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

February 26, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Feb-26 (PDF)

L049 - Thu 26 Feb 2015 / Jeu 26 fév 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 26 February 2015 Jeudi 26 février 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

Ontario Immigration Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’immigration en Ontario

Introduction of Visitors

Use of props in the House

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Human rights

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Correctional services

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Mining industry

Élection partielle à Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Nurses

By-election in Sudbury

Visitors

Closed captioning

Visiteurs / Visitors

Closed captioning

Deferred Votes

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

Closed captioning

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Peter Remillard

Vyrn Peterson

Black History Month

Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation

Steve Revington

Youth Haven Barrie

Random Act of Kindness Day

Events in Beaches–East York

Soins Continus Bruyère Continuing Care

Introduction of Bills

Tax Fairness for Realtors Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’équité fiscale pour les courtiers en valeurs immobilières

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Great Lakes protection

Mining industry

Great Lakes protection

Mining industry

Great Lakes protection

Mining industry

Petitions

Realtors

Diagnostic services

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Winter road maintenance

Employment standards

Prescription drugs

Trespassing

Natural gas rates

Employment practices

Youth services

Automotive industry

Realtors

Off-road vehicles

Private Members’ Public Business

Municipal Elections Amendment Act (Voting Hours Extension), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les élections municipales (prolongation des heures de scrutin)

Utility Task and All-Terrain Vehicles Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les autoquads et les véhicules polyvalents

Raise a Glass to Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour porter un toast à l’Ontario

Municipal Elections Amendment Act (Voting Hours Extension), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les élections municipales (prolongation des heures de scrutin)

Utility Task and All-Terrain Vehicles Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les autoquads et les véhicules polyvalents

Raise a Glass to Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour porter un toast à l’Ontario

Orders of the Day

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

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

Bill 56,

An Act to require the establishment of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan / Projet de loi 56, Loi exigeant l’établissement du Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last met the member from Windsor West, from the NDP caucus, completed, and now it’s rotation for further debate.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Two minutes, Mr. Speaker? Is that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No. Rotation. Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m a little disappointed that the government members did not wish to participate in this round but maybe the next round they will participate.

Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act—my poor colleague has just come in and I have his desk covered in paper. He’ll have to—

Mr. Jeff Yurek: They should be speaking.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes, we already mentioned that they should be speaking. But anyway, again, next time.

This was in the election. It wasn’t the thing you heard at the doorstep all the time because they couldn’t believe a government would actually come in and put more taxes on businesses.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: The member from Peterborough likes to interject in the discussions, which is absolutely fine—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, it’s not.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Actually, the Speaker says, “No, it’s not.” So there you go: a higher authority than I, Jeff—or the member from Peterborough.

I can tell you that the businesses are none too happy, but the key—

Mr. Jeff Yurek: They don’t care about businesses.

Ms. Laurie Scott: No, they don’t care about businesses but they pretend to over there. Businesses don’t believe it.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, we’ll do a few little quotes for you. We’ll do some quotes for you later on.

The key difficulty with the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan outline is that they’re trying to address a problem that doesn’t exist. Studies by McKinsey and Statistics Canada show that about 80% of Canadians have more than adequate retirement income.

First of all, the government is using—I’m going to say ORPP from now on—the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan to distract from the real economic crisis in Ontario, which is the $300-billion provincial debt and the $12-billion deficit. The government debt is increased by $1.4 million every hour and $33 million every day. I know those are a lot of numbers, and the average person maybe isn’t paying attention—they’re just actually trying to get by and how they can pay their hydro bill, really. Those are huge, huge numbers. We already had Moody’s, I believe it was this week or at the end of last week—

Mr. Jeff Yurek: End of last week.

Ms. Laurie Scott: End of last week. Moody’s gave us another scathing report, saying that our debt is worse than Quebec’s, and that’s quite bad. But the government again tends to ignore what these rating institutions say, and ignore what business and the average person says, really. They have not provided any economic analysis of the ORPP. They don’t care how many jobs will be lost. Their own Ministry of Finance said there would be hundreds of thousands of jobs lost if they bring it in.

The government has not identified exactly who will be forced to join this ORPP. They have not defined “comparable workplace pension plan.” It’s certainly something that many people have responded to. I encourage all my chambers of commerce to certainly give you feedback so that you on the Liberal side can’t say, “Everything is okay in my riding,” because it’s not okay in your ridings.

The government hasn’t divulged how much the ORPP will cost to administer. They have not identified what will happen with self-employed Ontarians and what will be the minimum threshold for earnings. Why is the maximum earning threshold nearly double the threshold of the CPP? Will employees under the age of 18 be exempt from the ORPP?

The government has tried to convince the public that the ORPP will operate like the Canada Pension Plan when, in fact, it will be modelled on the Quebec Pension Plan. It’s funny, not really telling the exact accuracy—can I put that word out?—to the people of Ontario.

The government has not been clear with Ontarians that their $29-billion infrastructure plan cannot happen without the Ontario Registered Pension Plan. The government has eroded public trust so deeply over the past decade with their billion-dollar scandals and spending mismanagement that why would the people trust this government with another dime of their hard-earned income—nobody is listening.

Finally, I have not received any indication from any Ontarian or Ontario business that they’re in favour of this proposal. I have only received lengthy, well-researched letters in opposition to the Ontario Registered Pension Plan, and I’m certainly going to share them with the government so they get the same letters that I’m getting.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock. I’m sure all the guilty people know who they are. I’m trying to get some quiet. If you could just come to order, I’m sure the speaker wants everybody to listen. Thank you.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Let’s start with what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said on this topic. The CFIB presented its sound analysis of the ORPP at the pre-budget hearings held by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs less than a month ago. At the hearings, the CFIB vice-president, Mr. Plamen Petkov, commented on the lack of public understanding of the ORPP proposal: “I’m not quite sure, though, that the average Ontarian actually understands that this is going to be money coming from their paycheque. I think they are going to realize that after they see that deduction in 2017 onwards.”

Just back to my original point, people in the election weren’t really understanding the impact this was going to have on them, if they were thinking about it at all. Most, in my area of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, were thinking that they couldn’t pay their hydro bill, and how were they going to put food on the table.

Anyway, back to the CFIB, “I think there is a big education component here that is missing from the whole debate on things such as, it is not a free plan; it is not something the government is giving to the people; and there’s also the fact that it’s going to take 40 years of contributions to actually get the benefit.”

“So it is really a combination of different charges that, as a small business owner, you either have to take from your payroll, meaning reducing your labour force, or you have to pass on to your consumer, meaning raising prices. If you keep raising prices, you’re not going to be competitive and you’ll be out of business pretty soon.”

The people I explain this to say, “I’m going to lose my job.” Up in Haliburton, they’re like, “I’m going to lose my job, because my employer cannot afford to keep me on.” And you see that across all the small businesses. They’re having fewer employees, and the mom-and-pop shops, or whoever the owners are, are working longer hours.

So, the CFIB, which represents a huge number of businesses, is not wrong. I get the same feedback in my riding. So, I think the member from Peterborough—I invite him to come up on a tour of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Anyway, the CFIB did a poll to see what employers would do if the plan was forced on them. Implementation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan: “Do you support the implementation?” Eighty-six per cent of Ontario businesses in the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said no—get the message. “If implemented, what impact would paying additional ORPP premiums have on your business?”

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Minister of Agriculture, will you come to order.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It’s 2015, the member from Peterborough.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock. Minister, I’d ask you to come to order—second warning. Thank you.

Ms. Laurie Scott: There’s so much to say and I’ve only got a few minutes left here now.

So 86% of Ontario businesses in the CFIB said they didn’t want it implemented. “What impact would paying additional ORPP premiums have on your business?” Sixty-nine per cent said they would freeze or cut salaries, 53% said they would reduce the number of employees and 52% said they would reduce investments in their business. So it’s not just me making these things up, this feedback. This analysis tells us exactly what the business community is thinking about in 2015, not decades ago, as the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is trying to tell us.

My office has also heard from the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association on this proposed ORPP. They stated that as an industry “we cannot afford an additional pension plan one made in Ontario. Many are living paycheques to paycheque to make ends meet. Your government”—the Liberal government—“is putting significant pressures on employers to deliver a new pension program....” That’s what you’re doing. You’re putting it on the employers.

They went on to say—this is the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association—“The ORPP will likely limit economic growth in our industry and hit the youth the most.” We already have high, high youth unemployment, so you’re going to make that worse, the Liberal government. “Employers will hire less full-time employees, hire less youth, hire fewer employees and expect more of those that remain employed. A 1.9% increase in labour costs is a significant new cost to absorb in a low-margin industry where labour represents the largest expense.

To add to this, the additional administrative costs required to meet an accelerated implementation timeline will only increase the negative impact on businesses.”

With the addition of the ORPP, we will see the cost of doing business in Ontario continue to rise.

This government totally ignores what businesses are saying. They’re asking people who can’t pay their hydro bill, if they are lucky enough to have a job, to pay an extra 1.9% off their paycheque. They’re asking their employer, who is having a hard time paying the hydro bill and wants to give jobs to local people—they are going to be taxed. And yes, it’s a tax. We have the highest payroll taxes in the country; that will continue. We have the highest hydro rates in North America; that is continuing.

At what point do you not see that people are backed up against the wall? There is no margin for them. I can go on with stories, as I’ve said before, where people are selling their houses; they can’t afford to stay. There’s no question, businesses are leaving Ontario. They’re not coming into Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I hate to have run out of time, but I have.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s a pleasure to join debate this morning. I’m hearing from the member from Kawartha Lakes–Brock—am I correct there?

Interjection.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Thank you. They disagree, of course, with the government’s direction on the imposition of the ORPP. We have our own concerns about its implementation, as well, in the simple fact that it doesn’t seem as though it will be universal, nor does it seem as though it will ultimately cover or service those most vulnerable in our society and in our province who are in desperate need of some retirement security.

This is not a new issue, Speaker. For decades we’ve seen that there has been an imbalance, inequality in terms of income, where the very wealthy are getting wealthier, the middle class is eroding and the poor are getting poorer. There’s has been no real, tangible effort on the part of any government—specifically the provincial government, nor the federal government—to make any effort to buffer that. New Democrats have proposed our own plan, but as you see—this morning I woke up and I saw CBC Newsworld talk about the fact that RRSPs eat up a massive amount of the funding or the cash in administrative fees.

They are not a vehicle for secure retirement. They aren’t the vehicle of choice; they shouldn’t be the vehicle of choice. However, it seems as though this government is going to rely on a private vehicle, ushering in private entities to manage, to organize and to direct these funds, rather than a solely public entity that would lower those administrative fees, give those retirees the most return for their buck and also guarantee and ensure retirement security.

They’re on the wrong path. They’re doing something, but we aren’t sure it’s the right thing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It was entertaining listening to the member from Kawartha Lakes–Brock. I am somewhat fascinated by the Conservatives these days. They cannot support a pension plan, but they support income splitting. I don’t quite get this. Maybe the member from Kawartha Lakes–Brock can explain why her party thinks that upper-middle-income, middle-income and modest-income Ontarians should be paying a huge amount, taking billions on in costs, so that the top 10% of retired Canadians—who already are seeing faster income growth than they’ve ever seen before—can be even richer. Why does she not think that that’s an enormous burden?

If you just simply could get the federal government to give up income splitting and put that money into the Canada Pension Plan, which is what we wanted in the first place, every single criticism you’ve made would evaporate in a nanosecond. But this is why the Conservative Party constantly loses seats and is going to lose the next federal election: because they’re so ridiculous, from not believing in evolution to believing that stripping 80% of Canadians in their retirement of their income to support the highest income earners in the country makes sense.

The CFIB, I hate to say, is wrong. It’s not an economic analysis; it’s an opinion survey. Every economic analysis of minimum wage increases and pension benefits shows job growth and GDP growth. You cannot, my dear friend, produce a single study that says contrary, because it doesn’t. So you’re left to an ideological, single-owner organization pretending to be a substitute for chambers of commerce that does opinion surveys with no background or data. It is laughable.

You were opposed to the HST, which would reduce the cost of business by $8.5 billion. You couldn’t even agree with your federal cousins on that. But for some strange reason, you won’t believe in evolution and you believe in income splitting. You’re going to be the fourth or fifth party. Sudbury was just the beginning.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I want to offer another view of the instability that this undertaking by the government is creating. I want to look at it from the point of view of the employee, who, all of a sudden, is going to have to have a deduction on his paycheque of 1.9%. For people who want to split hairs about whether it’s a new tax, it doesn’t matter. It’s 1.9% coming out of his pocket. That’s what the employee understands.

The employee also understands that there’s a huge mystery around whether or not existing pension plans will be allowed. The government comes up with this notion of “comparable,” but no one has a definition of “comparable.” There are some pensions, then, that will be more expensive now than paying 1.9%, so there’s going to be a disruption and instability over just the issue of whether you’re in or you’re out.

One of the things about having a pension—because the government likes to compare it to CPP—is that it has to have many, many contributors. In the case of CPP, it’s the entire country. In the case of the proposed bill here, you’re looking at a relatively small number of people. We don’t know when this starts; we don’t know when the first cheque is cut. It’s a huge question mark for anyone contemplating what the government is suggesting.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to join the debate today, having listened to the concerns of the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. I appreciate the comments of the member from Essex; the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change—his comments were quite entertaining; followed by the member from York–Simcoe.

I’d like to address something—I had the pleasure of speaking for 10 minutes to this bill yesterday—which was a common theme, which is affordability. The reason that we’re looking at implementing the ORPP is in order to help people save for their retirement. I think ultimately, when you look at the cost of hydro, the cost of living in general, it is prohibitive for many people to be able to put money aside. Often they’re faced with the decision of whether they’re going to keep the lights and the heat on or whether they’re going to eat.

I think that’s something that the government needs to be looking at: bringing the cost of living down so that people have the ability to put money aside and ultimately have some disposable income to spend in our communities.

I also spoke yesterday to private pensions. My riding specifically has a large manufacturing area, a large automotive sector, and all have private pensions through their companies. Unfortunately, we often see these companies—people work there 20, 30 years, thinking that at the end of their career they’re going to have a solid pension. Unfortunately, too often we find these companies close up shop, leave town, and these people who have worked their whole life towards a pension no longer have that retirement savings. I think we need to come up with a plan to protect those people who have worked all their life for that security in their retirement.

I’d just like to reiterate again, I think it’s important to give people the opportunity to save for retirement, and I think a big piece around that is the affordability.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. You have two minutes.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m so glad that the government was so upset in my first 10 minutes of comments. I thank them for that. They were pretty negative on a lot of people that I quoted, so I guess they don’t agree with anything the CFIB said, the hotel, motel and restaurant association—I could name many more quotes from many more organizations that are opposed to this. I ask their indulgence to make sure that when they are supposedly hearing from the public, they take into account these organizations that I mentioned, the people who tell me the impact on the ground.

I want to bring the point and the fact that besides it being a tax on employers of 1.9% that they have to find, it’s a tax on take-home pay. So it’s 1.9% off their paycheque, which most people can’t afford. There’s no question it’s a double-whammy.

Should we do better education, getting people to plan for their retirement? Yes, we should. But a large majority of people in some areas of my riding struggle, as I say, to pay the hydro bill and the food bill. But you have to put out that there are other vehicles, if you have money, to set aside for retirement. The Registered Retirement Savings Plan is a venue to save for your retirement. You now have the tax-free savings account. I’m just going to mention the two. There are many vehicles that, if people had money to put away for their retirement, are there for them.

If they have money left when they pass on, that actually goes to their estate and to their family. When you create a government pension plan, that money is gone—that is, into the big pot. This way, people can choose the vehicle—and there are tax vehicles for pensions, for savings, for their retirement. They are out there; they can be used. The government does not need to create an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. That is, as my colleagues have said, a double-whammy, both on the employer and the employee, if you’re lucky enough to have a job.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve got to say that I completely oppose what the Tories are saying in this debate. To say that every citizen in this province, including, I would argue, members of this assembly—that it should be up to them to decide how they’re going to invest their dollars for retirement and that is going to make the problem of adequate retirement income go away, is a fallacy. I will argue that—out of 107 members in this assembly, how many people are able to retire at age 55—please put up your hand—with your own investments? How many of you can actually afford to retire at age 60?

The reality is we don’t have a pension plan here in Ontario as MPPs. Most people don’t know that. We’re RRSP-based, and the reality is the money that we have in RRSPs has not done well. We’ve had years where we’ve made a few dollars on our investments, but we’ve had years where we’ve lost all those dollars of investment. Essentially, you’ve pretty well got the money that you put in; you really have not made any interest over the last 20 years that I’ve been in that plan. It’s the money that I’ve put in that’s still there—because I made some, I lost some, and when you balance it all out, you’re lucky if you get 2%, 3% on average per year—if you’re lucky.

What I find really ironic in this whole thing is that it’s Conservative members who cancelled the Ontario pension plan for MPPs, but it is also Conservatives who are lobbying, trying to reinstate a defined pension plan for people in this province. So what is good for members should be good for the public.

I believe the best way to provide income for people in retirement is by having a defined pension plan. If you have a defined pension plan, you know what you’re going to get at retirement, month in and month out; you’re able to plan with your family, your spouse, what it is you’re going to do in retirement and what you can afford to do. You’re not left to the whim of the market and you’re not left to the whim of your own budgeting. Because the reality is that most people do not budget for retirement. Most people are more concerned about the here and now, and say, “You know what?

I’ve got a truck that broke down,” or “I have a water heater that’s busted at home,” or “I’ve got braces to buy for my children,” or “I’ve got to pay for a college or university education.” Those are the things that we as families and as parents have to deal with on a day-to-day basis for the majority of the time that we’re in the workplace. It’s just called trying to make ends meet.

So most families and, I would argue, 90% to 95% of us, don’t have the ability to say, “Well, you know what? I can put $1,500 a month away, so that I have enough money to be able to retire at age 55, in my own pension plan.” Because that’s about what you’d have to put away. If you start working at age, let’s say, 20, and you can put away $1,500 a month until age 55, you might have enough to retire on. But nobody can afford that because, quite frankly, most people are not working for that kind of money. The majority of people in our society are working for $50,000 and $70,000 a year, if they’re lucky.

That’s why it’s always better that we have a mechanism through the payroll, that there is a defined pension plan that says, “When you work, a percentage of your income is going to go, along with a contribution from your employer, to be able to provide a defined pension plan so that when you retire,” at whatever the plan allows, 57, 60, 55 or whatever it might be, “you know you’re going to get so much money per month to be able to plan for your own retirement,” pure and simple.

We as New Democrats, under Andrea Horwath, who brought, I believe, the first such bill into the Legislature, introduced the concept of getting the federal government to increase the CPP so that the Canada Pension Plan becomes a defined pension plan for all of us who don’t have a pension plan at work, and allow those who have a pension at work, like teachers and others, to opt out. If the federal government is not prepared to do it, what we said was that then Ontario should go on its own, but that’s not our first option.

Our first option has always been that we should get the federal government to accept that we have some mechanism to increase the contribution to CPP so that rather than retiring on a meagre income on your Canada Pension Plan, it would be somewhat sufficient to be able to provide for retirement.

I’ll just talk about my own situation. I make a good buck. I make 130,000-some-odd dollars a year as a member here and being a House leader. The employer, the Ontario government, puts about $1,000 a month into my RRSPs, right? That’s what I’ve got to retire on. It is not sufficient for me to retire at anything before age 65. So the only thing I have to look forward to—and I’m not complaining; I’ve had it pretty good.

The point I’m making is this: Most people, if they wait until age 65, with the current CPP, and they don’t take the early retirement provision at age 60, are lucky if they’re going to get $900 a month. On top of that, they will get their old age pension, and if they’re lucky their spouse is the same age or a little bit older and you will get the old age pension and CPP from their spouse as well. Put all that together and you’re lucky, collectively, if you are making $2,500 a month, in my particular case. Most people are having to survive on that and less.

I look at my community, and I’m sure every member of this assembly has the same story. A husband and wife retired; they retired on whatever pension arrangement they had. The husband dies, and the wife is left alone. More times than not, she has to sell the house because she can’t afford to pay to keep the house going on what’s left when it comes to income from CPP death benefits and her own old age pension. So the widow is trying to survive.

Most people don’t have pensions. I look at the mining sector that I come out of, out of Timmins. Most of our mines did not have adequate defined pension plans. So those widows whose husbands died because of the work they did in these mines—they banged up their bodies or lungs and everything else—are having to retire, after the husband dies, and try to live on a CPP death benefit, which is about $400 or $500 a month, and their old age pension.

They can’t afford to keep the house going with $1,200 a month of income, even though the house is paid and clear, so what I see is that most of them are selling off their houses in order to have a little bit of equity so they can afford to do something with their grandkids and have a little bit of comfort in their days of retirement.

So, yes, we need to up the Canada Pension Plan in some way, and if that’s not possible, then, yes, we need to do something in order to provide a first step towards providing retirement income for people. If we leave it to the individual, as the Conservatives suggest, it will always be the same, and, I will argue, it’s not even the top 10% but probably the top 5% of Ontarians, who have money, who will retire with a good income. The rest of us won’t. It will be at the whim of the market, whatever we have in RRSPs.

I look at a good friend of mine who lives a couple of cottages over from me. The guy had about $600,000 in RRSPs. At the last crash—remember the big one we had?—the value of his retirement pension was devalued by half. Guess what he did? He panicked and sold out, so he ended up with only half of what he was hoping to retire on, and that’s what he has to survive on for the rest of his days. He did what the Conservatives suggested. He put money into his RRSPs, his own money. Every year, he put money into his RRSPs. He tried to provide for a retirement income.

When the market crashed and he lost half of the value, he did what other people did: panicked and sold his investments. He’s left with very little money to retire on. Now he’s chewing that up at a pretty fast rate, and all he is left with is his meagre Canada pension, his old age pension, and his wife’s old age pension and a very small CPP, because she only worked for about 10 years.

I disagree with the Conservatives on this one. I think that defined pension plans are the way to go, because at least that way, people are able to know that when they retire, there will be a decent pension for them in their retirement years.

We are lucky. If we work in the public sector, most of us have a decent pension, except for members of this assembly: nurses, teachers, workers in the civil service. If you work for one of the larger employers in Ontario, like Ford or Falconbridge or any of those big companies, you probably have a decent private pension plan with your employer that was negotiated with your union. But the rest of us, which is, I would say, about 65% or 70%, worked for mom-and-pop operations or medium-sized businesses or were self-employed, and we don’t have any mechanism to be able to provide for a pension.

Is this pension plan that the government is putting forward perfect? Absolutely not. I think there are things that we’re going to want to talk about, once we go to committee, about how we’re able to change it in some ways to make it a better thing for those people who retire. But it is a step in the right direction. It’s something that Andrea Horwath advocated for for years before she became leader, and I know my friend Paul Miller, who is our critic, did the same, and it’s something that we talked about over a couple of elections. The government is moving in that direction. That’s fine; it doesn’t matter where the idea comes from. The fact is, we’re stepping out in that direction.

Can it be better? Absolutely. But I’d just ask the Tories: Let’s stop this fallacy that if we only allowed people to provide for themselves, everything would be better. Look at the United States when it comes to their health care system. If you don’t have an employer with a plan, you don’t have health care, and it’s the same when it comes to pensions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I share many of the views on Bill 56, the establishment of the Ontario pension plan, that have been articulated by the member from Timmins–James Bay.

It’s interesting, Mr. Speaker. I’ve taken the opportunity to review Hansard from the federal Parliament in 1963, 1964 and 1965, when then-Prime Minister Pearson, with the assistance of Mr. Douglas and others—because it was a minority Parliament—when the Canada pension debate came forward. It’s interesting when I hear the members opposite, the official opposition. You can close your eyes and you can hear John Diefenbaker, George Hees, Davie Fulton. The same tired arguments that were made in 1963, 1964 and 1965 are being made again. I tell the members, take a look at them. They’re great speeches, and they should deliver them.

It’s interesting; it’s interesting.

Interjections.

Hon. Jeff Leal: This has to go to committee. I think the quicker we get it to committee and bring people in to provide commentary on this will be very important.

It’s interesting that when the Canada Pension Plan was finally passed, in 1965, it was the fifth version of that plan. Mr. Pearson, the Prime Minister of the day, sent it to the parliamentary committee on finance. They heard delegations from coast to coast to coast, and came up with the plan, which was the fifth version.

This is all about philosophy, Mr. Speaker. It’s about individual rights versus collective rights, and moving a society forward together. That’s exactly what this pension plan does. It means we’re going to provide for generations down the road, so that they have an adequate pension.

In fact, you would think the CFIB would be interested in that, because if you put more disposable income in people’s pockets, they buy things.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m going to try to loop this back to the speaker who had 10 minutes, the member from Timmins–James Bay. He laid out a scenario that I’d like to expand upon.

The individual husband works all of his life. Let’s scenario it out that he actually pays into the ORPP. Then he and his spouse retire. Then, unfortunately, the main earner dies. In this scenario, with the ORPP, there is no money for the spouse. That is the big difference between the ability to put money into your RRSP and the ability to put money into the ORPP.

What we’re trying to explain—why we keep standing up and debating this topic is because there is a difference, and people have to understand. You could pay in your 1.9% off your paycheque for 40 years, and if you die the day after you retire, that money goes nowhere except to the government. Okay? That’s the difference.

You have a system right now where your estate, your family, your charitable choice is getting the assets that you’ve acquired. Under the ORPP, the only person who gets the assets is the Liberal government.

Call me a little cynical, but I think the vast majority of Ontarians do not look at the Ontario government as great managers of our money.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to comment on our House leader, the member for Timmins–James Bay. He gave some important points of reference in terms of what we experience here under our pension plan and how wholly inadequate it is, in terms of providing real security and the ability to retire comfortably, which is, I think, what Ontarians want.

They want a vehicle to be able to know that their money is being properly managed and invested, and that the return on the back side, when they do retire, will be adequate for the ever-increasing cost of living each and every day in the province of Ontario, which the government has a whole lot to do with. Whether it be energy prices or otherwise, it’s getting more and more expensive, and I would guess that it will continue to be.

It’s interesting to hear a member from the PC caucus rail against any type of vehicle or mechanism for retirement security. I would imagine that they would rely solely on the free hand of the market to dictate and to provide that mechanism.

We heard just recently that some in their caucus don’t believe in evolution, which is interesting, although they do believe in one of the aspects of Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is natural selection, whereby the strong will survive, and by that I would imagine they believe that the rich will survive because they are then in fact the strongest. If that’s the type of society we’re trying to create here, where the more money you have the better off you’re going to be, regardless of intervention or any type of effort on the part of the government, then we are indeed doomed to lower the standard of living in this province.

I would say, let’s put our best minds forward. Let’s put best practices forward. In fact, we know they exist in the CPP—very great returns, a strong plan and low, low administrative fees. The model is there. I hope the government takes on that model and champions it through this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member for Timmins–James Bay has, I think, outlined very clearly what the positives are about this particular proposal for a pension plan, an Ontario pension plan. I don’t think there’s anybody in the House who would not prefer to have the federal government take up its responsibility through the Canada Pension Plan and enhance it. There’s a lot of support for that throughout the country.

What it does is it allows people of a modest income to have the opportunity to be able to participate in a pension plan so that when they retire they will have the chance to live a life they were looking forward to, rather than some who have to struggle and stay on for many years beyond what they had hoped to in terms of retirement or have to certainly scale way back on their living style because of the fact that they don’t have an adequate pension plan. Now, we recognize that people just about to retire are not the ones who are going to necessarily benefit from this. But we have to look down the line at those who have to.

There have been many good speeches in the House on this. I think we’ve had about 10 hours of debate on this and they’ve been very valuable. The contributions that people have made have been valuable even though they become repetitive after a while; that’s natural when a debate of this kind is going on. I’m glad to see about 63 members have spoken on this at the present time.

What I would like to see happening—I’m a great fan of committees. As we go to committee, I would like to say that we should have a good committee session taking place. I think there would be a lot of representations made by those who have a specific interest and some expertise who would come forward, and also there would be an opportunity to have amendments.

I think the member from Timmins–James Bay has made a compelling case for a pension plan, and I certainly urge members of the Legislature—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much.

The member from Timmins–James Bay, you have a two-minute response.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, let me thank everybody for their comments and just end on this: It’s rather unfortunate, the rules we have in this House, that as a member I’m only afforded 10 minutes to speak because the standing orders say that after six and a half hours we drop from 20 minutes down to 10. It’s unfortunate, because at times—and I find myself in that position now—we have a number of members who wanted to speak. As a House leader, I want to make sure my people get their opportunity. It’s not always about the leadership speaking; you have to allow your members to participate fully. But it means that somebody gets short shrift down the road.

There are times when you legitimately have a debate about a bill that you’d like to have because there are things that I would have liked to have talked about that I didn’t get a chance because I only had 10 minutes. Now, I’ll be afforded the opportunity, I guess, to go to committee and put those thoughts at committee, hopefully by way of amendment. But I think it truly speaks to the problems that we have with the whole concept of having time allocation in the standing orders and the whole concept of limiting speeches to a degree.

I don’t think we can ever go back to what it was when I was here, where Mr. Bradley, the member for St. Catharines, would take the floor in opposition and speak for two days at a time because he was an eloquent speaker and he had things to say. But I do think that limiting to 10 minutes after six and a half hours is problematic and I think it’s something that at one point I hope the government could see its way of looking at: How do you afford members the ability to have their say legitimately in debate, in order to make whatever we’re doing here legislatively a better bill when it comes out of second reading and, finally, out of third?

The only other thing that I’ll say is, I think history has proven that the best system for people to be able to have retirement income has always been a mandatory pension system at work. That way, you’re able to provide.

To say that every citizen in Ontario is able to provide for their own, if they had the opportunity—first of all, a lot don’t have the opportunity, and some people just won’t do it because they’re doing other things.

Let’s see where this brings us.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me. I’m very honoured to speak on Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan—

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m just very reluctant, now that I see the government House leader speaking—just for your benefit, I want to remind you of two standing orders. One is standing order 14, which disallows out-of-order motions. I’ve had 19 members of my caucus who still want to speak to this bill. Nineteen members haven’t spoken. I just want you to realize, in case the minister talks about rule 23(c), “Repetition,” that there has been no repetition on our side—so, 14 and 23(c).

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I hear you clearly, but it’s not a point of order.

Minister?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. Some precious time got taken on things that I want to talk about, because this is a very important issue. This legislation would help create a savings tool for the people of our province, and it is designed to give people a secure floor they can rely on.

Speaker, I can assure you that in the last provincial election—that was less than a year ago, in May and June—this was an issue that was clearly articulated in our campaign platform. The need to have retirement income security, the need to create an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, was front and centre of our campaign. In fact, our Premier, while campaigning, spoke to this issue on many, many occasions. It was a commitment we made to the people of Ontario, that if we were re-elected as their government, we would bring in, by 2017, an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

I don’t need to remind you that during that campaign, or as a result of that election, the people of Ontario gave us a very strong majority mandate to act on our commitments, one of the big ones being the creation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

I can also share with you, Speaker, from my own experience in my own community of Ottawa Centre, that this is an issue that I had an opportunity to discuss many, many times with my constituents. From visiting constituents door to door to debates within the community to coffee meetings, this was an issue that came up often. A majority of my constituents support the creation of an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

Many people told me that the best way to deal with this is actually to enhance the CPP, the Canada Pension Plan, and I totally agree with them. I totally agree with them. I think this is the best way to ensure that we have retirement income security for hard-working Canadians who do not have a workplace pension plan, like the members here in this House, and who should benefit from an enhanced CPP. The Canada Pension Plan already exists, and we know that system works. But we also know that at the current level the CPP exists, it does not pay well. It does not allow somebody who will retire to live with dignity.

The best way to address that situation, that circumstance, is by enhancing the CPP.

We know that there has been a complete abdication of responsibility from this current federal government. They do not want to address that very important issue, even though we’ve got near unanimity across the country, among all Premiers, that they want to ensure, they want to see, some sort of enhancement of the CPP.

But we’ve seen again and again and again the federal government, the Prime Minister and the finance minister standing in the way of having a secure retirement income. So it does not leave us any choice. It does not leave us any choice but to move forward with the creation of an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan so that we are able to look after hard-working Ontarians who do not have the opportunity to save enough now, so that when they retire, they have sufficient income security.

The other point I make, Speaker, is that it helps us as a society. If those people do not have the means to live in a secure way in their retirement, who is going to help them? It will be us, the state. We would have to help them, because this is the kind of compassionate society we are. We have a social safety network in this province and in this country, thankfully. We will not let those people go homeless. We will not let them go to food banks. We would have to do something.

The cost of dealing with this issue later on, when those people are struggling or suffering, is going to be much higher than not taking action now. If we take action now, if we create this Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, we are going to be able to help a lot of people and save future costs.

Speaker, this is an important bill. As we know, we introduced this bill in December, as per our commitment. We have allowed debate on this bill to continue. We have reached six and a half hours of debate so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill. This bill has seen over 10 hours of debate and, according to my last count, we have had 64 MPPs who have spoken to this bill. There has been considerable debate on this bill, and we have heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives.

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order?

Mr. Steve Clark: There are four members of my caucus who haven’t spoken to that bill. They’re sitting here in the House waiting to speak to this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): That is not a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker.

As I said, there has been considerable debate. We’ve heard many points of view. It is time that we end second reading and take this bill to committee. Let’s have all our stakeholders come in and engage in a meaningful conversation—to hear from Ontarians from across the province on this very important bill. In committee, members will have the opportunity to speak, of course, and to hear from constituents, from stakeholders, from partners, from the province, and, of course, have the opportunity to move amendments to the bill.

At the same time, this House can move to substantive debate on other matters. There are a number of important pieces of legislation that are already introduced, which the government would like to debate in the House and move through the legislative process: things like Bill 6, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act; Bill 9, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act; Bill 37, the Invasive Species Act; Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act; Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act; Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act; and Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act.

We’d like to spend time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we cannot until Bill 56 is dealt with. As a result, Speaker, I move that this question now be put.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Given the duration of the debate to this point and the number of members who have been able to participate, I’m going to allow the motion.

Mr. Naqvi has moved that the question now be put.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be taken during deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Orders of the day.

Ontario Immigration Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’immigration en Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 18, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

An Act with respect to immigration to Ontario and a related amendment to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 49, Loi portant sur l’immigration en Ontario et apportant une modification connexe à la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with the members from Northumberland–Quinte West, Durham, and Mississauga–Streetsville.

I’m very pleased to speak to Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act. I’d like to say a few words about my community of Ottawa South, where I’ve lived all my life and have seen it change over some 50 years.

I come from a community that’s wonderfully and beautifully diverse. You can see it when you go into our schools. Often I go into schools, when we’re back during constituency weeks and on Fridays, and our schools are just a beautiful cultural mosaic. I think that we have in Ottawa South 140 different nationalities and over 70 languages, and you can see that in the schools. Ottawa South is also home to one of Canada’s largest Arabic-speaking populations. That happened through waves of immigration. It began 50, 60 years ago. There are many Lebanese immigrants who have built businesses and built up our community.

Actually, one of my predecessors in this seat, Dalton McGuinty Sr., had a saying. He didn’t like the term “new Canadian.” He said there are only new, newer and newest Canadians. What that meant is, this country was built on immigration. That’s what our strength is. We’ve brought the world together. That’s how we’ve built the community of Ottawa South; that’s how we’ve built Canada.

I’m pleased to support the changes that are in this bill. Of course, the overriding importance of this bill is its potential for economic benefit to our province. As a shared jurisdiction with the federal government, on immigration, they’ve made some recent changes.

Bill 49, if passed, would include a vision and objectives for immigration to Ontario; authority to establish and govern Ontario immigration selection programs; authority to establish and govern settlement and integration programs; authority to set targets for Ontario selection programs; authority to establish employer and recruiter registries; a compliance and enforcement regime; authority to directly or indirectly collect, use and disclose personal information to maintain program integrity and deter immigration fraud in Ontario selection programs.

Now I’d like to speak to one of the changes in this bill, which is the amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act to align requirements in the RHPA with those in the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act related to the timelines in decision-making and access to records. These changes were requested by the Fairness Commissioner.

I think we have all experienced in our communities people coming to our offices, or people that we meet at events, who have come to our country and have been trained as teachers, as nurses, as doctors, as engineers. They have made the effort to acquire these skills—another jurisdiction has supported them in acquiring these skills—but they can’t find work in their chosen field, in the thing they have decided to do with their life. We feel for people, because we understand how we would feel if we were in that position, if we were not able to use all our skills to the fullest extent of our abilities. There’s kind of a moral and ethical thing when you see that. You say, “That’s not just.”

The other thing that we have to consider is, it’s in our economic self-interest to support people who have skills that have been acquired and paid for in another jurisdiction, and all we need to do is either recognize those skills or help them get to the standards that we have here in our country. So I think this change in the bill is very important. It’s something I feel very, very strongly about, not only from the perspective of being fair to people but from the perspective that it’s an economic benefit to our province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: This particular piece of legislation, once we debate it and pass it—I think it has somewhat of a special meaning for me.

I’m an immigrant, Speaker. I was 12 years old. As of almost two weeks ago, 55 years ago, we landed in Halifax, so if one does the math, you know how old I am. My father came in 1959. My mother, my sister and I came in 1960.

We are so delighted—my family is; I’m sure other families across this province are—that not only Ontario but Canada has adopted us as Canadians. Shortly after, as soon we could qualify to become Canadians, we all became Canadians, all four of us.

It’s not that I don’t cherish my heritage, because I think heritage is very, very important. That’s where I was born, and, obviously, there are lots of ties. I still have a lot of relatives in my hometown where I was born.

Whenever I get an opportunity to talk about immigration, certainly it has got that side of me. I’m not pretending. As I speak, I’m living the vision.

Back then, immigrants gathered around large urban centres. Frankly, at that time, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, a lot of immigrants were of the construction type of immigrant, who worked very hard to build Ontario to what it is today. I remember my father—then, the labour laws weren’t as they are today. That’s not to say that workplaces where he worked took advantage of him. Certainly, they did the best they could.

For Ontario and Canada, immigration has become a staple. I think places like Ontario, like large urban centres, depend on immigration. It’s sort of a leaning post to an economic driver. It’s part of what drives our economy.

Today, I see immigration is much different than it was then. Then, as I said a minute ago, immigration centred around large urban centres—the Torontos, the Ottawas of this world—but today, immigration is spreading its wings. For example, in the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, Northumberland county is a portal, where potential immigrants who want to come to Ontario now have a place to explore the beautiful Northumberland county, with its seven municipalities. The city of Quinte West—I had a good chat with them just after the election in June. Obviously, they’re looking for immigration to expand their well-being.

I guess what I’m saying is that immigration has become more and more of a staple, as part of our economic drivers.

We know that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government; I think we all know that. But I think we need to be able to create, with this piece of legislation, what’s important to us here, to make sure that as we get into the selection process, we get the type of immigration that will work well for Ontario—and not to be selfish. When I talk about what has to work well for Ontario, and part of that Ontario mix, it’s those immigrants. In the immigration piece, for any immigrants who want to make Ontario their home, we want to make a special place where they feel at home.

It’s challenging. Sometimes I wonder, for example, what made my mother and father decide to come to Canada. It was obviously for a better life for them, but also for my sister and I, and we’re so, so grateful for that.

We’ve got to make sure that we have a piece of legislation at the end of the day that makes that transition as smooth as possible; that makes sure these immigrants who come to this great province, and this great country, land in a place they can call home, because we all want to feel at home at the end of the day.

Speaker, I would say to you that, as we debate this, I’m going to certainly pay close attention to make sure it hits those marks that are needed.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this obviously needs debate. Hopefully, we keep in mind also that we don’t use this as a political ploy, as we did with some other pieces of legislation, to just hold things up, because there are people who want to come to Ontario. There are people who want to call Ontario home.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Durham.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’m honoured to speak to this debate.

Immigration is vital to Ontario’s success and growth. Ensuring that it’s accountable and sustainable for current and future Ontarians is extremely important. Our demographics are slowly changing, and the Ontario of today owes itself, in large part, to the wonderful people who choose to call Ontario their new home. We must make sure that our province remains a viable option for people from around the world, and we must make sure that we are welcoming to those who want to bring their families here.

There are many difficulties faced by those who wish to immigrate to any part of this country. Much of that comes from the seemingly simple task of establishing yourself with a place to live and a place to work. There are usually many hurdles and hoops that one must jump through in order to achieve this legally and effectively. Offering programs for foreign nationals who wish to come here to work is an excellent way to re-evaluate how we help to welcome new Ontarians and new Canadians.

Giving them the opportunity to move more easily through the transitional period will give them more of a footing when they settle here and will give them a better chance at making a lasting effort to stay and become citizens.

Employers who employ foreign nationals will also benefit, in that they will have a streamlined way through the government to provide and offer working opportunities in a consistent and centralized way. This should make it easier for them to coordinate the process.

Of utmost importance are, of course, accountability and transparency. I am glad to see that the ministry is taking this into account. Providing for the inspection and investigation of new programs will be vital to ensuring, to those who participate in them, that the process is fair to existing Ontarians, who deserve to have faith in the system. Of even greater impact is the provision for appealing selection decisions, and giving a voice to those who may wish to become Ontarians, but feel they have missed their opportunity and wish to have their case heard.

Navigating the immigration process throughout our country is a joint effort. It is reassuring to know that we are doing our part as a province to make it work for those who wish to become Canadians. Working with the governments of Canada and of our fellow provinces and territories is necessary, but we must also ensure that the process is fair and equitable to Ontario and to all Ontarians. It is reassuring to know that our minister is taking the steps required to make sure that this is a reality.

Ontario is one of the greatest provinces in this country, although you might not hear that from the opposition. They try to tear Ontario down at every instance, but, as a government, our effort is to build Ontario up. That’s what we’re doing. Building Ontario up is welcoming new immigrants who can provide new skills to this great province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: It’s a pleasure to stand up and to join this particular debate, to talk about a natural resource that exists everywhere in the world but disproportionately chooses Canada.

As you read the news, you think to yourself: Gosh, it’s awfully gloomy everywhere else in the world and it seems like people are giving up hope in the country in which they were born. But they’re finding that very hope by coming to this country and this province and this region of this province.

In Ontario, when we talk about revising our policies and procedures regarding immigration, it’s because that’s one of the engines that has helped build Ontario. We are now the elephant in the room in terms of population and economy. We’re the biggest entity in the entire industrial heartland of North America, the Great Lakes and the Midwestern states. There is no state or province with more people in it than Ontario. There is no economy larger than that in Ontario.

A large part of what has made Ontario the economic engine of the heartland of North America has been the new Canadians who have arrived from all over the world with the capacity to do business everywhere in the world. We speak every language in the world. We understand the world’s customs. We know what the world needs. Moreover, when we talk about the process of attracting the best talent from everywhere in the world, of teaching them how to become passionate Canadians, of having them build our communities, we do it better than anywhere else in the world.

I was just reading the—

Applause.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Thank you.

I was reading an

article in the current edition of Foreign Affairs, a US publication. It was talking about the multicultural experience in Europe and the degree to which they were having problems with it. It brought back to mind some of the time I spent chairing the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly. Speaker, I know you’ve chaired this committee, so you can probably share this experience. We would have our incoming delegations from wherever and, along with the Speaker, the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly would be invited to lunch, to sit down with the elected members from—fill in the blanks, because they came from everywhere in the world.

They would walk around downtown Toronto and they would say, “We are just blown over by the diversity here in the province of Ontario.” And they would ask questions: “How do you go about doing this? How do we deal with attracting the best talent?” Then, the most important part, the settlement and integration: How do we enable new Canadians to get on with their lives so that there isn’t the generation that comes from the old country, regardless of what the old country is, that has to be a lost generation?

We know that the priorities of the generation that comes from the old country are pretty simple: Restart your career, get a place to live, get your kids in school and allow your family life to continue to go forward. At those lunches, we would talk about how we go about settlement and integration.

Inevitably, whoever was leading the delegation would often turn to me and say, “We could never do that where we come from.” That’s something that Ontario uniquely has in the world. It has been one of our big drivers in making us the most sought-after, the most prosperous place in North America. We can do that where we come from. We can take people who come from everywhere, who refer to the Almighty in every faith on the planet, who speak every language, who know every skill and trade. We can turn all of those people into part of our Ontario family within the same generation that they arrive. That’s what we’re here to do and do better.

The first thing this new Ontario Immigration Act seeks to do is to have a broader conversation, to say, even though we do this better than anywhere else in the world, let’s talk about that vision and objective so that we can keep doing this better than anywhere else in the world. That’s probably, more than anything else, the most important thing to do, because if we’re going to look at that horizon, it would be nice to say, “Let’s know what horizon we’re sailing toward.” That’s something that’s just a key part of this bill.

It also seeks to refine some of the laws and procedures that enable Ontario to select the best-quality newcomers and to be able to govern policies and procedures regarding settlement and integration. This is something that’s done unevenly. The federal government is absolutely hopeless in its programs for settlement and integration. It is just wretched, and there’s no better place to see that than in my home area of Peel region—at some of the money that is completely wasted by the federal government. We can do a lot better on this. Among the other things in this is the authority to set targets for Ontario’s selection program.

Speaker, I could do with a lot more time. I’m just getting warmed up, but I’m out of time. Before you cut me off, I just want to thank you for the opportunity.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I have at least two nurses here with RNAO. I’ve got Denise Wood from Gananoque in Leeds county and I have Jean Lambert from Bishops Mills in Grenville county. Welcome, nurses, to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: J’ai de la grande visite aujourd’hui. Directement de Nickel Belt, on a M me Lise Thomas et également le seul et unique Paul-André Gauthier, qui est avec l’Association des infirmières et infirmiers autorisés de l’Ontario. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

I also have a long list of visitors in the gallery, starting with: Stephanie Blaney; Una Ferguson; Janet Hunt; Claudette Holloway; the one and only Nathan Kelly; Patricia Sevean; Paula Manuel; Denise Wood; and Carol Timmings. All are members of the RNAO. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m also pleased to welcome members of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario to the Legislature this morning for their annual Queen’s Park day. I know there are a number of registered nurses joining us in the members’ gallery as well as in the public galleries, but I want to especially welcome Doris Grinspun, the CEO of RNAO; Vanessa Burkoski, the president of RNAO; and Rhonda Seidman-Carlson, the past president of RNAO. They have a great day planned for all of us. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As is usually what happens when we have a large group of visitors, I’m going to ask that we get through these as quickly as possible. I’m not going to say that I’ll do it as a blanket, because that didn’t work the last time, but I am going to ask members to be very brief with their introductions, and no editorials.

The member from Whitby–Oshawa.

Ms. Christine Elliott: I’d also like to welcome the members from RNAO to Queen’s Park today, and specifically welcome Stephanie Blaney, Una Ferguson, Janet Hunt, Claudette Holloway, Nathan Kelly and Angela Cooper Brathwaite. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Dianne Roedding from the Rainbow Nursing Interest Group membership executive today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Dianne.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislative Assembly today from the RNAO Thunder Bay delegation Michelle Spadoni, Carine Gallagher, Dawna-Marie Perry and Pat Sevean. Both my colleague Michael Gravelle and I were able to have breakfast with them this morning. We welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to recognize Megan Herron from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

I’d also like to give a shout-out to Minister Mauro, who was a class act and comported himself as I think we all should last night at the Osgoode conference.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m absolutely thrilled and pleased to welcome some members of the RNAO from Hamilton today. We have Irene Molinar, Darlene Sheremet and Leighanne Swance. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the family of one of our page captains, William Stuart, from the great riding of Kitchener-Centre. I would ask them to stand. They are: Dr. Christine Purdon; father Charles Stuart; big sister Mary Stuart, who also served as a page; grandmother Sylvia Purdon; cousin Laura Purdon; and godmother Mary Purdon. Welcome.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d like to welcome Fiona Proctor and Cindy Baker-Barill to Queen’s Park as members of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. We’re very proud of them.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome Chloé Robert, trustee with Conseil scolaire Viamonde. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m very pleased and proud to welcome to the House today members of the Halton

chapter of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, and in particular from my riding Karimah Alidina, Halton

chapter president. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Cheryl Yost, a neighbour of mine from the Monkton area, here with RNAO.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I have a nurse here as well. I’m delighted to welcome Paul Koniec, who works at CAMH.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I’d like to introduce to the Legislature today, once again, Mary Purdon, who is actually one of my constituents and works here at Queen’s Park for the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. She’s here with her family to see her nephew, William Stuart, who is the page captain here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to recognize Linda Holm from the RNAO and thank her for the invitation to breakfast this morning.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to introduce five members of the RNAO from the Windsor area who are in the gallery this morning: Debbie Kane, Kelly Lawrenson, Dana Boyd, Ore Ayo-Olaniyan and Jennifer Johnston, who is celebrating a birthday today. Welcome to question period this morning.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to welcome members from the Peel region RNAO: Jennifer Bintakies and Maria Harrison. Thank you for joining us.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce, from my local RNAO chapter, Katie Wright. I’m sorry I missed breakfast, but I’ve talked to Katie. Katie, if you’re here, welcome.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would like to introduce Barbara Hall, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Barbara’s husband, Max, is here, I think, and there are a number of her commissioners here. Welcome.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to welcome from OREA, the Ontario Real Estate Association, Adam Yahn and Brian Graham.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Ottawa caucus, to introduce a group that we had the pleasure of meeting this morning with the RNAO: Mrs. Cecile Diby, Sandra Stec, Alwyn Moyer and Una Ferguson.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I have the pleasure of introducing Nathalie DiLabio from SD&G, my riding. She attends St. Lawrence College and is the president of the nursing students association. Welcome.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I just want to recognize Katherine Dunford of the RNAO. I had the opportunity to sit with her for breakfast this morning.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to welcome three constituents from London West: Janet Hunt and Pam Bushell from RNAO; and Laura Vita, a nursing student from Western.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome members of the Halton

chapter of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario this morning. Here with us today are Leanne Siracusa and Krystle Prior. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: On behalf of Kingston and the Islands, I welcome, from the RNAO, Megan Laan and nursing student Yessica Rivera Belsham. Welcome.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Julie Rubel, who is an RNAO member from St. Catharines.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would like to welcome Lynn Anne Mulrooney and Cathy Lacroix, and also the members of the RNAO environment committee, for the great work they’re doing on climate change and on toxins.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d just like to welcome the RNAO delegation from Etobicoke Centre. There are three constituents, two of whom I met this morning: Angela De Guzman, Taissa Pavliuc and Ingrid Dresher. Thank you for coming.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome the members of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario who are with us today. I enjoyed having breakfast with Hilda, who I’ve known for a very long time, and with nursing student Linna Feng—I want to give a particular welcome to her, and also to Maggie Sicilia, from York South–Weston.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to introduce commissioners from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal who are here with Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall: Ruth Goba, Fernand Lalonde, Julie Lee, Lawrence McDermott, Errol Mendes, Fiona Sampson, Bhagat Taggar and the executive director, Dianne Carter. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I just wanted to take this opportunity to introduce the members of the RNAO from my riding with whom I had breakfast this morning, from my riding: Carmen, Sonya, Claudette and a student, Llanto.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I understand, Speaker, one of our model parliamentarians has come back for a second round and he happens to be my constituent Brian Hopkins, from Guelph.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I would like to welcome a constituent of mine, Bhagat Taggar, who is here, and also all of the members of the RNAO from Scarborough–Guildwood.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker, for giving me some good exercise today of getting up and down, up and down; it’s great.

Two quick introductions: First I want to recognize again Professor Errol Mendes, who is a commissioner of human rights. He’s a former professor of law of mine from the University of Ottawa and a constituent. Professor Mendes, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Also, on behalf of the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, I want to welcome the family of page captain Arlyne James: her father, George James; grandfather Bill James; and uncle Paul James, who are in the members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to introduce two members of the RNAO from Sault Ste. Marie: Stephanie Blaney and Jennifer Flood. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? My goodness, we got them.

I too would like to welcome the members from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario from my riding and thank them for the breakfast.

Also, we have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation of members of Parliament and Deputy Speaker from Sweden. We welcome the members for their visit here and we thank them very much.

Applause.

Use of props in the House

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I saw something this morning just before question period that I will be working on very quickly—I advise strongly against it—the use of props. If it happens, I’ll deal with it immediately.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much to the interim Leader of the Opposition for the question. He knows that I take this matter very seriously. He also knows that Greg Sorbara was an elected official and was a minister of the crown. So he knows these are very different situations.

As I say, I’ve taken, and I do take, this matter very seriously. Elections Ontario determined that the allegations against me and the member for Sudbury were baseless, Mr. Speaker. We’ll continue to co-operate fully, but I just remind the member opposite that this is an investigation that is not taking place in this Legislature. It’s an investigation that’s taking place outside the Legislature, and we will continue to work with the authorities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: Your Deputy Premier said that the Premier “will not force the resignation of someone when the allegations against that person are baseless....” Now, Premier, I need not remind you—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Who are you taking to the woodshed today?

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: —that that statement completely contradicts the findings of the Chief Electoral Officer. When a minister or Premier’s office is under police investigation, former Minister Sorbara had wise words when he said, “Meanwhile it’s appropriate for me to step aside from my responsibilities while the investigation occurs.” Premier, why is it not appropriate for your deputy chief of staff to step aside? The media call her, next to yourself, the most powerful woman in the province of Ontario. She’s as important as a cabinet minister, and probably makes more decisions than cabinet ministers in your government. So why is it not appropriate that she step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s interesting to hear the commentary from the member opposite, which I think actually reveals more about how he sees government working than it does about how government works from our perspective.

I want to just remind the member opposite what the Chief Electoral Officer said. The Chief Electoral Officer clearly stated: “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.” So, Mr. Speaker, the investigations are entirely independent. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has been retained. We will continue to work with the authorities, but that investigation takes place outside of this House.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: Your Deputy Premier has said that the Premier “has demonstrated a new and different and better way ... of dealing with opposition allegations.” But the Chief Electoral Officer said that he has found a prima facie case of contravention of the Election Act, and he sent it on for further process and prosecution.

Premier, these are not “opposition allegations.” These are findings of an independent officer of this Legislature. The investigation is not happening outside this Legislature; in fact, it’s happening just down the hall, in your office.

By continuing to stand by Pat Sorbara, you’re embarrassing the office you hold and you are degrading the reputation of every elected member in this House, because people are starting to think this is simply business as usual. Mr. Speaker, this is Liberal business as usual.

Premier, will you finally have Ms. Sorbara step aside?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, while I’ve made repeated statements on this matter—I made a statement on Friday; I’ve answered questions in House—there’s an investigation under way. I’ll continue to co-operate with the process, but that process is entirely independent of government. It’s independent of this House, and the member opposite knows that.

I understand the back-and-forth of question period. I understand it very well, but I really believe that accusing people of being criminals when there’s an investigation going on is wrong. Just to remind the members opposite, what the electoral officer said is, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.” So it is entirely inaccurate to say that the elections officer has made a finding in this case, Mr. Speaker. The electoral officer has left that to prosecutors and judges.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: The Ontario Civilian Police Commission has said that all police service board members “have an obligation to respect, uphold and follow the law. While this is true for every citizen, it is even more so for individuals who have the legislated responsibility for ensuring ‘law enforcement and crime prevention’ in their community.”

Premier, as you ignore the calls for you to have Gerry Lougheed resign, you also ignore the higher standard that is expected of Mr. Lougheed as chair of the Sudbury police services board. So will you finally do the right thing and ask Gerry Lougheed to step aside?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated. Thank you. The interjections while I’m trying to get quiet are not acceptable.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said this, and I will say it again: We do not direct police services boards. They are responsible for the provision of adequate and effective police services in their municipalities. I understand—

Mr. Steve Clark: The minister can ask for an investigation. It’s right there in the act.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that the Sudbury police services board addressed this issue and voted for Mr. Lougheed to remain, and they will continue to make the determinations that they see to be appropriate. The investigation is ongoing. We will continue to co-operate and we will work with the authorities, but that investigation is happening outside of this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: The Ontario Civilian Police Commission says that members of police service boards have “a responsibility to conduct themselves with the ‘utmost circumspection and prudence’” and are expected to have “the highest levels of honesty and integrity,” and that this is most certainly the case for board chairs.

Premier, while your appointee, Gerry Lougheed, is under two OPP investigations, his honesty and integrity are being called into question. I’ll ask you: Don’t you think the residents of Sudbury deserve, as chair of their police services board, a person who is above suspicion and held to the same standards to which other police services board members and board chairs are held?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for the question.

I’ve spoken to this issue before. Police services boards are accountable to their local communities. That’s why we have police services boards, so that they can provide oversight for the local police services, so that they can ensure they provide adequate and effective policing within their jurisdictions. That’s why, as we have seen in the case of Sudbury, the local police services board, which is made up of both municipal and provincial appointees, has looked into the matter and decided to keep Mr. Lougheed as chair of the board. We should respect that decision of theirs.

If there needs to be any further looking into this matter, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission is very well equipped, as an arm’s-length body, to look into the matter.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: To the Premier: The Ontario Civilian Police Commission has also said that “an obligation of the board to obey the law necessitates an effort to ensure the propriety of their actions when the question arises.” I think we can all agree in this House that the propriety of Mr. Lougheed’s actions has arisen. In addition to Mr. Lougheed’s normal responsibilities the board goes on to say he, or a board chair, “has a leadership role.”

Premier, you have a leadership role. Will you show some leadership, do the right thing, get rid of these bad apples, get rid of the person who’s chairing the police services board in Sudbury, who is under suspicion? Just clear the air, let the police do their job, let the courts do their job—let everyone have their day in court, and save your own reputation in the process.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think the member is fully aware, and I’ve stated before in this House, there is a code of conduct that is put in place through regulation and it’s up to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which has the responsibility to ensure that there are no breaches to the code of conduct. That is an appropriate process to have because it’s at arm’s-length from the government. The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has no authority to suspend or remove a member of the police services board.

I suggest that the members in this House refrain from being judge and jury and everything in between and let the independent process, as we’ve said—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark, come to order—second time.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —through legislation, do their work.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier seems to think that Liberals did nothing wrong when Andrew Olivier was being offered a job. According to her convoluted logic, she seems to believe that what happened in Sudbury was actually noble, but when she’s been asked who ordered this noble deed, she refuses to answer. It doesn’t make sense. If she feels everything is okay, then there shouldn’t be any problem whatsoever in answering the question: Who directed that Andrew Olivier be offered a job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, as the member opposite knows, I challenge the premise of the question. I’ve said it many, many times. I take this situation very seriously.

There is an investigation going on, but that investigation is not going on in this House. It’s going on with the authorities outside of the Legislature. We will continue to work with them. But I’ve said I take it seriously and we’ll do everything in our power to work with the authorities and make sure they get all the information that they request.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier doesn’t see any problems at all with offering Andrew Olivier “a full-time or a part-time job at a constituency office or appointments to boards or commissions.” If the Premier thinks there’s nothing wrong, will she tell Ontarians who made the decision to dangle these jobs in front of Andrew Olivier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, the member opposite knows that I have talked about this in the House and outside of the House. I have talked about the fact that I made a decision that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate in Sudbury. We’re very happy to have him. It was a tough decision for Glenn, to run for us and leave the NDP, but he made that decision, and we’re very pleased to have him with us. He will be a strong, strong voice for Sudbury.

There is an investigation going on. That investigation is happening outside of this House. We’ll work with the authorities, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last year, the Premier said, “Here was what was top of mind ... when I came into this office: How are we going to ... make sure ... questions that are being asked are going to be answered?” Good question.

My question isn’t complicated, but it’s very serious, and the Premier has refused to answer it 31 times. The Premier insists there was no wrongdoing in Sudbury, so I’m not sure why she’s refusing to answer a basic question: Who gave Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed those noble instructions to offer Andrew Olivier a job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, and I will read again what the Chief Electoral Officer stated—I remind the member opposite that Elections Ontario determined that the allegations against me and the member for Sudbury were baseless. He went on to say, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

The leader of the third party has decided that she understands everything about what happened. She has got her own narrative and her own reasons for raising it in the way that she does. I understand those reasons. She’s in a very tough spot. They didn’t win the by-election in Sudbury, and I know that’s a real problem for them.

The fact is, there is an investigation going on. It’s happening outside of this House. I will work with the authorities outside of this House.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier says that she made up her mind to appoint her candidate back in November, but as of December 12, her deputy chief of staff didn’t know, her campaign director didn’t know, the local Liberal kingmaker didn’t know, Andrew Olivier didn’t know, the local riding association didn’t know. In fact, nobody seemed to know. Does the Premier have any evidence to back up her story?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, once again, I’ve made repeated statements on this matter. I made a statement on Friday that is in the public realm, and the leader of the third party can read it. Again, I’ll repeat what I said there. I said that there’s an investigation under way. That process is entirely independent of government and of this House. We respect the process, and I hope that the opposition parties do the same. We will work with the authorities outside of this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier says that she decided to appoint her candidate back in November. She can’t seem to find any evidence for her story.

On Tuesday, the Deputy Premier said, “The Premier listens to advice and then she has a conversation with her soul....”

Did the Premier have a conversation with anyone, other than her soul, about this decision, and can she back that up with evidence?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows full well that I have been very clear about what I decided in Sudbury. I decided that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate.

There is an investigation going on. That investigation is happening outside of this Legislature.

I am very proud of our new MPP for Sudbury. I am very proud of Glenn Thibeault. Glenn has been a strong advocate for the people of Sudbury. He ran for us because he knows how important it is to invest in people, in their talent and their skills; how important it is to invest in infrastructure. He knows that there’s infrastructure that the people of Sudbury need in order for Sudbury to be able to thrive. He knows that it’s important that people have some security in their retirement. That’s why he ran for us, and that’s why we’re pleased to have him as our member, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Nearly two years ago, the Premier said this: “Throughout the run-up to the leadership, I said that it was absolutely imperative that we open up the process and that we provide information....” That’s not a very lofty goal; it’s just the basics of good government. This is the 13th time the Premier has been asked for evidence, and Ontarians have still not got an answer.

Now, I think it’s absolutely imperative that the Premier opens up and provides information. Can the Premier provide any evidence at all that supports her version of the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me just speak to the first part of the question that the member opposite has raised, that is, the issues that I raised when I was running in leadership and my intention and then my commitment and my follow-through to open up the process that was ongoing at that point. I did that.

The scope of the justice committee was expanded. There were hundreds of thousands of documents that were brought before that committee. Dozens of witnesses came and talked about the situation of the cancellation of the gas plants. That process was opened up, and we changed the rules in terms of retention of documents and in terms of the siting of large energy infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I did exactly what I said I was going to do. I said we were going to change the process. We were going to open it up. That’s what I did.

In this particular investigation, as I’ve said, it’s happening outside of this House, and we’ll co-operate with the authorities.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. As one of your chief advisers, Ms. Patricia Sorbara must listen to a lot of your phone calls. On tape, she told Mr. Olivier that the Premier knew “how massive” of an ask this is. Sorbara told Mr. Olivier, “You’re ... the third person I’ve ever heard ... ask this of.” There was a lot of asking from your office, but not a lot of telling.

Premier, who are the other two people you asked to step aside? And did Ms. Sorbara offer them any appointments?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the investigation is happening outside of this House, and I will fully, fully co-operate and work with the authorities, as we all will. But the fact is that that investigation is not happening inside this House. It’s a completely independent process. It’s independent of government, and it’s independent of this Legislature. We’ll work with the authorities outside this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: My supplementary is back to the Premier. It’s well known that Andrew Olivier wasn’t the only person seeking the Liberal Sudbury nomination. The recorded call said that Gerry Lougheed and Patricia Sorbara talked to Marianne Matichuk about the nomination. Mr. Lougheed said, “Now Marianne ... has to just... get lost.”

Premier, did your operatives tell Ms. Matichuk to just get lost? Or did they also offer her jobs, appointments or whatever?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Good morning, Speaker. I really do want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ontario PC Party on being the cover story of the current issue of National Geographic magazine.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will remind us all that my job is to try to reach some decorum in this place. I’d like all members to be helpful with that. Having done so, we would be able to finish our question-and-answer period in a way in which I know that everyone would want us to.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, it’s a sincere congratulations. “The War on Science” article—this issue is on newsstands now. I would be happy to pass my copy off to you, maybe for your signature, Speaker.

I do think that the notion that—“Evolution Never Happened” is a cover story here; “Climate Change Does Not Exist.” This is a wonderful synopsis of the PC Party of Ontario, and I want to say congratulations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I remind everyone what I said about props.

Carry on, please.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. On December 12, Pat Sorbara said to Andrew Olivier, “You’ve been directly asked by the leader and the Premier to make a decision to step aside to allow Glenn to have the ... opportunity uncontested.”

Is that what the Premier, in her soul, had discussed before giving Pat Sorbara her instructions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Once again, Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times this morning, the investigation is taking place outside of this House. I take this matter very, very seriously, and I’ve spoken to it repeatedly. Elections Ontario has made a decision. They determined that the allegations against me and the member for Sudbury were baseless. The Chief Electoral Officer said this: “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

So the fact is, that process has gone into the next phase, and that is the investigation that is taking place now. But it’s taking place outside of this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Let’s do some more soul-searching. On December 11, Gerry Lougheed said to Andrew Olivier, “So I come to you on behalf of the Premier and on behalf of”—yes—“Thibeault more indirectly, to ask you if you would consider stepping down—even more than that, Andrew, nominating him.” Is that what the Premier and her soul had discussed before giving Gerry Lougheed his instructions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is asking me whether I wanted Andrew Olivier to be involved in the party, I’ve said that many times. I wanted to keep him involved, as I hope the party opposite is working to keep their past candidate involved. I think it’s important for leaders and members to reach out to people who have either lost an election or who have not been involved, to bring them back into the fold. I have said repeatedly that I think that that is a responsibility of leaders of a party.

But in terms of this particular situation, the investigation is happening outside of this House, and we’ll continue to work with the authorities.

Human rights

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is to the Premier as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Speaker, human rights are an essential staple in any democracy, and all Ontarians have a right to live free from discrimination, inequality and intolerance. The protection of human rights is a fundamental principle in this province.

This government has taken the most significant steps to strengthen our human rights in some 40 years to better ensure dignity and justice for all Ontarians. Our strengthened human rights system supports these rights by better enforcing the Ontario Human Rights Code and ensuring dignity by providing timely and efficient access to justice for those who face discrimination. Unfortunately, I don’t feel that this excellent leadership gets the appropriate notice. Mr. Speaker, through you, can the Premier as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, enlighten this House on how this government has ensured human rights are ensured for every Ontarian?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member for the question, and I also agree that the defence of human rights is an essential part of our community and our role. I want to take this opportunity to thank Barbara Hall for her work as chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Thank you, Barbara.

Mr. Speaker, over the past decade, Barbara oversaw the work of the OHRC during the transition of Ontario’s human rights system. The OHRC’s mandate changed to focus on the big issues, looking for the roots of discrimination. Under the leadership of Ms. Hall, the commission tackled many challenges, some that were new and some that had been around for some time.

There are three particular areas that stand out to me: housing; mental disabilities, including addictions; and gender identity and gender expression. People didn’t necessarily see the human rights value in these areas right away, but thanks to the hard work of Barbara and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, we’ve made great, great improvements for some of Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Premier for her answer. The work that has been accomplished in this area is truly honourable, and it’s a model for all other jurisdictions to follow.

I still feel as though this progress in an essential area of our province needs to be brought to the attention of not only the residents of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, but of all the residents of Ontario. I understand that, in 2008, the Ontario government commissioned a report in order to maximize the potential of the human rights system throughout this province.

Will the Premier in her capacity as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs elaborate on the expanded mandate of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and what areas have been changed during the wonderful tenure of Ms. Hall? I’m sure this House would be very appreciative to know what progress has been made.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore for his work at the municipal level. I know that he will carry that work on provincially.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission addresses the underlying causes of discrimination—that’s what they exist to do. Through education, policy development and research, the commission works to preserve the spirit of tolerance that has long characterized Ontario.

Homeless people, people with mental health disabilities or transgendered people often didn’t even know that they had human rights and didn’t know what their rights were; and employers, service providers and educators didn’t know that they had responsibilities. The OHRC was part of a process to address these issues and to help break down barriers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my appreciation for the hard work and dedication of Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall. After more than 30 years as a community worker, lawyer, municipal politician and public servant, Barbara Hall will now be entering the next phase of her life.

Barbara, on behalf of all Ontarians, I want to thank you for your devotion to public service. Thank you very much.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, on Tuesday, in your absence, the Attorney General stated that under

section 25 of the Police Services Act, you as Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services are unable to ask a member of the police services board to resign. That may be true, but that’s not the question that was asked.

Minister, will you ask the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the independent oversight body of Ontario police services boards, to investigate the inappropriate actions of Mr. Gerry Lougheed as laid out in the Chief Electoral Officer’s report?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I would have hoped that the member would have used his valuable time to talk about his private member’s bill, Ryan’s Law, but he chooses to talk about issues that are not relevant to the lives and the well-being of Ontarians—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Stop the clock. While I’m at it, I’ll remind all members that we don’t make reference to someone’s attendance here.

Interjection.

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

Continue.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I have stated on numerous occasions before and a couple of times today, we know, in the case of the Sudbury police board, that they’ve looked at the matter, and they’ve decided to keep Mr. Lougheed as the chair of the board. We need to respect the jurisdiction of the local police service while an investigation is ongoing. If anyone feels that there has been a breach of the code of conduct of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, they have the authority to initiate an investigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: Minister, it’s inappropriate and very insulting to the people of Ontario to say that the decision to keep Mr. Lougheed as chair was made by the Greater Sudbury Police Services Board. That wasn’t their call to make. Only the Ontario Civilian Police Commission can decide whether Mr. Lougheed gets to keep his job or not.

Minister, you know that if the Ontario Civilian Police Commission starts an investigation, Mr. Lougheed must step aside until the investigation is done and any subsequent hearings are heard. Why won’t you ask for this investigation? What are you afraid Mr. Lougheed would say if you did?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, on this side of the chamber, we respect the process. We respect the independence of our investigative bodies. There’s a reason that bodies like the Ontario Civilian Police Commission are created: so that there is a separation from decisions that are made by the government, the political arm of the government, and that of other independent agencies. Under

section 25 of the Police Services Act, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission has the authority to initiate investigations and to look at the code of conduct. We should leave those matters to those independent bodies because it is within their jurisdiction.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. I know that the season of House of Cards is coming out tomorrow, but I’m not sure the Liberals realize that it’s not actually a documentary. As much as Frank Underwood intrigues us, behaving like him is beneath the office of the Premier of Ontario.

When will the Premier start showing a little bit of respect for Ontarians and tell the people of our province who gave Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed their instructions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reason I made the statement that I did on Friday and was very clear about the situation, and made that publicly outside of this House, was out of respect for the people of Ontario. Out of respect—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sergeant-at-Arms, confiscate the property.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. What I said in that statement is that I take this very seriously. I said Pat Sorbara will continue to fully co-operate with the authorities as the investigation unfolds. I said that clearly. I said that if charges were laid, then Pat Sorbara would of course step aside. On our review, we don’t think that’s going to happen, but that will be up to others to decide, which is exactly what the Chief Electoral Officer has said.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Deputy Premier this week said that she was bored of question period. I’m so sorry that the Liberal government believes that democracy is boring. It’s clear that the Liberals believe that they’re above the law, and apparently they’re above answering our questions.

The Premier has a choice. She can continue to avoid answering our questions or she can treat Ontarians with the respect that they deserve. The question is this: Who gave Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed their instructions to offer Andrew Olivier a job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have a deep respect for question period. I have a deep respect for the democratic process. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I’m here answering the questions over and over again.

As I said in my statement on Friday, Pat Sorbara will continue to fully co-operate with the authorities as the investigation unfolds.

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member for Nipissing is heckling about the retention of information. I think the member for Nipissing knows perfectly well that we have changed the rules here. We have trained our staff. Everyone knows that we’ve changed those rules on the advice of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I just don’t think he should get away with that, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Correctional services

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: This question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, last month you announced a significant change to corrections policy that relates to transgendered inmates. Previously, inmates in Ontario were housed based on their primary sexual characteristics. They were unable to express their gender identity by selecting their own clothing and personal pronouns.

The people of Ontario understood that it was time to change this outdated policy. In our province, everyone should be free from discrimination and harassment. In our province, we want to make sure that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay, come to order.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: —everyone has rights. This means that the transgendered inmates housed in our—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you have it a second time, it will cost you.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: —must be given dignity and respect.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister explain the change in Ontario’s policy towards transgendered inmates?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member from Sudbury for the opportunity for me to share this very important milestone.

Last month, I was proud to announce a new policy for transgendered inmates in our correctional facilities. This policy builds on Toby’s Act and aligns practices with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Ontario Human Rights Commission guidelines. I want to take this opportunity to thank the commissioner, Barbara Hall, and the commission for their ongoing guidance on this very important issue.

Speaker, this policy will ensure that transgendered inmates are placed in an institution appropriate to their gender identity. They will be called by their preferred name and gender pronoun, and they will be provided the opportunity to choose the gender of staff performing searches. During these searches, they will be given privacy.

This policy was developed through extensive consultations across the province with civil rights groups and correctional working groups.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Minister, for your work in bringing the north to the table to consult on this important subject. I know many people and organizations, including the police service in my great riding of Sudbury, have put a lot of time into this issue.

This policy supports the government’s obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code by helping to protect the rights of transgendered inmates. However, there are still some who may be concerned for the safety of transgendered inmates in our institutions.

Minister, you have stated that the safety and security of all inmates and staff is one of your top priorities, so it is vital that the rights of transgendered inmates are protected and their security safeguarded as well.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister explain what measures will be taken to ensure the safety of transgendered inmates while they are in our correctional facilities?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Indeed, the safety and security of all our inmates and staff is a top priority of mine and the government.

Speaker, in order to ensure their proper care, placement and safety, transgendered inmates will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Inmates will be consulted during the accommodation process. This will help determine the best housing option for the inmate. Instead of being isolated, transgendered inmates will be integrated into the general population, when possible, if that is their preference.

We had extensive consultations on this issue, including with trans activists from Sudbury and the Sudbury police service. One trans advocate from Sudbury recently called these rights the most progressive anywhere in North America.

Speaker, protecting the rights of transgendered inmates is an important step as we transform corrections in Ontario and build even safer communities.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Ted Arnott: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Last year’s throne speech contained at least one accurate statement: that in government “trust is hard-earned, but easily lost.” How does the Premier expect the people of Ontario to trust her when she refuses to dismiss a top aide who appears to have broken Ontario’s election law in the Sudbury by-election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, that is up to the people of Ontario, and it is up to the people of every riding in the province. It’s up to the people of Sudbury, for example, to make their decisions.

What I have to do is I have to tell the people of Ontario what I’m doing and when I’m doing it.

On the issue that the member opposite has raised, I’ve been very clear: Pat Sorbara will continue to fully co-operate with the authorities as the investigation unfolds. If charges are laid, then Pat Sorbara, of course, would step aside. I have said that publicly, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat that, and I reinforce that we will work with the authorities. But that investigation is taking place outside of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Police services boards are responsible for governing and overseeing the delivery of police services. As such, their members should be held to the highest standards of integrity. When Elections Ontario concludes that a provincial appointee to a police services board appears to have broken the law, which is exactly what they wrote in their report, the Premier cannot pretend that this is just another day at the office.

Again, to quote the throne speech, “Trust is hard-earned, but easily lost.” Mr. Speaker, how on earth does the Premier of Ontario expect the people of Ontario to trust her when she continues to express confidence in the police services board chair, who appears to have broken Ontario’s election law in the Sudbury by-election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, it’s obvious by the number of questions on this issue that members opposite are very concerned and very passionate about integrity in government. What I would like to ask them is, where were they in 2011 when four Harper Conservatives were investigated, charged, pled guilty and were fined for violations of the elections act? None of them—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Leeds–Grenville will desist, the member from Dufferin–Caledon will desist, and the member from Nepean–Carleton will desist.

Interjections.

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

Complete your answer, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: So my question is, if they are so concerned and so passionate, where were they in 2011?

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier, of course. It’s not just the opposition party that’s saying the government’s behaviour is wrong, Premier; it’s also the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Waterloo Record and the Hamilton Spectator.

Earlier this week, the Sudbury Star published an editorial which ran under the headline “Wynne’s Actions Shameful During Sudbury Debacle.” The Premier seems to think she can ignore the scandal—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: —but she’s being called out by voices all over this province. Will she come clean and will she start telling the true story?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been taking this seriously from the beginning. I absolutely understand that it is extremely important for me to be very clear in this House and outside of this House with the public. I think to suggest that I’m not taking this seriously is just not accurate. I am absolutely taking it seriously. I’ve been clear that unlike—the Deputy Premier just went through an example where quite the opposite of what we’re doing was taking place under the Harper Conservatives.

I’ve said that Pat Sorbara will continue to work with the authorities, but if there’s a charge laid, then of course she would step aside. That’s not what happened in Ottawa, and I’ve been very clear that that is the action that we’re taking. In the meantime, we will work with the authorities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: The Sudbury Star goes on to say, “One would have expected Wynne to be more contrite, given the bombshell. She should have had the grace to look at least a little penitent.

“Instead, Wynne lashed out....”

The Liberals are on the wrong side of the scandal, and everyone knows it but the Premier. Will the Premier show some contrition and start telling Ontarians the truth?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have been speaking about this repeatedly. I take this matter very seriously. Let’s just be clear: There have been a couple of processes under way. Elections Ontario determined that the allegations against me and the member for Sudbury were baseless. We’ll continue to fully co-operate as the Elections Ontario examination moves to the next phase. But the Chief Electoral Officer clearly stated, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

The process has moved to the next stage. We will work with the authorities in that phase of the investigation, but that investigation is happening outside of this Legislature.

Mining industry

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I know that Ontario is the top jurisdiction in Canada for mineral exploration and I’m very proud to be part of a government that understands the importance of the north and the importance of the mining sector for our province.

As some of us may know, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada will be holding its highly anticipated 2015 annual convention here in Toronto next week. Can the Minister of Northern Development and Mines please update this House with respect to this annual convention and explain how it is showcasing Ontario’s mining sector?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I thank the member for Davenport for giving me an opportunity to speak about the Prospectors and Developers Association conference, PDAC, which starts this coming Sunday. It’s a remarkable convention. There are over 25,000 attendees from over 100 countries, and it’s a tremendous opportunity for us, the province of Ontario, to showcase the many successes of the province’s mining sector.

We will be kicking off PDAC this comi