a little more experience than myself: This was a learning experience. I learned that the government has a fairly lengthy period of time to respond to order paper questions and, more importantly, I learned that the government makes use of that time in its entirety.

So after submitting my question in November, I finally received my answer in late February, two days before the answer was due. With that much time to prepare, I expected that the answer I would receive would be definitive and comprehensive. I would like to read that answer to you here today, and I will let you all judge whether you feel that these adjectives accurately reflect the response that I received.

First, I will start with my question, Mr. Speaker.

“Enquiry of the ministry: Will the Associate Minister of Finance responsible for the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan clarify whether PRPPs will be considered comparable and will employees of employers enrolled in PRPPs be exempted from the automatic enrolment provisions of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.” Pretty straightforward, I thought.

Their response, which I would like to read into the record:

“On December 8, 2014, Ontario introduced the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2014, that would, if passed, create a framework for the establishment of the ORPP and commit the government to establishing the plan by January 1, 2017.

“On December 17, 2014, the government released a discussion paper that set out its preferred approach on key design features of the ORPP, including the definition of a comparable plan.

“As stated in the discussion paper, the preferred approach is to define comparable plans as defined benefit (DB) and target benefit (TB) multi-employer pension plans (MEPPs) as these plans closely align with the key features of the ORPP and the CPP.

“The government recognizes that voluntary savings mechanisms like PRPPs will also play an important role in strengthening the retirement income system. As the minister has previously stated, our current view is that these vehicles are complementary and will not be considered comparable.

“The government is currently reviewing submissions from the consultation process. Final decisions on this and other key design features will be outlined in the future.”

So just to revisit, it “is currently reviewing submissions,” “Final decisions on this and other key design features will be outlined in the future,” and “Our current view is that these vehicles are complementary and will not be considered comparable.”

We don’t just want their current view; we want commitment. We know the government brought this bill forward to appease their friends on Bay Street. We know it is being given a head start of at least a few years and that insurance companies will have just enough time to entice employers with no-contribution piggy banks for their employees, whose personal contributions will grow a huge profitable product that will benefit industry, rather than dignity in retirement.

As you can see, the government, as usual, has been rather careful with their language. In more ways than I can count, they leave their position open-ended and quite pliable. That is not to say that we expect the government to have all of the details of the ORPP set and ready at this moment. But this is not a logistical question. This is a question of intentions. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of whether the government is more concerned with making the plan as strong as possible or making their friends on Bay Street happy.

If this government wanted to give pension security a real chance, they would have waited to introduce these profit plans. I guess it comes down to priorities. It is disappointing that, time and time again, we see this government cater to their rich and powerful partners rather than real, hard-working, often struggling neighbours, families and constituents. It should be individuals who benefit financially, not only the financial industry that benefits. We will continue to hold the government to account so that these sorts of concessions are not made and so that Ontarians receive the most progressive plan possible going forward.

As my time winds down, I would like to return to the CPP once more. As Ontarians, we don’t want our communities to suffer. I don’t believe we want our neighbours to struggle. We don’t want our businesses to go under. We don’t want our young people to feel hopeless. We don’t want our seniors hungry, and we don’t want them destitute. We want people employed. We want people to be secure and comfortable in their golden years. At the end of the day, all Ontarians, all Canadians and all people deserve the right to retire with dignity.

Too often, we are told that pension plans are a luxury or that they are a thing of the past. But retirement security is not a luxury; it is a necessity. The Canada Pension Plan continues to prove that collective retirement security can be delivered in an efficient, effective and reliable manner.

To this end, I would like to share a comment that was shared with me by one of my constituents on Facebook. “I am disabled, on a disability pension from a local employer who paid me very little money and who nickels and dimes me for every bit of disability pension I received. Retire? I want to survive. Retirement in any kind of comfort (basic needs) is a dream I can’t afford!”

Speaker, life doesn’t stop at retirement. The CPP was created on the principle that it is beneficial to all of us when our friends and neighbours aren’t struggling and can continue to contribute to the economy after they retire. Unfortunately though, as the world has changed around us, the benefit provided by the CPP has become insufficient. The maximum yearly benefit is $12,500, and the average senior ends up receiving less than $7,000 per year from the Canada Pension Plan.

It remains our steadfast belief, as the government maintains as well, that the ideal way to solve the retirement security crisis is through an enhancement of the CPP. It is the simplest solution for the greatest number of people, and it would permit a number of efficiencies and securities that can only be provided on a national scale.

It is too bad that our Prime Minister does not see it the same way. Like too many in this room, Prime Minister Harper also believes that our retirement security crisis can be solved with voluntary savings options that fill the pockets of bankers and insurance brokers who collect hefty fees at every turn. Speaker, we support voluntary savings options. We just want to make sure that they’re not the government’s priority.

So, as you can see, there are major issues associated with PRPPs and this piece of legislation. There are no employer obligations to contribute to PRPPs. Workers are pretty much on their own in terms of contributions. There is no defined or even target benefit with PRPPs. Workers end up with whatever the market returns are on their cumulative contributions when they retire.

There are questions too. Will the banks and insurance firms who administer PRPPs be permitted to invest the funds in all those investment products that they sell themselves?

The NDP supports the idea of public pensions. That’s why we proposed one for Ontario in 2010. The NDP supports progressive public pensions, progressive public programs. We don’t, however—and never will—support Harper-style pooled retirement pension plans. It is concerning that the government so clearly prioritized bank products and Bay Street over pensions and the financial security of workers in this province. I was under the impression that, as members of provincial Parliament, we work for the people of Ontario and not for private financial institutions. PRPPs are financial products.

The government is selling the idea of an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan to Ontarians. The comforting and progressive language we’re all hearing from the government speaks to the need for stability and the ability to live with dignity into retirement. However, the marketing of the PRPP legislation is that the government is giving Ontarians voluntary options. Remember, these voluntary options are products, and they are only voluntary for the employers. They are favours for banks and investment companies—who, incidentally, will be thrilled when Ontarians start putting their money into bank coffers.

I’m not saying they are not investments, but losing massive amounts due to fees over the life of the investment is not the kind of retirement security that Ontarians should be banking on.

If this government is truly committed to the idea of helping Ontarians plan for and afford their futures, if they truly believe in retirement security and stability, then they should have led with public pensions and not with Harper-style pooled registered pension plans, which commit money and benefit to corporations and banks. Speaker, I’ve said it before many times in this House: Banks and insurance companies are not planning on retiring any time soon, but workers are retiring every day, and we want to ensure that when they do retire, they are able to do so with dignity.

If our job as members of provincial Parliament is to represent the interests of Ontarians, then the government is not doing their job with this bill, and that’s why I can’t support it. As New Democrats, we have always believed and will always believe that all Ontarians should have access to a strong defined benefit pension plan, and for those that don’t have one, it is our duty as representatives of this province to provide it.

We implore this government to design and implement a progressive public pension plan for hard-working people across Ontario who deserve one, to stop focusing on exceptions and exemptions, and to start focusing on helping more Ontarians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will share my time with my colleague.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock for a moment, please.

I will recognize the member from Kitchener–Waterloo in just a moment. Just to remind you that we will be recessing at 10:15 and that you will be allowed to continue your debate at another appropriate time.

I now recognize the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to talking to you for about seven minutes. Thanks for the heads-up.

I just want to commend the member from Oshawa for clearly outlining some of our concerns as they relate to Bill 57. I think she accurately tied into the tension between Bill 56 and how it was a priority and yet we are primarily debating Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

I’m just going to pivot quickly to the CPP conversation that’s happening in this country. You may be interested to know that, according to a very recent study done and published by the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, HOOPP, entitled Retirement Income Crisis: Inevitable or Avoidable?, “78% of Ontarians support increasing CPP contributions and benefits by 60%.” They ask this question: “Does a solution involve dismantling existing DB plans? Not according to the majority of Ontarians (65%) who don’t think it’s unfair that some workers have better pension plans than others.

Most do want the system fixed for everyone, though. A majority (57%) believe the government has not done enough to regulate corporate pension plans to ensure that they are stable.” So there is this concern out in the broader public around corporate pension plans.

“For 61% of Ontarians, the solution lies in modelling private sector benefit plans after public sector DB plans,” so people will publicly recognize that a defined benefit plan—they see the plus side. Bill 57 does not reflect the concerns of the people of this province. It just simply doesn’t.

The member from Oshawa also raised the issue of management fees. When we met with HOOPP, as I said, they raised the issue of where pension plans are going in this country and in this province. They said that if a DC plan is looking at perhaps a 5% growth rate, most people would say, “Okay, that 5%, that’s pretty good.” But if you factor in the 3% management fees and the 2% rate of inflation, you’ve basically made no progress whatsoever. You do the math. Our concern, obviously, around Bill 57 is more than ideology. It’s really about the numbers and who benefits from this particular piece of legislation.

While all parties in this Legislature agree about the importance of retirement security for Ontarians, we know there is obviously disagreement about how this should be achieved, so I’m happy to be participating in this debate. As the finance critic, I can argue for a full hour about the economic benefit to this country, this province and local communities around a very well-run defined benefit pension plan because the research is there. When you look at the rates of return and who benefits, the numbers are very clearly apparent to us.

We question why the government would be bringing forward Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, as a priority versus the very-much-talked-about ORPP.

Defined benefit plans obviously create a very positive environment in the local economy. Public sector defined benefit plans in Canada manage almost $900 billion. Actually, HOOPP told us it’s close to a trillion dollars. They have a lot of experience in this regard. And 35% of this is invested in alternative classes—private equity, real estate. They’re extremely well-managed funds with low expense ratios, low liquidity requirements, and you may be interested to know that they employ about 10,000 professionals in total.

There is this tension between these two bills that I think is more than about ideology. It’s about who is profiting and what is the best option for this province to engage in from an economic perspective, and in the absence, obviously, as the member from Oshawa pointed out, of leadership at the national level on the part of Mr. Harper, who has refused to recognize the need to improve the CPP.

Of course, we’ve also heard about this from the Liberal government, who used to tell Ontarians that they needed a partner in Ottawa to enhance the CPP. Now we’ve heard a great deal about a made-in-Ontario option, the ORPP, and yet here we are in a debate about Bill 57, which adopts the federal pooled registered pension plan legislation that came into place back in 2012. So the provincial government is now following the federal government’s lead, which, I hope we can all agree, is a little ironic.

Why are we debating the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act today, before the Liberals made their promised plan? This raises questions about this government’s priorities. We’ve actually been very consistent in challenging this government about their priorities. This even goes right back to the Auditor General’s report on where the money is going. If you look at Infrastructure Ontario, for instance, and you look at the transfer of risk and the cost of doing public-private partnerships at a cost of $8 billion, with $6.5 billion of that going towards financing and consulting fees, that’s not in the best interests of the people of this province.

We have the same questions around principles, that this government moves forward with a piece of legislation like this, because I think it speaks to the priorities. The member from Oshawa is very right on this. The management fees compromise the benefit to pensioners going forward

I think my time is up. I look forward to continuing this debate tomorrow afternoon.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, and yes, you will have a further opportunity to continue debate at a time yet to be determined.

It is now 10:15. This Legislature stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions that I want to make. I’ll make them at the same time.

I want to welcome Dylan Atack and his father, Ritch Atack, here. Dylan is, apart from Steve Paikin, I think, the number one Ticats fan ever.

Interjection: Oskee Wee Wee.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Oskee Wee Wee.

I’d like to also introduce Farrah Khan of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic and Sly Castaldi of Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, who will be co-chairing our permanent Roundtable on Violence against Women as part of our Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment. They’ll be chairing their first meeting this afternoon. We’re very excited. Thank you very much for being here.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome to the House a Mustang and a Viking. Participating in the teachers’ forum we have Kelly Payne from F.E. Madill and Ray Lewis from Goderich District Collegiate Institute. Welcome to the House.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to welcome Harold and Marjorie Fast, who are the grandparents of page captain Joe Fast. They are here this morning in the east gallery. They’re here from Spiritwood, Saskatchewan.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome, from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, someone who is participating in the teachers’ forum as well and has been here since Sunday: Jody Shaddick. Thank you for coming. Welcome.

Hon. Mario Sergio: From York University, I have Jianhong Wu, an expert in evaluating matters. Also, from James Cardinal McGuigan Catholic High School, I have teacher Joseph Pulcini and grade 10 students. I’d like to welcome them all to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m pleased to introduce three guests today: first of all, Peter Tomashewski, who is the father of our page Connor Tomashewski; also, Diane Ballantyne, who’s here attending the teachers’ forum; and Rory Narine from Cogeco cable TV. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I, too, have two introductions to make. I would like to first of all welcome Marilyn Duarte, a teacher from my riding participating in the third Legislative Assembly teachers’ forum. Welcome.

I would also like to give a big welcome to the members of the MPAC board and executive management committee. They are here. They’re having a reception later on this afternoon for all the members from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the legislative dining room. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I have two introductions. I am delighted to introduce you to a lovely family from my region: Janek Jagiellowicz; his wife, Dorothy McCabe; and their two daughters Zoe and Tessa.

Also visiting us from Kitchener Centre is Jean Knowlton. Her niece Alycia Berg is one of our page captains today. Welcome.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, it’s my great pleasure to introduce the grade 10 civics class from St. Joseph’s Morrow Park school in Willowdale. They are sitting up in the east lobby with their principal, Patricia Coburn, and their civics instructor. I hope that we have a very responsible and demonstrative day today.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: From Cambridge, our page captain today, Alycia Berg, has several family members in the east gallery. We have her father, David Berg; her brother Aaron Berg; her grandparents Barbara and Lloyd Berg; her aunt Jean Knowlton; and her other set of grandparents, Donna and Howard Famme, are also joining us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, it gives me great privilege to introduce Kayla Palmateer, one of the teachers. Thank you for hosting the forum, Speaker.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: A great surprise. I just looked in the members’ gallery and noticed a very good friend of mine, Greg MacEachern, here at Queen’s Park. Greg is a good friend, a supporter, and he also lives in the great riding of Ottawa Centre. It is an honour to work for him every single day. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Greg.

Mr. Granville Anderson: It’s a pleasure for me to rise in this House and welcome Sarah Parry, a teacher from Port Perry, in the riding of Durham.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Our page captain Alycia Berg is getting a lot of notoriety around here today, but I’d just like to mention that Donna and Howard Famme over here, her grandparents, are from my riding of Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member from Oakville and page Marin Papulkas, I’d like to introduce his mother, Megan Sweeting, and his father, Thomas Papulkas, who will be in the members’ gallery this morning.

Correction of record

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

Mr. Steve Clark: A point of order, Speaker. I’d like to correct my record. Yesterday afternoon, in debate on Bill 45, there were a number of members who talked about maple syrup producers. I used the words “standard testing,” and what I should have said is that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs hasn’t harmonized Ontario’s maple syrup grading standards with the federal government’s amendments to the maple products regulations of the Canadian Agricultural Products Act.

Further, Speaker, I made a second error. I want to correct my record in regard to MPAC. I used the words “try to label” a farm as commercial. I wanted to correct my record; what MPAC was trying to do with my producer was to change their assessment to commercial because they were selling pancakes two weeks out of 52 weeks.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask all members to heed that part of that was a correcting of the record and part of that was a continuation of debate, which is not allowed. In the future, I will be very insistent on simply correcting your record.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I can be even more clear.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery 25 teachers from across the province participating in the third annual Legislative Assembly of Ontario teachers’ forum. We thank them for being here to learn about what happens here at Queen’s Park. Thank you all.

Last call for introduction of guests.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to introduce a good friend of mine who is in the members’ east gallery today, one Mary Smith, who is the mayor of the municipality of Selwyn, in the great riding of Peterborough. She’s here in her role of being an MPAC board member. Welcome, Mary.

Oral Questions

Electoral reform

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Premier, in the most recent report from the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Essensa called for the strengthening of third-party advertising rules, and we expect that his upcoming annual report will do the same.

Premier, campaign finance rules are there to help create somewhat of a level playing field and to limit the degree to which money can be used to influence the outcome of an election. As long as third parties such as the Working Families coalition are exempt from the same rules as other political entities, as the Toronto Star has put it, “fairness is distorted.”

Premier, will you agree to the Chief Electoral Officer’s request and introduce legislation to limit third-party spending?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the interim Leader of the Opposition knows, we’ve taken a number of measures to make elections and election finances more accountable. We’re always open—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Look—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The question was put without interruption, and so shall the answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That includes anyone on that side.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re always open to ways to improve Ontario’s democratic process, Mr. Speaker. We always have been and always will be. We have rules in place in Ontario to ensure that there is both transparency and free speech in our election campaigns. Obviously, that’s the balance we have to strike, but we have those rules in place.

Third-party advertising rules were introduced in Ontario for the first time in 2007. The first time we had any rules around third-party advertising, it was our government that brought them in.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, by allowing the negative campaign ads to be paid for by your third-party friends, you allow them to do the dirty work for you, and that’s completely unfair. They were allowed to spend $9 million more than the opposition parties and they did it to attack mainly my party, freeing up your party to spend on positive campaigning. It’s unfair and you know it.

During the last election, for example, the largest third-party spender spent a total of $2.6 million. That far outweighed what the NDP was allowed to spend in the last election.

Premier, do you believe that allowing third-party interest groups to spend more than political parties is healthy for Ontario’s democracy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Attorney General is going to want to comment in the supplementary on this, but again, from our perspective, finding that balance is very, very important.

Under the current rules, third parties that spend $500 or more—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —on election advertising are required to register with the Chief Electoral Officer. That kind of transparency is important and that is the regime of rules that we put in place.

Again, I would say to the member opposite, he knows that we brought those rules in, he knows that we were the government that put any parameters around third-party advertising. We are always interested in suggestions on how we might improve the democratic process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary? The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: Again to the Premier: The Chief Electoral Officer noted that “Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and the federal government have all adopted controls over third-party advertising,” and “that of the jurisdictions in Canada that regulate third-party advertising, Ontario is the only one where third parties do not face advertising spending or contribution limits.”

To ensure fairness, I will soon be bringing forward a private member’s bill that will introduce third-party spending limits. Premier, will you stand behind your word and support my initiative?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Interjections.

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

Attorney General?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, the reason why the opposition party leader knows this group contributed and how much they did is because of what we have done. We changed the rules, we changed the legislation. We’re always open to the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville. Leader.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, it’s because in 2007 this government introduced the third-party advertising rule. Under this current rule, third parties that spend $500 or more on election advertising are required to register with the Chief Electoral Officer. Registered third parties must also report to the Chief Electoral Officer on election advertising expenses.

It’s because of our change that you—

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

Health insurance

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, Paul Compton and his five-year-old son Mateo are constituents of mine. Paul is a Canadian citizen. He grew up, lived and worked in Canada for 32 years before taking a job to teach overseas. Last Friday, Paul was told that Mateo’s OHIP eligibility had been pulled by your government.

Mateo was born to Paul and his wife while they lived in Peru, and has fallen through the cracks in our health insurance laws. If Paul were adopting Mateo from a foreign adoption agency, Mateo would be covered. If Paul were a foreign worker in Canada on a work visa, his dependent son would be covered. But instead, Paul is a Canadian citizen whose dependent son was born abroad, so we have declined him health insurance.

Minister, will you intervene to help Paul and his son Mateo?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First of all, I understand that this is a deeply troubling and difficult situation for the family involved. I had an opportunity to speak briefly with the member opposite yesterday after question period, and committed at that time to look into the situation in more detail, which I have done. It is a complicated issue, as the member opposite knows.

We have taken the politics out of decisions such as this, in terms of OHIP eligibility, precisely for this reason. The member understands that the reason for eligibility is due to changes that the federal government, in fact, made with regard to citizenship.

But I have committed to the member opposite to follow up on this. I know he has met with my ministry, or spoken with the ministry. I would offer a similar opportunity to the family involved to meet with my ministry officials.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: This is a grave situation for Paul and his family. Although there are some elements of immigration laws, it’s because regulation 552 has not been modified by this government since those changes in the immigration laws.

Paul and his family are looking to you to demonstrate that this government has compassion and integrity. You surely will agree that it is not within the spirit of the law to disallow health care coverage to the dependent child of Paul, who is a Canadian citizen. Minister, will you act now and make sure that the law is applied as it was intended and that Mateo is covered by health insurance?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would suggest, and ask the member opposite to join me in the understanding, that this was a federal decision that was taken legislatively several years ago—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, my God. Everything—

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would invite the member opposite, in fact, to petition the federal government if in fact—as I take the position if I disagree with those changes that were made.

The fact is that Ontario health coverage is provided to individuals who are Canadian citizens and individuals who are permanent residents. I think that’s a fair process. There is a wait period in place for new permanent residents and new Canadian citizens, a wait period of three months, that has been long-established in this province.

Really, this is the result of a federal decision which restricted citizenship for those individuals who were born abroad.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: A follow-up, Minister: We know that when those federal laws changed, your government immediately took steps and provided OHIP coverage for refugees. I have the press release here. You acted. Paul Compton and his family are asking you to act in their case. It is a fair and just request.

Minister, I think it’s important for us to realize that there’s a lesson here: that laws that are rigid and lack discretion, and that are applied regardless of the circumstances, always result in unjust outcomes.

Minister, I’ll take you up on that offer; I’m sure Paul will take you up on that offer. But we have met and I have spoken with you, and I’ve sent letters to the immigration minister here as well. We have not had any success. It’s time to act and change regulation 552.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I mentioned at the beginning of my first answer, I sympathize with the family involved. The member opposite knows—I have committed to following up specifically. I know he has spoken with my ministry. I am happy to arrange that meeting between my ministry and the family involved.

But fundamentally, this is something that has resulted from a change in legislation at the federal level, further restricting the ability of Canadian citizens’ children born abroad to obtain Canadian citizenship. OHIP coverage is available for Canadian citizens and permanent residents in this province, as you know.

This was a federal decision, and I would implore the member opposite to work with me at the federal level to have action, if he believes this is an injustice.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The question is for the Premier. Last week, the energy minister was on CP24 and he said, “The government has decided we will be selling a portion of Hydro One.”

Now that the energy minister has told Ontarians about the Premier’s plan, can the Premier actually tell Ontarians how much of Hydro One she has decided to sell off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the leader of the third party knows that we are awaiting a report from Ed Clark and his team. We have committed to a review of the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario, because we believe that investing in modern infrastructure—in transit, in transportation infrastructure, in roads and bridges across the province—is an important part of the economic growth that we know is necessary for this province. The leader of the third party knows that that is the case; she knows that we will be bringing that plan forward once we have those recommendations. I look forward, with her, to hearing those recommendations from Mr. Clark.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Something just doesn’t seem to be adding up. The Premier has said no decisions would be made about selling Hydro One until the Ed Clark report goes to cabinet, and on March 10, the energy minister told reporters that no decision had been made about selling Hydro One. But on March 26, the energy minister was on live TV saying, “The government has decided we will be selling a portion of Hydro One.”

Now, it sounds like sometime between March 10 and March 26, cabinet got the Clark report and the Liberals made their decision. Otherwise, why would the minister be saying this on live TV?

Has cabinet actually seen the Ed Clark report, Speaker? If they have, will the Premier make that report public today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The final report has not been completed; it has not been received. It will be received shortly. We will be very clear about our intentions going forward, having had an opportunity to look at those recommendations.

But the reality is that there are conversations that are ongoing. I’m not going to pretend that there are not. There are obviously conversations, and it would be irresponsible of us not to have those conversations as those decisions are made.

We await the decisions, we await the recommendations from Mr. Clark’s panel, and we will make those public once they are made.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what’s irresponsible is for the energy minister to say on live TV that the government has already made a decision on selling off Hydro One.

On March 10, the energy minister said any decisions about Hydro One would be “ratepayer-based decisions.” He said, “Ratepayers’ interests will be looked after.”

So if the Premier has decided, as it sounds like she has, to privatize Hydro One, can she offer any proof, any studies, any economic analyses, any regulation—heck, anything at all—that will ensure that ratepayers won’t be paying more because of the Premier’s short-sighted decision to sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’ve made very, very clear that in any sale of Hydro One we would retain a significant interest to protect the interests of the ratepayer. But in addition to that, the Ontario Energy Board is an independent regulator with the mandate to protect the interests of Ontario ratepayers. The Ontario Energy Board was there under Conservative administrations, under NDP administrations and under Liberal administrations.

Just by way of example, rate applications are reviewed by the OEB, and they make the final determination. In 2010, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for distribution and received a 9% reduction of their capital request. In 2012, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for transmission and received a 3% reduction for its capital request. When Ontario Power Generation applied for a 6.2% rate increase in 2011, the OEB denied the request and lowered rates by 0.8%. The public is protected—

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

Infrastructure program funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, if anybody thinks the OEB actually acts in the interests of ratepayers, they’ve got another think coming.

The question is for the Premier. The Premier loves to say that it is incumbent upon government to do more than one thing at a time, but for some reason the Premier seems to think that Ontarians can either have public hydro or they can have public transit. The Premier doesn’t seem to think that Ontarians can have both, like, say, they did for nearly 100 years, when hydro rates were affordable and we actually built subways in this province.

Can the Premier please explain why she is the first Premier in the history of Ontario who thinks public hydro and public transit are an either/or proposition?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in terms of the ongoing investment in transit and in public transportation across the province and in transportation infrastructure, there has been a huge period of time before 2003 when those investments were not being made. That goes back through governments of all stripes. To the leader of the third party, I would say this: Yes, there was a time in this province when there was investment in infrastructure, but there was a long period of time when that investment stopped.

We’ve begun investing again. One of the strategies is to take assets that have been built up over decades, that was infrastructure that was needed many years ago, and recycle those assets, protecting the interests of the people of Ontario, protecting the price base, making sure that the regulatory regime is in place, but also ensuring that we make the investments that we need for the—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier will recall that there was a subway line being built called the Eglinton line by the NDP government of the day.

In 2013, the Premier insisted that the only way to pay for transit was road tolls. Now she’s insisting that the only solution to pay for transit is to sell Hydro One.

New Democrats want to see transit and transportation infrastructure investments across Ontario. But let’s look at long-term solutions that put people first, like closing corporate HST giveaways that cost the treasury billions of dollars, or ending the sweetheart deals that have wasted $8 billion on public-private partnerships, and putting our energies into the affordable public financing that built our highways and transit systems in the first place in this province.

Does the Premier think it’s a good solution to sell off Hydro One but keep P3s and HST giveaways?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the leader of the third party is talking about the arrangement that saved the people of Ontario $6 billion, yes, I think that’s a good idea, and making sure that we understand the risks associated with building projects and making sure that we partner with the private sector in a way that’s responsible and that gets those projects built.

The challenge with the leader of the third party is that she had and has no plan to—

Interjections.

Mr. Mike Colle: Mr. Speaker, I can’t hear a thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Actually, the clock was running as I was asking for the one caucus to come to order, but because of your interjection, I stopped the clock. Member from Eglinton–Lawrence, I’d like to do my own job.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party knows that every dollar that’s realized from our current asset review will be invested in infrastructure that we need.

The fact is that the leader of the third party had no plan to build infrastructure, she has no plan to build infrastructure, but we do, and we’re going to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I trust the Auditor General’s numbers far, far more than I would trust a Liberal number any day of the year. Ending P3s would save money, so says the Auditor General, and build infrastructure, not just once but every year. Closing corporate HST loopholes would build infrastructure, not just once but every year. Taking a look at the fairness of our tax system would build infrastructure, not just once but every single year. Those are clear options with long-term sustainability and fairness.

Can the Premier explain why it is that she thinks the only way to build transit or transportation infrastructure is a short-sighted, one-time asset sale?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that we have a massive infrastructure deficit, across this country actually. This is not just an Ontario issue. This is a conversation that I am having with Premiers across the country. One of the things I have said is that if we had a federal government that was interested in a national infrastructure strategy, we would be having a very different conversation.

If you look at jurisdictions around the world, you will see that where the infrastructure deficits are being addressed and where infrastructure is being built, it is a federal government—it’s a national project—that is part of that process. That’s not the case here.

We are working within the confines of what we have to work with here in Ontario. One of the things we have done is put in place a financing process that allows us to build. Contrary to what the leader of the third party is saying, a new TD report says: “Reverting entirely back to old models of procurement would represent a major step backwards for the province.”

We’re not taking that step backwards.

Crown attorneys

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, John Raftery is once again on the sunshine list for 2014. As you know, John Raftery was given a very large parachute to leave the Peel region, where he worked as an assistant crown attorney. Raftery was paid an astonishing $368,000 in 2013, almost three times what most crown attorneys are paid. In 2014, he was paid another $116,000.

In 2012, prosecutors, defence lawyers, court clerks, police officers and a witness filed a group complaint against Raftery. Additional complaints were made in 2011 and 2010. Clearly, there was a history of workplace harassment while he was an assistant crown.

Minister, what is the total amount of the multi-year settlement given to John Raftery to leave the Attorney General’s office?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: As the member of the opposition party knows, I cannot comment on human resources matters, as all employment matters relating to current or former employees are confidential. I also cannot comment on the earnings of individual employees.

However, I understand that the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act identifies what amounts constitute salary, and includes, in addition to their annual salary, such forms of remuneration as retroactive salary awards or others.

Public sector salary disclosure is part of the government’s commitment to being accountable, open and transparent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, I know you don’t want to talk about John Raftery, but when you give him half a million dollars to walk away, the public has some questions and they need to know.

If this government is serious about workplace harassment, and eliminating it and protecting victims, then you must be prepared to track the number of complaints and investigate those complaints thoroughly.

In the interest of transparency, will you table the number of workplace harassment complaints that were made by public sector employees in 2014?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, like the member knows, I cannot comment on any human resources matters. As well, employment matters relating to current or former employees are confidential, and we’ll continue to keep them confidential.

I can tell you that our crown attorneys are held to the highest standard and are expected to conduct themselves professionally and fairly at all times. All crown attorneys in the province of Ontario are subject to the rules of professional conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada. In addition, they’re also subject to crown policies and practices, as well as the same laws that apply to all Ontarians.

There are also procedures in place to deal with complaints against a crown, and when there is a complaint, there is—

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

By-election in Sudbury

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. My question is quite simple: Does the Premier think that bribery is acceptable?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Neither do I.

Does the Premier think that it was acceptable for her Sudbury kingmaker, for her campaign director, to engage in what Elections Ontario calls “bribery” and the OPP says “threatens the appearance of the government’s integrity”?

Does the Premier think that this is okay, that this is normal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Mr. Speaker, let’s be absolutely clear. I want the member opposite to be careful. What she’s referring to are mere allegations and nothing whatsoever. As you know, there is an investigation into an issue that is ongoing right now. There have been no charges laid by the police in that regard. Even the Chief Electoral Officer in his ruling said that he is not making any judgment whatsoever. He is letting the independent prosecutors and judges make that determination. So we need to be very careful. These are just allegations.

There is a presumption of innocence in our system which all members should respect, and we should let the independent authorities do the investigation and we will co-operate with them fully.

Sexual violence and harassment

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the minister responsible for women’s issues. Minister, it’s been three weeks since the Premier unveiled the sexual violence and harassment action plan. In my riding of Trinity–Spadina, we received a great deal of positive feedback about that plan. I think it’s very powerful to hear the Premier of the largest province talk about rape culture and say that the problem of sexual violence and harassment is rooted in deeply held beliefs about women, men, power and equality. I’m very proud of the leadership of our Premier and the work our government has done.

Minister, can you highlight some of the next steps you’ll be taking as part of the action plan?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for this important question. I also want to thank him for his work on the all-party Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment. It’s great that he’s doing that.

Our new permanent round table on sexual violence and harassment is holding its inaugural meeting today, Speaker, so it’s a very important and exciting day.

Applause.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yes.

The round table is one of the 13 initiatives and actions in our It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment. The advice that we’re going to get from the round table is going to help government talk about the issues today as well as the emerging issues on gender-based violence. It will be co-chaired by Sly Castaldi, who is here. She’s the executive director of the Guelph-Wellington women’s centre. We thank her for taking on that role. The other co-chair is Farrah Khan of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic in Toronto. They’re here in the Legislature and I wish them a successful meeting today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. It’s encouraging to see all the great work our government is doing to promote a province that’s free from sexual violence and harassment.

I’m also heartened to see that our government is working with organizations such as White Ribbon to include men in this very important discussion. As a man and a father of a young boy, I know how important it is for boys to learn the value of respect in a relationship.

I’m also proud that I have taken

part in White Ribbon’s I’m a Male Model event today at the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could you update this House on some of the good work being done by organizations such as White Ribbon?

In terms of the White Ribbon campaign, which is co-sponsored by COPA, the Centre ontarien de prévention des agressions, the target audience includes elementary and secondary teachers, community workers, coaches in schools, fathers and diverse men. White Ribbon, as you know, is a very large campaign in the world and we’re very proud of the work that they’re doing here in Ontario.

Government fiscal policies

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier.

The internal finance documents we obtained through the gas plant scandal hearings continue to reveal much about Ontario’s finances. Here is your confidential advice to cabinet: “Over the medium term, we have notional targets by sector, that add up to the deficit numbers, but no plans to deliver on them.”

In a response to my order paper question this month, the finance ministry revealed they still don’t have those line-by-line details for 2017-18. That’s the year you claim you can return to balance.

Premier, this is unacceptable. Either you’re keeping these numbers from the public because they don’t add up, or you simply have no plan to balance. So, Premier, which is it: They don’t add up, or you have no plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the President of the Treasury Board is going to want to comment on this in the supplementary. But just to be clear, we have a path to balance. In fact, today the Minister of Finance is going to be talking about the fact that for 2014-15, our government will beat the deficit reduction target that we put in place.

I know the member opposite, for some reason, likes to talk down the Ontario economy, but what he needs to know is that all private sector economists are forecasting continued growth for the Ontario economy. RBC is projecting that Ontario is expected to top provincial economic growth rankings in 2015. RBC forecasts real GDP growth for the province to accelerate from an estimated 2.5% in 2014 to a five-year best rate of 3.3% in 2015, and that’s a quote from their document. So we believe there are good days ahead for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Well, I’m not surprised that the number will come in lower; your own documents I just spoke about told us that you made that number up to begin with.

The troubling news doesn’t end there. The ministry response shows you’re planning on adding $1 billion in what it calls “all other tax”—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Transportation, come to order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —over the next two years. Again, there’s no line-by-line; just a promise in writing to wring out $1 billion in new taxes from Ontario’s families and seniors. All the while, your government has made announcements in recent days much like the $5.6 billion in new spending you announced before last year’s budget.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Transportation, second time.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, you were too busy yelling while I was telling you to come to order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker.

Premier, are you going on another spending spree the Auditor General just told us we can’t afford? If so, what new taxes are you planning on introducing to pay for all this new spending?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question, because it’s a question that certainly I’m happy to talk about, given our real focus on overachieving on our fiscal targets.

One of the initiatives that is putting us on the path to balance is the program review renewal and transformation process being led by Treasury Board. We have a commitment to review every program in this province. We are looking at whether or not it is still relevant. Is it effective, is it efficient, and is it sustainable?

So we are going through them, and as we are going through this work, we acknowledge that every dollar counts and that outcomes are what matter to us. Are programs working? If they’re not working, what do we need to do to make sure they are getting the outcomes for people? That’s an important element of our path to balance.

Executive compensation

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. People in London and across the province are shaking their heads. They are appalled that the president of Western University made almost $1 million last year because of a deal that more than doubled his annual salary.

Yesterday, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities avoided my question about whether the government would prohibit double salary payouts and said that Ontarians have the right to make sure their tax dollars are spent properly.

Premier, do you think that almost $1 million for a university president is spending tax dollars properly at a time when university budgets are being cut, Ontario students are facing the highest tuition in the country, grad students are being paid poverty wages, university class sizes are increasing, and more and more students are being taught by contract faculty?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member for that question. Disclosure of public sector salaries is a part of this government being open, transparent and accountable. As part of that commitment, our government passed legislation last year, the accountability act, which received royal assent last December. This act will allow our government to put control on executive salaries, not only in universities and colleges, but in every public sector and the broader public sector executives. That also includes significant compliance and enforcement measures.

Our government is committed to making sure that the hard caps are in place for executive salaries in the university and college sector, as well as in every sector in the broader public sectors.

When it comes to individual salary disclosure, whatever has been disclosed by the sunshine list, that’s what we have. But we cannot enter into discussion about every individual’s salary point.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I understand that it is common practice in the sector to allow university presidents to take an administrative leave at the end of their term and collect their salary at the same time. But the Western board of governors went one step further: They negotiated a contract allowing the president to forgo an administrative leave and take a double salary instead; in other words, collect two salaries for doing one job. A petition campaign is rapidly gathering steam, calling for a vote of no confidence in the university administration as a result.

Premier, do you support the ability of university boards of governors to negotiate this kind of a deal with a university president? If not, will you step in to prohibit the practice?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Again, I want to thank the member for that question. Our universities and colleges, and particularly our universities, are autonomous institutions. They have all the right to run their own daily affairs, including hiring, firing, human resources and all aspects of their own institutions.

Our universities and colleges rank among the best in the world. They have been doing a great job in educating our young people, and we have all confidence in our university board of governors to be able to run our institutions. They’re autonomous institutions, and these matters lie within the jurisdictions of our universities and colleges.

Infrastructure program funding

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Ontario’s use of P3s and the alternative financing and procurement model has been under scrutiny recently. I understand that TD Economics released today their special report examining Ontario’s AFP model. Their findings differ drastically compared to the rhetoric we hear from the third party. I would like to reiterate what the minister has said many times: that public-private partnerships have had a net benefit of $6.6 billion over the course of the 74 AFP infrastructure projects. Of Infrastructure Ontario’s 37 completed projects, 36 or 97% of these projects were completed on budget.

Will the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure please inform the House what TD Economics concluded in its special report?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank TD Economics for commissioning this really important report examining the costs associated with Ontario P3s. The report confirms that our support for the AFP process is well founded. It also confirms that the NDP’s rhetoric about AFPs is dead wrong.

Let me quote directly from the report. It reads that “the focus on the $8 billion in ‘excess costs’ oversimplified the [auditor’s] analysis.”

Let me continue to quote: The “narrow focus on the higher tangible costs of P3s does a disservice to an innovative model of government procurement which has enabled a more transparent and accurate accounting of the full costs of a project before construction begins.”

Let me go on: “Reverting entirely back to old models of procurement would represent a major step backwards for the province.”

The Premier is absolutely right. We’re going forward when it comes to building up infrastructure. We’re not going to take the advice of the NDP—

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the minister for that update.

Our government has a strong track record of building modern infrastructure. Since 2003, our government has invested nearly $100 billion in infrastructure, focusing on what makes our communities stronger—assets like hospitals, schools and transportation. We are investing over $130 billion in infrastructure in the next 10 years, which will create over 110,000 jobs each year.

My constituents and I are encouraged that this government’s pragmatic approach to infrastructure is ensuring that we maximize dollars while building the modern infrastructure that Ontario needs to remain a competitive economy.

In fact, I understand that the federal NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, spoke in favour of the value of P3s. Would the minister please update the House on what Mr. Mulcair said?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The NDP may not want to listen to us on this issue. By their heckles, they don’t seem to want to listen to TD Economics, which I think is a pretty darned credible source, if you ask me.

Maybe they’ll consider listening to their federal cousins, because when it comes to the AFP process, Thomas Mulcair said the following—he is not dogmatic: “The point is to get things built.”

That’s exactly what we’re trying to do. We’re constantly improving the success of our AFP model. But as Mr. Mulcair puts it, dogmatically rejecting AFP will not help Ontario build the modern infrastructure we need to build for our economy.

We don’t want to go back to the days that the NDP want us to go back to. We don’t want to see more projects like the Spadina line or Union Station, or BC Place in BC, that went way over budget. We want to stick to our process; 97% of our projects were built—

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

Road safety

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. Premier, I have a quote I’d like to read to you: “We will put evidence before ideology and choose partnership over partisanship, and invite everyone to work together....”

Who do you think said that, Premier? Premier, you did. You did, on the opening day of the 41st Parliament. And yet, over three days of committee to consider important safe road legislation, we’ve seen your government members reject every single amendment proposed by the opposition to make our roads even safer—no debate, just rejection.

Premier, less than nine months later, have you now chosen partisanship over partnership?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member opposite for asking that question. This is the second time over the last number of days that he has given me the opportunity to stand and speak a little bit in this place about Bill 31, the bill that was at committee, that he’s referencing, a bill that is known as the Making Ontario’s Roads Safer Act. It’s an important bill. It’s important that it got through this Legislature into committee. I understand that it will be reported back to this Legislature later today.

It’s important because, as I always say, one of my most important responsibilities as minister is to make sure that our roads and highways remain safe. This legislation is designed to accomplish that. For example, this legislation, if passed, will increase distracted driving fines from a range of $60 to $500 currently, up to $300 to $1,000.

It will allow for the suspension of a driver’s licence for those found to be driving under the influence of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. It will require drivers to keep a one-metre distance from cyclists when passing,

There are a number of very important initiatives in this bill. It’s important that it comes back here and gets passed at third reading.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Premier: Premier, your Bill 31 committee members were so determined to vote “no” on every idea proposed that they even voted down a

section of your own bill impacting impaired driving provisions.

Time and again, we saw thoughtful amendments given short shrift: mandatory distracted driving demerit points; medical-review-of-licence improvements; left-lane, move-over provisions; and the establishment of a highway incident management advisory committee—all proposed, and rejected out of hand.

Premier, it has taken less than nine months for your government to go from preaching partnership to practising arrogance. Premier, your members are following your marching orders. When will you cut the puppet strings and allow government members to embrace the principles of partnership that the July 2014 Premier committed to?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I appreciate the follow-up question. As I mentioned, this is important legislation. I believe that’s why, when this bill was here at second reading, all three parties voted unanimously to make sure that it got sent to committee. I know a great deal of hard work went into the hearings at committee. We heard from the public. There was broad recognition that this bill should get passed as soon as possible.

But it’s interesting to me that that member would ask this question, because if I have my information correct, Speaker, when this bill was actually voted on in the final instance at committee yesterday, the members of that party chose to abstain instead of supporting the legislation, and that’s unfortunate, Speaker.

Child care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. It’s hard enough for families in Toronto to find the child care that they need, but the Liberals are making the problem even worse by forcing school closures that will also shut down dozens of child care centres. Today, Toronto city council will hear that more than 2,000 child care spaces are at risk under the Liberals’ plan for school closures. Each and every parent struggling to find child care knows that we simply cannot afford to lose 2,000 licensed child care spots in the city of Toronto.

Why doesn’t the Premier know that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I obviously haven’t seen the report you’re referring to, but I think it’s actually important to understand that with child care modernization and with the increase in after-school child care, in fact we have dramatically increased the number of child care spaces in Ontario. In fact, boards will continue to have a requirement, where the parents want it, to have child care in the school available. So it really has nothing to do with whether this school or that school is open. The legislative requirement to provide for before- and after-school child care will continue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s shocking that the Minister of Education responsible for child care doesn’t know about this extremely important report that’s going to city council today. We hear today that the city might seek restitution for the loss of child care centres. But make no mistake, it’s young families in this province who are going to be paying the highest price under the Liberals’ plan for school closures.

Take the kids who love the West End Parents’ Daycare in Old Orchard school, one of the schools in Toronto that the Premier could sell off. Parents shouldn’t be forced to fight this Liberal government to save their daycare. They should have a government that expands access to affordable child care, not one that tries to shut child care centres down.

Why is the Premier creating chaos for thousands of families whose beloved child care centres are at risk because of this Liberal government’s decisions?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Who knew, Speaker? Apparently the leader of the third party is on the Toronto distribution list; unfortunately, the Minister of Education isn’t.

But I repeat: The point here is that there is a legislative requirement through the Education Act already, and now with Bill 10, the Child Care Modernization Act, for school boards to provide before- and after-school child care in schools where parents ask for it. I’m sure—

Interjections.

Interjection: Why don’t you just listen?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Liz Sandals: —that legislated requirement will continue, so if the parents who are in one place are moving to another place and still want child care, the legislated requirement to provide child care will follow the parent and the child.

Bicycle safety

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Today marks the start of the Ontario Bike Summit, hosted by the Share the Road Cycling Coalition. This event brings together cycling stakeholders from across our province, including municipal and provincial leaders such as our all-party cycling caucus, of which I’m a member. Planners, engineers, advocates—all are gathering this evening for the kickoff dinner where five new bicycle-friendly communities will be announced, bringing the total to 26. In fact, 60% of Ontarians now live in a designated bicycle-friendly community, Speaker.

Cycling is on the move, and as the founder of Share the Road, I had the distinct pleasure of working with the MTO on a number of cycling-related initiatives. One of the most important, #CycleON, or Ontario’s Cycling Strategy, is the main focus of this year’s summit. Over the next two days, Ontario’s cycling community will join together to discuss #CycleON’s implementation and how, working together, we can all make our communities and our province more bicycle-friendly.

Can the minister please update the House on the progress that has been made on the #CycleON strategy?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member from Burlington, not only for today’s question but for her long-standing advocacy on this particular issue. She has done an exemplary job, and she continues to do so here in this Legislature.

Every spring, summer and fall, more than 2.8 million adult Ontarians cycle on a regular basis. That’s why our government developed #CycleON, Ontario’s Cycling Strategy. This strategy includes a 20-year vision to encourage the growth of cycling and to improve safety for cyclists across the province.

Almost one year ago we released the first of a series of multi-year action plans for implementing our cycling strategy. We also introduced the Ontario Municipal Cycling Infrastructure Program, which will invest $10 million in municipal cycling infrastructure and $15 million in provincial cycling infrastructure.

I am very pleased that my parliamentary assistant, the member from Cambridge, is attending the bike summit to partake in some of the discussions regarding our strategy. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the cycling community on this project.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the minister for his response, his leadership and his commitment to road and cyclists’ safety, and in particular to Bill 31. I know our government is fond of saying that road safety is our number one priority, but it’s extremely important that we consider the safety of everyone using our roads.

Keeping our roads safe requires the co-operation and participation of all road users: drivers, pedestrians and cyclists as well. I know that an important component of the #CycleON strategy is improving cycling safety. I also know that cyclist safety will be an important topic of the discussion at today’s bike summit.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please provide members of this House with more information on what our government is doing to make Ontario roads safer for all road users, and in particular cyclists?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I want to thank the member for that thoughtful question. Last fall I was very proud to introduce Bill 31, the Making Ontario’s Roads Safer Act. As part of this bill we have proposed a number of legislative and regulatory amendments to improve cycling safety in Ontario, including requiring drivers of motor vehicles to maintain a minimum distance of one metre when passing cyclists, permitting cyclists to ride on paved shoulders of all unrestricted highways, and increasing the fine for persons who improperly open or leave open the doors of motor vehicles.

Though, unfortunately, the official opposition chose to abstain yesterday, I am very pleased to announce that Bill 31 passed through committee with the support of the third party. If passed, this legislation will help ensure that cyclists remain safe on our roads for years to come.

Executive compensation

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, the 2010 sunshine list included nine people at the Housing Services Corp.—nine people making over $1 million combined. That was in 2010. We know that the CEO of the Housing Services Corp. earned almost $300,000 last year.

Minister, can you explain why no one from the Housing Services Corp. appeared on the sunshine list that was released last week?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: They must be, for some reason, exempt from appearing on the list. That’s all I can offer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, you claim that your government has made this rogue agency more accountable but, in fact, it was your government that changed the legislation that took them off the sunshine list. My private member’s bill would increase accountability by once again requiring housing service corporations to report salaries of over $100,000. These are public social housing dollars, and taxpayers deserve to know how they’re being spent, Minister.

If your changes to the HSC made it more accountable and transparent, as you claim, can you tell us how many people at the Housing Services Corp. earned over $100,000 last year?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The Housing Services Corp.—which was established by the party opposite, when they were in power, as an independent private corporation—operates as an independent private corporation. We’ve enhanced the accountability by having them agree to live with Management Board of Cabinet expense limits, making some changes to the board, and bringing in a third-party independent review agency.

As for the sunshine list and whether they and other independent private corporations all across the province—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford, come to order. You asked the question.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —should be added to the sunshine list is something we’ll deter