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

May 3, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-May-03 (PDF)

L167 - Tue 3 May 2016 / Mar 3 mai 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 May 2016 Mardi 3 mai 2016

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Visitors

Joan Fawcett

Oral Questions

Nuclear energy

Autism treatment

Electoral reform

Health care funding

Child Protection Information Network

Social Assistance Management System

Children and youth mental health services

Social Assistance Management System

Labour dispute

Education funding

Autism treatment

Child protection

Public transit

Climate change

Correction of record

Birth of member’s grandchild

Legislative interns

Visitors

Legislative pages

Special Olympics athletes

Display of fire helmet

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Mental health services

Niagara-on-the-Lake fire department

Streetsville Village Litter Blitz

Polish Constitution Day

Public transit

Hospice care

Hydro rates

Volunteer service awards

Polish Constitution Day

Visitor

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Probation and parole officers / Agents de probation et de libération conditionnelle

Correctional services staff

Correctional services staff

Probation and parole officers

Correctional services staff / Probation and parole officers

Petitions

Health care funding

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Hydro rates

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Long-term care

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Autism treatment

Health care funding

Prix de l’essence

Environmental protection

Hospital funding

Automotive dealers

Orders of the Day

Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois concernant les services financiers de rechange

Adjournment Debate

Gasoline prices

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Government order G186.

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order.

Mr. Steve Clark: I don’t believe a quorum is present.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we have a quorum?

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 2, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 186,

An Act to establish the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan / Projet de loi 186, Loi établissant le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill 186. I’ve talked about it, obviously, for many years.

I will seek permission from my caucus colleagues as well as the members of the other caucuses to divert from the bill for a moment as I thank members in this assembly for their wonderful support over the past 48 hours, after I revealed publicly on Sunday that I had struggled with mental illness.

It has been incredible to come to this work environment where, at points, we have fierce debate and don’t always agree, but, over the past day and a half, members from all political parties came over, including the Speaker, to give me a hug and tell me that they have in fact struggled with this themselves or that they have somebody in their family. I wanted to say thank you to everybody before I start the debate.

Applause.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you. It’s not necessary.

Secondly, I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Oxford.

My caucus colleagues and I have been opposed to this pension scheme almost since its inception, before details were announced and then after this piece of legislation was finally brought forward. Our recommendation is that the government not move forward with this. We are not only going to oppose this bill as we move to a vote, but when we are elected in 2018, we will also repeal it and refund the money.

That was a decision our leader, Patrick Brown, took when our party met in my city in March at our party convention to discuss policy. I think it was very popular among Progressive Conservatives, but I think it’s also popular among others. I believe that even the former Premier of Ontario’s son—Dalton McGuinty’s son—suggested that this wasn’t the right time to put forward something that could be considered a massive payroll tax in the province of Ontario.

As I’ve sat in this Legislature for 10 years, which I was able to mark on May 1, I’ve seen this government bring in extraordinary tax hikes that have burdened the people of Nepean–Carleton and have burdened people across all of this province. I refer to this: The first bill I didn’t support and was able to vote against was the massive health tax that they brought onto this province. That was the largest income tax increase in Canadian history. They then brought in the single largest sales tax increase in Ontario history when they brought in the HST.

They didn’t make it revenue-neutral, so they were taking in roughly $4 billion more per year than they had been previously. So the government, I think, put a burden on the people that way.

We now see the way they’re bringing in their carbon pricing, or their carbon tax. It will be the single largest gas tax in Ontario’s history. Again, just like the HST and just like the health tax, this is simply going into general revenue. It won’t be going into environmental programs.

That brings us now to this massive payroll tax, the single largest payroll tax that Ontario will be bringing in. There will be people in this province who will think they have security from this pension, but they really won’t, and it will be many years before those who are affected will have the opportunity to withdraw from it. I think it would be advantageous if the government took a more balanced approach and considered that the ORPP not undermine any existing plans or continue to disadvantage workers and investment.

I think that if you look at this bill, there’s a very real risk that Ontario workers will end up being worse off if their employers with already attractive pension plans find themselves unable to continue those plans because they are required to be part of the ORPP. That, to me, says that not only is there a risk that workers will be disadvantaged, but I also believe it’s a job-killing payroll tax because we’re now putting an additional burden on employers. It will hinder the ability of the private sector to do what it does best; that is, provide jobs and opportunities for people who can strengthen our economy and attract investment.

Unfortunately, we’re in a position, in the province of Ontario, where this government and its job-killing policies with respect to taxation have driven well over 300,000 manufacturing jobs out of the province, and I’m starting to recognize this. The reality of all your tax hikes that have fancy names and lofty goals is that the people of Nepean–Carleton are now seeing themselves coming to my office, looking for contacts to go to the food bank. I’ve seen a dramatic increase in Family Responsibility Office calls because parents are finding it harder to pay their support.

When that happens and a single mother is unable to pay the hydro bill and is unable to pay the cable bill and is unable to pay the soccer bill, they’re coming to our office in more frequent numbers than they have in the past.

I think it’s important that the government understand, when they put forward this pension investment plan, that it should be in the best interest and the highest return, free from political interference. I don’t sense that that’s what is happening with this ORPP. I actually feel—and I was a bit disappointed during the last federal election—that the government chose to run ads on this pension plan in order to intervene, I believe unfairly, with government money in the federal election with this pension plan.

It became a strict debate between, on one hand, Premier Kathleen Wynne and, on the other, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I don’t think it was fair to the people of Ontario to be put in the middle of that fight, and I don’t think it was fair that the government used and abused tax dollars to fund those ads.

When you look at their record of tax hikes, with the HST, the health tax, the carbon tax and now this job-killing payroll tax, and then you look at the waste and mismanagement, where that money is not going to its intended purposes, I think there’s a real concern here that the government is not going to invest this money in the way it is intended, and that the government is not going to ensure that the money that is accepted or taken from employers and employees will actually go to those employers and employees.

What I’m trying to say here is that the lack of credibility from the government opposite on financial matters has a lot of people across the province very concerned that this will end up being another boondoggle, a scandal or another area where there will be waste and mismanagement with their precious tax dollars.

I’d be remiss not to point out that it is getting tougher in Ontario. When you look at the hydro rate increase that happened on Sunday—it’s almost semi-annually that we know our hydro bills are going to go up, because the rates increase. The government likes to say, “You know what? That’s just a cup of coffee.” I’ve been here long enough to tell you, Speaker, on behalf of the people of Nepean–Carleton, that they can’t afford any more cups of coffee that they’re paying for but that were purchased by the government opposite. They can’t afford it.

They can’t afford this ORPP and they don’t have trust in this government that they will be able to execute it appropriately. So I stand here before you today to encourage the government to rescind this bill, to talk to employers, to talk to workers and to ensure that if they move forward with any type of pension plan that it is in the best interests of the people that I represent in Nepean and Carleton.

I’ll close on this: On Sunday, I made two announcements, one that I referenced in the beginning and another at the end of my speech. I announced I would be seeking the PC nomination in Nepean for 2018’s election. I live in Nepean, and my daughter goes to school in Nepean and plays hockey with the Nepean Wildcats; I’m very proud of that. I just want the folks in Carleton to know that I intend on being their MPP right up until 2018, and the people in 2018 will have me standing up against this rotten ORPP. I’ll continue to defend them as best as I possibly can.

So thank you, Speaker, for the time I had, to be able to address all of those important matters.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 186,

An Act to establish the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, because the people of my riding have given me a clear message to deliver to the government on this issue. They do not want a mandatory government program that takes their money away. They can’t afford it, and frankly, they believe that they can do a better job of saving and providing for their retirement than the government can. They have asked the government to cancel plans for this mandatory program.

Not only have I heard this message at Tim Hortons and in phone calls and emails to my office, I’ve heard it through my business survey and my recent newsletter. In response to my annual business survey, 92% of the respondents said they would be negatively impacted by the mandatory pension plan, and 67% said the impact would be significant. They were clear that the cost of doing business in Ontario is the biggest challenge they face.

In response to the survey, one of the businesses actually sent me a copy of a flyer they had received from an American municipality which was boasting about the low cost of doing business there and trying to convince him to move. He told me that he receives ads like that all the time. Those American jurisdictions know that we have been trying to tell this government that Ontario companies are struggling with the high cost of doing business here and the government keeps implementing policies that drive costs even higher.

Our businesses are already dealing with spiralling costs of hydro, red tape, and high taxes. The mandatory pension plan would just make the problem worse. It will be a payroll tax, an extra cost that businesses have to pay for every single employee they hire. I’ve heard from businesses that this will force them to delay expansions or actually cut jobs.

I received an email from a person in Ingersoll who said, “As a business operator, I certainly cannot even consider hiring staff due to this increase in payroll burden.” Through Facebook, I received a message from another constituent who said, “Add to this the provincial Liberal idea of the Ontario pension plan for our staff and we are seriously looking at eliminating staff.”

It shouldn’t be a surprise to this government. Ministry of Finance documents actually predicted that there would be 50,000 job losses as a result of this pension—50,000, Mr. Speaker. Fifty thousand is more than the population of Woodstock, the biggest community in my riding. In fact, it would be equivalent to the entire population of Belleville or Welland. The chamber of commerce study shows that we won’t get those jobs back. Municipalities are working hard to attract investment and companies into their communities, and the government does this.

The mayor of Welland told me about their innovative economic development program and how they are cutting red tape to make it easier for companies to locate there. How do we tell him that in spite of all his work, this government is pushing ahead with policies that will drive those companies away? How do we tell him the government knew that the pension plan would result in job losses but they decided to do it anyway?

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation obtained a number of ministry documents through a freedom-of-information request, including research done for the government by a polling company. According to the taxpayers federation, that polling company found that 54% of businesses are considering a hiring freeze in response to the ORPP, and two thirds of businesses would make operating cuts. Large businesses are considering cancelling existing pension plans and layoffs. Small businesses will redefine employees from full-time to contract employees.

They also found that 60% of businesses expect to be hurt by the ORPP. That means more layoffs in a province that has already been hit hard over the past three years as we’ve seen business after business move to more competitive jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment can be devastating to a family. All of a sudden, people are forced to spend the money they have saved for retirement or go into debt just to pay the mortgage or rent and put food on the table. People who are laid off late in life may never financially recover.

Shouldn’t we be focused on ensuring that there are opportunities for people, instead of forcing through a policy that will cost 50,000 more families their source of income? The best way to ensure that you can afford your retirement is to ensure that you have a job today. Instead, the government is pushing ahead with a policy that will cost jobs and take money out of people’s pockets.

We are pleased that the government has delayed the implementation by a year, because we are hoping that is the first step in delaying it permanently.

I also want to clear up some confusion for people at home. When many people hear “government pension program,” they assume that the government is contributing to the cost. So let’s be clear: The money for this program would be coming from employers and employees only. Each of them would be forced to contribute. This is money that employees are currently saving for retirement, or using to pay down their mortgage or, in some cases, using to try to make ends meet.

I received an email from a constituent who said, “I am sending you this email because of my concern over the new proposal of an Ontario pension plan for employees that are not contributing to a pension plan at work.”

He goes on to say, “My concern is that my employer offers a dollar-for-dollar RRSP contribution up to 5% of my income. If the Ontario pension plan is implemented at my work, they will remove the RRSP plan. The result of this would be that I will be able to put less money away for retirement, and get less money toward my retirement from my employer. There are many professionals in Ontario in the same situation as me.

“My question is, does the government of Ontario plan to respect what these companies are currently doing and not implement a different plan when the employer is already doing more to help its employees to save for retirement?”

Mr. Speaker, I think that’s a great question for the government today. In my last householder, I asked whether people supported a mandatory pension program and the overwhelming response was no. We have seen how this government manages their money.

One constituent said, “Please do everything possible to avoid the provincial pension. We all have CPP and don’t want the extra expense of paying for a provincial pension too.”

Under this government, many families don’t have money to spare. The cost of living is increasing rapidly, and life is already more difficult. For a person earning $45,000 a year, this will cost them about $800 a year. That’s significant. For a person earning $90,000 a year, the total cost to the employee and their employers will be—listen to this, Mr. Speaker—$3,286 a year. That’s a huge amount out of any family’s budget. That’s why our leader has committed that if we are elected in 2018, we will repeal the pension program and refund any money that has been collected.

As a constituent wrote the other day, “Prices keep going up and we as seniors are finding life hard. We have even got part-time jobs.”

Seniors on fixed incomes who thought they could afford to retire are struggling to pay their spiralling hydro bills. They’re seeing increasing costs for everything from driver’s licences to the cost of a glass of wine. This pension program will do nothing to help these seniors who are struggling with the increased cost of living under this government. It will do nothing to help the thousands of families waiting for social housing because they can’t afford a good place to live in Liberal Ontario. In fact, taking 4% off people’s paycheques will mean that many of these people who are barely getting by will now need assistance.

Sometimes it seems that the government forgets where the money comes from. In this case, it comes from the families who are struggling to make ends meet and from businesses that would otherwise use it to grow and create jobs.

The Ontario PC caucus believe that those people will do much better with the money than this government ever could, and that is why we would give it back to them. The Ontario PC caucus believes that people deserve the opportunity to have a job and that our businesses deserve an opportunity to succeed. That is why we oppose this job-killing payroll tax. I think that if they didn’t do this tax, it would make us all live better in this no-win Wynne Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to you. It’s always good to stand on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

The member from Oxford and the member from Nepean–Carleton—the underlying issue that they both raised in their comments is the undermining of existing plans. That is a huge concern for not only employers but employees who are out there looking at saving their plans.

The Cadillac of pension plans that we should be looking at, now that the Liberal government has their cousin at the federal level, would be an expansion of the CPP. That would be the opportune opportunity to get something done. We have it in place. We have a mechanism that is already there. People are accustomed to it. It wouldn’t mean reinventing the entire wheel. So I would encourage the government to look at doing that.

As a candidate for the NDP, back in my first election in 2011, and in 2014, I actually knocked on doors, encouraging and asking people for their support, because of an idea that we thought of—of having a pension plan, and how many individuals across this province don’t have those pension plans, and how many of them are absolutely in need of a pension plan when they retire. Why? For dignity.

Just the fact that they’re going to be struggling with the day-to-day expenses that are occurring right now—you look at the cost of everything: prescriptions are going up, hydro is going up, groceries are going up, rent is going up. Those individuals who are struggling today are going to need those tools in place and those extra funds later on.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where you’re going to be 20 years from now, but I don’t think you’re going to be in that chair, and you’re definitely going to need a solid pension plan that we need to push forward so that individuals can retire with dignity.

On a last note, Mr. Speaker—give me some leniency here—I just want to clear something up. I see the member from Nepean–Carleton. I am so happy that you’re going to be remaining with us. I just wanted to clarify: She is not going federally; she is going to remain provincially, in Nepean. Good for the people in Nepean. She’s a great candidate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, thank you very much for recognizing me to speak on this very important piece of legislation.

Let me first, at the outset, thank the Associate Minister of Finance for the incredible work she has done on this very monumental file. I cannot stress enough how important this work has been. It is not just a simple policy change. This is substantive work that is going to help generations of Ontarians with retirement income security.

I have a very difficult time, to this day, understanding why the Progressive Conservative Party will stay in some sort of dinosaur age and not acknowledge that we need to ensure that people can save enough, that we need to make sure we find opportunities for young people who work hard to have good retirement income security. For them to continue to use mislabels like “taxes”—when did saving money become a tax? When did putting money aside that could be used in the future, money that will grow and will allow people to live with dignity—not only live with dignity, but reinvest in the communities they live in—become a tax?

I think it’s highly irresponsible of the official opposition to use that kind of line and also to take the position that only the few who are rich in society should have the right to save money, and the rest, who live on modest incomes and work extremely hard, should not have that opportunity. We on this side reject that notion. We think that, as a government, we have an obligation to ensure that our young people who work hard have the opportunity to save money and are able to live with dignity. That’s exactly what this Ontario Retirement Pension Plan will do. I want to thank the Associate Minister of Finance for her incredible work on this file.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I want to comment on the ORPP and my colleagues’ comments. The government is thinking that they are saving these people with low incomes. Let me just give you a little reality check. I come from a riding where the northern part has some of the lowest household incomes in the province of Ontario—if it’s not in first place, it’s in second place; it goes back and forth with Manitoulin Island as the lowest household income in the province. So I don’t have a lot of wealthy people there.

Do you know what I do have a lot of? I have a lot of people who can’t pay their bills. And the main reason they are now much more in poverty, if I could say that—and it’s true; it’s stark how much poverty has increased in my riding in the last 10 years—is that they can’t pay their bills. If they have the luxury of having a job, you are actually taking 2% away from them. The employer is looking to say, “That’s going to be a burden on me. Can I actually hire any more people?” So the reality on the ground is that you’re not going to have as many jobs, and your own government said it’s a job killer—

Hon. Michael Coteau: You guys said the same thing about the minimum wage.

Ms. Laurie Scott: No. You’re not listening. You must only know people who have a lot of income, Minister of Tourism. I’m a little tired of your heckling over there.

You are then looking at increased unemployment in my area. If they have a job, they are already having a hard enough time paying their hydro bills and their food bills. They are struggling to pay either, so they either pay their hydro bill or pay their grocery bill. That’s why the food banks are increased. This malarkey, baloney—whatever you want to call it—that’s going on over there, that this is helping the poor people, is absolutely incorrect. Businesses, from insurance companies to mom-and-pop grocery stores to little enterprises, have told me that they’re not going to be able to hire those people. So you’re actually increasing poverty in the province of Ontario by doing this.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Thank you, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please. I would ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport to come to order, please. We’re continuing with questions and comments, and I have recognized the member from Windsor West. I would appreciate that we have full attention in the House.

The member from Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s always a pleasure to rise and bring the voice of my constituents from Windsor West. Don’t anybody have a coronary or cardiac arrest, but I’m going to say that I do agree with the PC party in some instances. It’s certainly not saying that I support their position on a proposed pension plan for low-income people; that’s not what I’m agreeing with. What I’m agreeing with is the fact that the cost of living for those low-income people has increased—

Interjections.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: If the people on the Liberal side would stop heckling me and listen, maybe they would actually hear what I’m saying—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I always encourage healthy debate, but when it gets a little loud and a little rowdy—and especially when the Associate Minister of Health is not in her seat, realizing that heckling is not allowed unless you are in your seat, I would ask that she refrain.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): But that goes for everyone in this Legislature.

I will now return to the member from Windsor West to complete her questions and comments.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Thank you, Speaker. Maybe the Associate Minister of Health will actually listen to what I’m saying before she heckles me.

What I agree with from the Conservative side is that the cost of living has gone up. It’s becoming more and more difficult for low-income families—and, frankly, middle-class families—to be able to pay for their hydro, to be able to put food on the table, to be able to afford prescriptions, to be able to put gas in their vehicle, to be able to do the everyday things in life. It is getting more and more expensive.

However, what I don’t agree with from the Conservative side is the fact that there shouldn’t be some sort of retirement savings plan for low-income or middle-class families where people don’t have the opportunity to have a job and have a pension plan as part of that job.

One of the concerns that I have, coming from a big labour and union town where many people do have retirement plans, is the fact that those in themselves are not even safe. The plans that they have through work are not safe. We’ve seen large companies pull up and leave Ontario—leave Canada altogether—and take the pensions of the hard-working people who have spent years working for those companies. They have now left them, when they’re ready to retire, without a pension plan. That’s really something that the Liberal government, federally and provincially, needs to look at: protecting those pension plans, as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Nepean–Carleton for final comments.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I would like to thank my colleague from Oxford for sharing the time with me during the debate, as well as all of those who contributed in debate.

If you ever have that moment when you say, “Gee, I wish I said that,” that was when the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes spoke. I think she spoke very eloquently about the reality outside wealthy urban ridings in downtown Toronto that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport represents.

I think that it’s really important for us to have a conversation about the impact of the increased taxation that this government has brought in. I refer to my remarks on the reality of the health tax being the single largest income tax increase in Ontario’s history. The HST was the single largest sales tax increase in Ontario’s history. The carbon pricing scheme that they’re bringing in will be the single largest gas tax increase in Ontario’s history. Now we are going to see the single largest job-killing payroll tax increase in Ontario’s history.

If the government wants to pretend that they’re saving people’s money, they only have to look at their own debt and deficit. We have the largest subnational debt in the entire world. This isn’t a government where people feel they can credibly manage their money. In fact, it’s the opposite. The people of Nepean and Carleton whom I represent do not believe the Liberal government has their best interests at heart when they send their tax dollars to Queen’s Park. That is what is happening here. We know it is going to impact employers. It is going to impact employees.

As we have seen with this Liberal government and their inability to manage the economy, this will cause us to lose even more jobs than we have lost in the past, as we remember the 330,000 manufacturing jobs that they have driven out of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I am required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been more than six and one half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

I recognize the Associate Minister of Health.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Finance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Finance.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: We wish to continue the debate.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Well, I’m very pleased the government decided to continue debate on this bill, Bill 186, because, Speaker, this is probably one of the most important bills—all bills are important, of course, in this Legislature. But this will probably affect everyone, because at some point we’re all going to need to retire—we hope, because it’s not easy these days, as we’ve heard, to afford living in Ontario. Things are difficult; we hear that every day.

The member for Nepean–Carleton talked about manufacturing jobs leaving Ontario. That is a true fact. Our good auto manufacturing jobs are shrinking. They’re shrinking, which means a lot of people are looking for second career choices. Many of those people had secure benefits, sick days, retirement, prescription plans and eye prescription plans. Those are things of the past nowadays.

I remember one of the ministers calling our job market “contemporary mobile.” Those are words that people are using now to describe the job market, to make it sound like it’s more up-and-coming and vogue. Jobs are not contemporary mobile. Jobs are supposed to be something that ground us in Ontario, so we can build our lives in order to ensure that when we become seniors and we’re ready to retire, we have some stability.

Speaker, can you imagine going through a lifetime of work, whether it’s contract work, part-time work, or three jobs just to make ends meet, and then when you’re 65—you’re 65, and you’ve earned that 30 years of work—you don’t have a stable income to rely on so that you can live in dignity. That is a scary prospect.

When I was asked to debate on this bill, I looked on the Internet. I thought, “What does retirement mean to you?” I actually Googled that. I said, “What does retirement mean to you?” I thought, “What are people’s perceptions, today especially, of what retirement means to you?”

For my parents, when they retired, I think it meant something different to that generation than for the baby boomers and the millennials who are here today. They have a different perception of what retirement is.

When I Googled that question, they showed two people in deck chairs, lying on the beach, watching the sunrise, with cold drinks on their table and, basically, the

article said that they’re debating what book they’re going to read next. Where are they going to spend their time travelling? Where are they going to golf?

I think in a certain generation, people felt that. People thought retirement was something to look forward to, because you had that income security to rely on. You knew that when you retired, you had put money into a pension plan, and your employer contributed to that pension plan. You’d have the CPP, you’d have the OSA—

Interjection: The OAS.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: —the OAS, the Old Age Security, and you were going to be comfortable. You were going to be able to survive. You were going to have that roof over your head that you worked so hard to buy, and you were going to have that security.

Speaker, that is not the reality for people today. That is a very scary prospect for many people who are working, and for students who are going to post-secondary education and can’t find work in their field but they’ve got this huge debt of education loans to pay off. They’re worried.

Having a pension plan means you are going to have some grounding when you’re older, because you don’t have the opportunity to continue working a lifetime to support yourself.

When we’re talking about retirement savings, we talk about planning. When you ask someone, “How are you going to plan for your retirement?”, people are at a loss because they don’t have that disposable income anymore. They don’t have that extra money they can put away in a nest egg. It’s not—

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, they don’t even have savings anymore. People are running around with huge credit card debts. They’re living off their credit cards. They’re borrowing money at these payday loan places.

I don’t want to paint a really grim picture about how the way life is in Ontario, because we have a great province and there are opportunities. But the reality for many people—far too many people—is happening like what I’m speaking about. It’s not unrealistic to think this way. I hear about this kind of thing all the time.

There’s a group in our society who are about age 55, and many of them have lost their jobs. I was out canvassing this weekend, and I met someone who was retired from Kellogg’s. That person said that the Premier and Deb Matthews were supposed to meet with their union, and it never happened. He was really devastated to lose his job. Right now he’s in his mid- to late fifties, and that particular age group of workers is having a very, very difficult time finding new work. Some of them have gone to Second Career, and I hear back from them.

They’ve gone to Second Career, but they’re having trouble finding jobs because employers look at the age and they think, “How many years left do they have to work?” They’re basically lost workers in the system. When you peak at a certain age, it’s difficult to find a new job that’s going to take you into those retirement years. That’s a very problematic market, I think, that we need to really address.

Affordability, as I mentioned, is getting harder. We’re talking about gas prices increasing, in the north especially. We heard our member from Timmins–James Bay ask that question. I believe he said it was a 26-cent difference between the north and southwestern Ontario. People in the north rely on their vehicles. They have to travel distances just to get food or visit family or for doctors’ appointments, and yet they’re paying so much more for gas.

The price of food has gone up. You walk into the grocery store and you pick up the necessities—some eggs, bread, butter, milk, some sliced meat and cheese for the kids for lunches, and you’re spending $40 easily. There are a lot of people who don’t have that kind of disposable income to spend $40 on the necessity of groceries, the necessities of life. More and more people are using the food bank. It’s on the rise. Even people who are working don’t have enough money to struggle every day to meet all those costs of living. Post-secondary students are using food banks to supplement their existence when they’re going to school.

Hydro cost: That is something that has been completely out of control in this province for years. Consumers are expected to pay more and to continually pay more while this government decides to sell off Hydro One. Selling off Hydro One is not going to solve the problems of this government’s deficit. When I was talking to my constituents on the weekend, we were talking about the sale of Hydro One.

Mr. Bob Delaney: That’s off-topic.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, and I will get back to that topic.

People can’t afford their hydro bills when there’s not a proper retirement income. When we talk about retirement, Speaker, people who are retired have to pay the bills too. If hydro bills are so out of control, they’re not going to be able to keep the hydro on. I just want to point out that every person they spoke to disagreed with that decision. My eyes were opened extremely wide. I hear it all the time, but listening—absolutely every person thought that this government wasn’t paying attention.

New Democrats really do agree. We agree that there should be a public pension plan, and we support that concept. We support that idea. We recognize that Ontarians need the kind of fundamental change that will actually address the fundamental changes of the workplace: as I mentioned, the contemporary mobile jobs that we’re talking about. That isn’t the kind of job we want to fundamentally address—meet those needs. We want to make sure we have permanent, good-paying jobs with benefits and retirement packages.

That is the kind of fundamental Ontario pension plan we want to make sure supports that job market, and part of that involves ensuring that all workers in the province have a pension plan. No one should be left behind. This is what is happening right now, Speaker. In our society today, people are being left behind. There are many people in my office who come and talk to us about—constituents come to us and talk about the fact that they are working minimum wage jobs

I had a very unique—it’s not a unique story, actually; it’s probably a very common story. It was a very touching situation and I felt really helpless that I couldn’t help this person. They are working full-time and they have a minimum wage job. They have a daughter—one child—and they got ill about two years ago. It was absolutely no fault of their own. It was an emergency surgery that had to happen. But the employer did not offer any sick days. The person had to be off two weeks to recover from surgery. Do you know what ended up happening, Speaker?

The economic situation that they had to face meant that they could not pay their hydro bill. That put them behind. They couldn’t afford the groceries; they had to go to the food bank.

All said and done, the employer gave them a very difficult time because they had to take those two weeks to recover, even though they had a doctor’s note. They did not choose that illness. They did not choose that emergency surgery that had to happen. The result was that they had to quit their job. They had to quit their job because they ended up going into work earlier than they should have, which set them back even further. This is a true story. It set them back even further, which complicated their health, and then they ended up having to apply to OW.

Now they’re still suffering the consequences of the side effects. In some ways, they might be better off in a sense because now the minimum wage job—they had to pay for daycare, they had to pay all their bills, and they were living off credit. It’s a cycle that is going nowhere in Ontario, and we need to make sure that we do create jobs that are going to have some comfort and some survival built into that. We talk about those jobs, Speaker; they need to look like good-paying jobs that people can live on.

There’s a campaign out there called $15 and Fairness. Yesterday, the member from Oshawa talked about the obstacle course that she had in her parking lot at her constituency office.

Interjection: Amazing Race to the Bottom.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Amazing Race to the Bottom. It was a wonderful statement in a minute and a half. She talked about how she had to carry a backpack of necessities on her back.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: There were free weights.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Free weights, yes.

She talked about how you had to pull up your bootstraps, get a better attitude and things will get better. No. Things are going to get better when good jobs are created for Ontarians. Everybody in this province deserves to retire with dignity and to share the benefits of an Ontario public pension plan. No one, I don’t think, disagrees that we all should have comfort in our retirement.

Yesterday I met with the insurance brokers, and they felt there should be an expansion of CPP. We agree with that as well. It should be a universal pension plan. CPP seems to be a successful model. It would be interesting if the government had looked at perhaps approaching the federal government about that expansion piece. That would have been perhaps a little more streamlined for people and the administration part of it as well may not have been so much in question and complicated.

I was actually thinking about the computerized part of setting up a retirement plan. I wonder if that has been thought through very thoroughly. We know that we have SAMS. They started a computer program. There was denial that there were issues. Now we’ve gotten to the crux of the matter, that there are issues in that situation, and they’re going to have to spend another $32 million just to fix those mistakes.

That is very detailed, what kind of software or computer program they’re going to use for ORPP, but I wouldn’t want to see that kind of boondoggle with regard to how to manage the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, if they don’t have their system properly designed. Can you imagine? Collecting the money from employers and employees could be one thing, but then when it comes time to disburse your retirement funds, what’s that going to look like? That actually worries me—and that’s just the bones of it, the working parts.

The whole concept of the ORPP of course we agree with. We believe that having security in retirement is beneficial for everyone. And seniors—because I am the seniors critic—are really the most exposed when there’s not a retirement income that is dependable for them.

Seniors feel like they’ve been left behind by this government. That’s what they tell me. I met with seniors when we were talking about the Ontario drug benefit plan—and I thank the government for putting a pause on it on August 1, but we are going to be watching that very closely. That was an increase of $70 a year on their deductible. Seniors don’t have the option of making more money to pay for increased drug benefits, so I was glad to see the government put a pause on it. They said they’re going to keep doing some consultations, but it still isn’t reassuring us that that increase won’t come.

When we talk about retirement, the seniors who are in retirement right now are having trouble affording life—all the things that I talked about earlier. To throw another $70 onto their prescription drugs, which they have no choice but to buy for their health, doesn’t make a lot of sense. It will just end up costing the system, because people had said, “I’ll ration my drugs,” which means their health won’t be in top form, which means they’ll end up at the doctor’s more or in the emergency room.

Mr. Bob Delaney: You’re drifting.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I know the member wants me to stay on topic, and I will, because the retirement plan is really important to seniors.

I don’t know if I’ll be able to see the benefits of the ORPP at my age. I’ll be contributing, of course. I’m pretty mature up there. Is it 2020? What year is it that people will start using it? If I’m 50—

Interjections.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I have a minute and a half. Whoever is going to answer in questions and comments, if you’re around 52 years old, and you’re going to have the ORPP start in 2018, it would be interesting to know if that would benefit the generation that’s contributing right now. I know the young people will benefit, and that’s really important, but it would be interesting to find out how that would look in my retirement. It would be interesting to know.

I met a woman recently in my constituency office. She came to me. She was 70 years old and still working. She said, “I don’t know what I would do if I didn’t supplement my income.” She has CPP, Old Age Security and guaranteed income. She says, “I have a two-bedroom apartment and a car. I’m finding it hard to survive.” She’s 70 years old and still working? I think we all deserve some retirement when we get to our golden years, and to actually retire in dignity.

I’m glad I was able to contribute to this debate. Retirement is extremely important; retirement savings security is very important to the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: I always enjoy responding to the comments of my colleague from London–Fanshawe. She made some points that seemed to walk a parallel course to the proposal for the ORPP, but let’s go to the real point here: If you are in your twenties or if you’re in your thirties, you have to look at yourself and say, “Is my employer making any plans for me? Am I, in the type of work I’m doing, making any plans whatsoever to be able to retire?” Disturbingly, the answer to that question is no.

Then you have to look at: “What is the Canada Pension Plan going to be able to contribute for me when I’m likely to retire?” The reality is that if you’re an Ontario worker, the chances are that the Canada Pension Plan will contribute less than $10,000 a year for you, and Old Age Security won’t contribute a great deal more than that.

If you’re in the first third of your working life, you would have to look in the mirror and say, “Is it my desire to retire in poverty?” If the answer is no, then you’re going to ask, “What are my alternatives here?” At the moment, the only alternative on the table here is the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

I’ve listened to some people say, “Well, why don’t you just contribute to your RRSP?” Well, if that were the case, why are more than two thirds of Canadians not contributing to their RRSP? That’s one of the real issues: that the RRSP and other savings vehicles are really repositories for those who are very wealthy.

This is a level playing field, and this means that, large or small, every organization and every employee will contribute throughout their working career to a retirement that will give them a better chance of living in dignity and comfort.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much for the questions and comments.

The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I guess I was going to take a different tract of thought, but hearing the member from Mississauga–Streetsville—it’s interesting that the government members talk about not having an employer look after your retirement, but they fail to mention our own ownership of our savings and the opportunity for individuals to save.

This government consistently, and without fail, chooses to legislate before they choose to educate. I think that’s just a fundamental problem with this government. They block out everything else that they’ve done.

I want to thank the member when, in her speech, she talked about hydro rates. We’ve all just had a constituency week where we’ve been back in our ridings. I spent a considerable amount of time in my office. Consistently, people are coming to my office, still to this day, and they will continue to do so until this government changes—

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: Minister, you can take your two minutes as well.

Interjection: Wow, you’re arrogant—

Mr. Steve Clark: Yes, they are pretty arrogant over there.

Again, the hydro rates system in this province is out of control. This government is making no effort at all to make a change.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

Mr. Steve Clark: They can heckle all they want. But yet, when you get a group here yesterday like the insurance bureau—all the insurance brokers were here. They are dead set against this plan, yet government members were down there in droves at their reception, having their hors d’oeuvres and cocktails. Yet they ignore—

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, again, Speaker, they can heckle all they want. But they talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say one thing and then they do something completely different. I think people will judge them for that, Speaker.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It’s an excitable room here this morning, as it should be when we’re in this House, discussing pensions and retirement security.

I am pleased to be able to weigh in on my colleague’s 20-minute remarks this morning, the member from London–Fanshawe, who is also the critic for seniors. She made some excellent points and reminded us—in the words of the member from Mississauga–Streetsville—about walking a parallel course, because if we don’t see how things work together and how they run in parallel, then we’re not seeing what’s happening.

The realities in our province are that things are interconnected. To her point, those who are on the verge of retiring and want to retire but can’t financially afford to retire and who have to keep working until age 70 or later, and they don’t know how on earth they’re going to pay for things, to afford living and the cost of living—we have to talk about those things.

For it to be hollered at us that it’s off topic is so strange to me, because seniors’ issues and retirement issues are a complicated basket of topics. Anyone who is in retirement still has bills to pay and hopefully will be able to afford to keep the lights on or keep the heat on. Those costs are not going down, despite what the government tells us.

When we talk about dignity, I would love to hear the government tell us what dignity means to them. I don’t think dignity just means comfort or extra spending money, or even money to go and pay for a movie or whatever. I think it’s peace of mind. Peace of mind for someone in their retirement is what we should be aiming for. So maybe to stop selling off Hydro would be a good start, to help us actually have money in our economy so that people can afford to live and retire with peace of mind and dignity.

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

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’m pleased to rise and speak to Bill 186. I want to thank the members from London–Fanshawe, Leeds–Grenville and Oshawa for their comments.

I found it really curious that the member for London–Fanshawe—well, first she painted a picture of Ontario that told me we need the ORPP. She made our case with all of her examples. Indeed, people need income security when they retire, and she made our case that we need the ORPP. Then she went on to criticize it, after making the case for the need for an ORPP, and suggested there are better ways to do it. But finally, she turned around and complained that she’s not going to benefit from the ORPP.

I’m a little confused as to her position. First she created and painted a picture that suggested the province of Ontario needs to address the issue of income security in our retirement years, then she criticized it, but then she turned around and said, “Guess what? I’m not going to get it.”

I think the NDP on that side really needs to make up their mind on where they actually stand on this issue. If you don’t like it, don’t complain that you’re not going to get it. That’s the first principle, I think, Mr. Speaker, that we can all agree on. If you don’t like it, then don’t stand there and complain, “I’m not going to get it. This other person’s not going to get it.”

All that suggests is that deep down they really do want the ORPP. They really would love to be able to be part of the ORPP. I believe that is, as they say—what is it? The proof is in the pudding. Just the fact that you complain you’re not going to be able to benefit from the ORPP tells me you think there’s value in the ORPP. So why don’t you just come out and support it, and be consistent?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please. Back to the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you to the member from Leeds–Grenville, the member from Oshawa and especially the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Wow. I was really flattered that she was listening so intently to my debate contribution. I congratulate you for really paying attention and giving me your feedback.

Because this is what debate is all about, right? Healthy debate is about exchanging your ideas. It’s not about offending other people. I have an opinion, you have an opinion, and yet we’re here together to discuss those differences of opinion and try to make things better. So I really appreciate it, and I’m extremely flattered that she was actually paying attention so intently to what I was saying. Thank you for that and thank you for her feedback.

I do want to say that New Democrats, of course, support a universal pension plan. We believe it strongly and we always have felt this way. It’s nothing new for us that when you become a senior, when you’re ready to retire, you need to make sure you can have your roof over your head, a comfortable roof over your head. You need to make sure you can buy food, transportation, medical costs—the basic necessities of survival. Yes, absolutely, we need to make sure we look at this bill very intently.

I have to compliment our pension critic in our caucus, from Oshawa. She is doing a fabulous job of watching this government. She has her hawk eye on this legislation, and she is going to make sure that they pay attention and that we give our debate and feedback on their ideas.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts today, Speaker, on this very important legislation.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning on Bill 186, the pension plan, the ORPP.

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: Stay, Dipika, stay.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yeah, please stay around. You’ll enjoy this.

The Associate Minister of Health spoke about painting pictures. The thing that I remember during the federal election campaign is the picture that this government was trying to paint about this ORPP, with this guy running down the dock or whatever and jumping, and then the bridges coming together so that he could actually jump over the ravine. Somehow he was able to do this because of the ORPP.

If you want to talk about pictures, this is exactly the political picture this government is trying to paint with this ORPP. And I know who their audience is. I’m not their audience. The member for Oxford is not their audience. We’re a little too old to be their audience. But they’re trying to paint the picture—maybe you pages are a little too young, but not too much older than you: This is who they’re trying paint this picture for.

Maybe my friend Lucas, underneath the underpress there: Maybe they’re trying to paint the picture to him—their own staff—that somehow with this ORPP, your retirement is going to be like you’ve just crossed the border into Shangri-La and everything is just going to be fine because the Liberals have saved your retirement with this ORPP.

But that’s exactly what it is. It’s a pretty, painted picture, but it is out of touch with reality. They are giving the impression that somehow everything else in your life is okay; that it is not going to be an issue for you to have 2% of your wages tucked away, and your employer, 1.9%—of course, the Associate Minister of Finance is probably going to correct me on the 1.9%, and 1.9% from the employer—that somehow this is not going to have any effect on you. Well, that’s another one of their pretty pictures they want to paint, because they want to give you the impression that everything will be fine once this bill is enacted into legislation.

The business community sees it differently. We met with folks from the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario yesterday. They’re very concerned about the impact that this bill is going to have on the operations of their business. The reality is, it’s going to affect their staffing. So that pretty picture of that 1.9% coming off your cheque and the 1.9% coming off your employer’s cheque: Is it as pretty a picture if you don’t have a job anymore? Whether it’s 1.9%, 2.9%, 99.9%, it doesn’t matter. You don’t have a job? There’s no deduction, because you haven’t got an income from employment.

They don’t want to talk about that. The Fraser Institute, the C.D. Howe Institute and others have cautioned about the impact that this is going to have on employment in this province—the ORPP. We don’t hear about that. The Liberals only paint the picture they want you to see. But those same young people that they’re aiming that pretty picture at are the ones who are coming into my office and saying, “John, we can’t make it. We can’t put any money into an RRSP”—let me just backtrack a little bit.

Years ago, the government, in its wisdom, brought out RRSPs, registered retirement savings plans. Now they’re just retirement savings or registered savings plans. They brought them out because they recognized that the Canada Pension Plan alone and Old Age Security alone may not be enough for people in their retirement. But they gave the opportunity and the impetus and made it attractive from a tax-deducted point of view for allowing people to put money away.

My youngest son is going to be 25 in July. I told him, “Lucas, out of every paycheque”—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not my Lucas in the underpress; I have a Lucas of my own, too.

I said, “Lucas, every time you get a paycheque, make sure you pay yourself first. Put some money away so you’re planning for that day when you’re no longer working. Don’t depend on Mitzie Hunter. Don’t depend on Michael Coteau. You let Lucas Yakabuski take care of himself.” He said, “You’re right. I am putting money away from my paycheques because we don’t know what the world is going to be like in 40 years.” He’s 25, so he doesn’t know what the world is going to be like in 40 years, but I know what it’s like today—and hopefully, we’ll get rid of the Liberal government and things will start to get better.

I know what it’s like for young people today when they’re coming into my office and saying, “We haven’t got any money to put into an RRSP. We haven’t got any money to put into a tax-free savings account. We can barely get by. We’d like to be able to buy a home. We’d like to be able to put money towards a mortgage, a home”—the biggest asset that most people ever own. Maybe not for some of the rich people on the other side of the House, but for most people the home they live in is the asset with the greatest value that they’re ever going to have in their entire lives.

We’re going to make it harder for people to get that home because more and more of their paycheque is going to be going into a Liberal pension scheme. More of their paycheque is going to go into a Liberal pension scheme, and less of that paycheque is going to go to establish themselves to be financially secure when they get older—because they’ve been able to buy a home and over the years pay off that home so that they have a tangible, valuable asset as part of their retirement portfolio.

The other thing they say is, “John, the hydro bills: We’re going to put 1.9% into a pension plan, but every time I turn around, it’s 5%, 6%, 8%, 10% more on the hydro bill. How are we supposed to get by on a day-to-day basis, let alone have a further deduction from our paycheque to go into a Liberal pension scheme?” This is the reality in Ontario that this government is failing to recognize. It seems that they just go along and design these schemes, and they think they’re going to make the world just wonderful, but they don’t take into consideration the pain and harm they’re inflicting on people with their current policies.

I mentioned this yesterday in question period, Speaker: I spoke to a lady on Sunday at a 50th anniversary, and she’s a volunteer at the Eganville food bank. She said, “John, can I see you for a second? I don’t know what you can do about this, but it is hurting people badly.” Usage at the food bank in Eganville was up 30%. They ran out of food; they ran out of things to give to people. They rely on donations and fundraising. They ran out because of the increase in clientele.

Almost exclusively, when those people were asked what is bringing them to the food bank—“We’re at our wit’s end because of the continuous increases in hydro.” The cost of electricity is putting them into poverty, as my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock said. Hydro is putting people into poverty. It’s forcing them to go to the food bank.

You have to ask yourself—anybody can ask themselves—how would you feel if you had to turn to a food bank? You question your own capabilities, your pride. Everything is damaged because you’re forced to go to a food bank. Why are they going to a food bank? Because of the hydroelectricity policies of this government.

Now we’re taking all of that—a 418% increase in the cost of electricity since this government took office in 2003. If you look at the peak price, 18 cents a kilowatt hour—418%. Those young people—is there anything on the income side they can speak to that has gone up 418%? Only if you win the lottery. You’ve got a better chance of winning the lottery than having income security based on anything done by this government. I guarantee you that whatever money they think they’re going to put away in the pension plan, you’re going to be losing it tenfold in the increases in fees and taxes.

What about driver’s licences? The driver’s licences, the licence of a car, it’s all gone up exponentially by this government. Every time you turn around, they’re putting their hands into your pockets and hurting you more. Now they’re saying, “We just need you to put a little more into a pension plan.” They don’t have the money. You’re crippling them and putting them into poverty. Stop helping. You’re putting them in the poorhouse.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since it is 10:15, this House will stand recessed until 10:30.

The member will have an opportunity for questions and comments when debate resumes on this particular bill.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This morning, just before we do introductions, just to let you know, it looks like there are some guests whom we want to introduce on behalf of whomever. Let’s get through them as quickly as possible, as we do have a tribute to be done today before question period.

It’s now time for introduction of guests.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us in the east members’ gallery today are two interns from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Ben Eliott and Yasim Mahamed. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Han Dong: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome my good friends and members of the board of the Canada Shanghai Business Association: Mr. Ying Yao, the president; Mr. Ming Zhu; Ms. Yue Fang; and Ms. Li Fang.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Special Olympian Madison Borges and her mother, Maria, to Queen’s Park today from Uxbridge. Welcome.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I would like to introduce the family of page Grace Fletcher from the great riding of Simcoe North: her mom, Leanne Fletcher; her dad, Mark Fletcher; and her sister, Kate Fletcher. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: It’s my privilege to introduce the family, first of all, of our page captain, Samuel Simeon Suresh. They are in the gallery up there: mother, Dorothy; father, Suresh Babu Srinivasan; and sister Sharon Suresh. I say to them, vanakkam.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’d like to introduce our summer intern for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Daniel Scarpitti. Daniel, welcome, wherever you are. Let’s welcome Daniel.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to welcome our page Marthangi Vicknarajah from Scarborough–Guildwood, and her parents, who are here today: Vicknarajah Shanmugaratnam and Kamalasini Vicknarajah. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce a Special Olympic athlete from North Bay, Jackelyn Osborne, and her mother, Kathy Osborne.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted that page Spencer Couch from Beaches–East York—his grandmother is in the east public gallery, Wendy Williamson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very honoured to be able to introduce to the House today James Rice from Tiverton. He was one of Huron–Bruce’s Remarkable Citizens this past year.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I understand that we have, in the east gallery today, my friend and former colleague who toiled for a number of years in this place for my predecessor, Greg Sorbara. Sharon Laredo is with us here today.

Hon. David Orazietti: It’s a privilege to introduce, in the members’ east gallery, Jennifer Shiller, my policy adviser, who’s here with her aunt, Helen Shiller, who served 24 years as a city councillor in Chicago. Please welcome.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I am very pleased that our page captain from Guelph, William Deaton, has his father, Damien Walsh, and his uncle Terry Storr visiting today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: On behalf of the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, I want to introduce the mother of page Samantha McPherson. Her mother is here today—and so is the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, so I’ll give it to him.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have patience, and if the member would like to do a personal introduction, I will recognize the member for Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to welcome Shannon McPherson, the mother of Samantha McPherson, who is, of course, a page here in the Legislature.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m very proud, actually, to welcome in the House the two interns who will be spending the summer with us in our Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure: Mr. Matthew Smith, a fourth-year student at Queen’s University, and Rachel Venturo, a second-year law student from the University of Ottawa. Welcome to our Legislature.

M me France Gélinas: Ça me fait extrêmement plaisir de vous présenter M. Daniel Marchand ainsi que son père et sa mère, Armand et Lise Marchand. Daniel est un athlète paralympique qui est venu me visiter aujourd’hui. Je leur souhaite la bienvenue.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci beaucoup.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to recognize in the gallery this morning page Aadil Rehan and his mom, Nazish Rehan, who are here with us today.

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to welcome Monica Granados, who is the daughter of the chief government whip, and who is here at the Legislature. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to give a warm welcome to my interns who will be with us this summer. They just began yesterday and I wish them all the very best for an exciting and productive internship. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Julia Mcarthur, Eduardo Rodriguez and Marie Visca.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery five interns from Quebec as part of the Fondation Jean-Charles-Bonenfant internship program. Please join me in welcoming them as they spend the next few days exploring the Legislature. Levez-vous, s’il vous plaît.

I’m also honoured to announce that Special Olympics Ontario is visiting with us today at Queen’s Park. I have the humble glory of being on the board for Special Olympics Ontario. In the Speaker’s gallery are 16 athletes and their families, along with board members and staff.

For my part, my commercial—I normally don’t like you to do it, but I’m going to do it—please join us tonight for a reception in the gathering place, rooms 228 and 230, to celebrate these very special athletes. Thank you for being with us.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would now like to introduce you to our new pages, if they could assemble, please.

Serving in the first session of the 41st Parliament: from London–Fanshawe, Aadil Rehan; from Richmond Hill, Alfred Shi; from Mississauga–Erindale, Ayana Siddiqui; from Ottawa Centre, Benjamin Falkner; from St.

Paul’s, Brendan Weeks; from Don Valley West, Claire Atkins; from Chatham–Kent–Essex, Emma Vandermeer; from Nepean–Carleton, Faiz Jan; from Simcoe North, Grace Fletcher; from Ajax–Pickering, Isabela Rittinger; from York South–Weston, Julia Lalonde; from Vaughan, Julia Melino; from Hamilton Mountain, Laura Persichini; from Newmarket–Aurora, Leah Walsh; from Scarborough–Guildwood, Marthangi Vicknarajah; from London West, Preston Swan-Merrison; from Wellington–Halton Hills, Samantha McPherson; from Etobicoke North, Samuel Simeon Suresh; from Lakeshore-East York, Spencer Couch; from Guelph, William Deaton.

These are our pages.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finally, in the Speaker’s gallery today, would the members please join me in welcoming the family of the late Joan M. Fawcett, MPP for Northumberland during the 34th and 35th Parliaments, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: her sons Tim and Andy; his wife, Ruth; daughter, Kristen Dajia, and her husband, Peter; granddaughters Allie, Cariston and Genny Fawcett and Katerina; and good friend Tass Corbier. Welcome.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery is Mr. David Warner, MPP for Scarborough–Ellesmere during the 30th, 31st, 33rd and 35th Parliaments and also former Speaker; Steve Gilchrist, the president of the former parliamentarians and MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments; and Mr. David Neumann, MPP for Brantford during the 34th Parliament. Welcome to all of you.

Also, hiding somewhere in the House, as most staff do, are the former staff of Joan Fawcett. We welcome them as well. Please stand if you’re hiding in the wings somewhere, former staff members. There they are. As I can attest to all members, the staff are deeply appreciated by all the members, and it’s very nice of you to be here for the tribute.

Joan Fawcett

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Joan Fawcett, former member for Northumberland, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning to the family and friends of Joan Fawcett and to the former staff members as well. I would just like to thank Mr. Warner and Mr. Gilchrist for the great job that they do. They’re here often with the families, making this a special and memorable moment for the families of our former members.

It’s an honour to rise today and pay tribute to the life of Joan M. Fawcett, who represented the riding and the people of Northumberland in this place from 1987 until 1995. Joan was born in Kingston. She went to Ottawa Teachers’ College and Queen’s University before serving her community as a teacher.

Before becoming a teacher, though—and we’ve heard this a few times from former members of this House—Joan considered a higher calling. She considered becoming a nun. According to her son Tim, she considered Mother Teresa to be her idol—not a bad person to choose if you want a mentor.

Joan met her husband and the love of her life, Bob, when she was teaching. He was the principal at the school. She and her family had deep ties to the Kingston community, but she ultimately settled on Northumberland as the place to make her home because it was a midway point between where she was from in Kingston, and Collingwood, where her husband, Bob, was from. Joan would go on to teach at Colborne Public School, home of the Big Apple—everybody sees it on the side of the 401 in eastern Ontario—while Bob taught in Cobourg at Cobourg District Collegiate Institute West.

When asked what they most remembered about Joan and Bob, one of their friends fondly stated that no one could jive like these two when they got on a dance floor. As we know, in this game of politics, having fast feet can come in handy at times.

Joan first entered politics on council for the village of Colborne, and she was the reeve of the village when she was elected MPP back in 1987. She first tried to win the seat in 1985 against Howard Sheppard, whom we honoured in this place just before Christmas last year. In a tribute to her positivity and her sense of fair play, Joan’s campaign against Howard wasn’t negative. As a matter of fact, she would tell people, “I don’t deny that Mr. Sheppard has been a good representative; I just think I can be a better one.”

That positivity and fairness was something that she lived year after year in Colborne. Every summer, she committed to sending six or eight kids to camp out of her own pocket. She would regularly help students who needed things that their families might not be able to afford. She was a great constituency MPP.

Both elections between the two in 1985 and 1987 were hard fought, with Joan winning the second one and joining David Peterson’s government in 1987 here at Queen’s Park. While here, she served as a deputy whip, she was chair of the Liberal rural caucus, and she was also assistant to the Minister of Skills Development at the time.

While she was here, Joan championed a number of bills, but particularly was a supporting member of a bill put forward by our caucus member today, Ted Arnott, the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, that would allow volunteer firefighters to use flashing green lights on their personal vehicles when responding to a fire call. She had her own legislation passed as well regarding a special permit on the licences of our volunteer firefighters. Both members were working on that very important call, which is very important today in rural Ontario.

As a matter of fact, it’s an issue that we’re still tackling here in the Legislature. Just a few weeks ago, the Minister of Transportation and I had a conversation about signs being put up on some of our rural highways leading to the 401. Folks in the Toronto area still don’t necessarily know what those green flashing lights are for. It’s because of the work of Joan Fawcett and our colleague Ted Arnott that there is a little bit more awareness of that issue today.

After Premier Peterson was defeated in 1990, Joan was considered a possible successor at the time. But realizing the long hours that would be involved and the time it would take away from her beautiful family, who join us today, whom she loved more than anything, she decided not to join that race.

Even after her final election in 1995, Joan stayed active in her community, including as the chair of the local United Way, which brought her back to where her political career started, before council, this time in Cramahe township in 1996.

After retiring, Joan and Bob moved to a property that Joan had inherited on Howe Island in the Kingston area. Bob had previously made that land a Christmas tree farm—which I know would be near and dear to Jim Wilson’s heart; he has the Christmas tree bill, of course—in order to fund the education of his kids. That was the purpose of the Christmas tree farm: to educate his kids Tim, Andrew and Kristen, who join us here today.

You know, there’s an old saying that we all know that goes, “Sometimes, it takes a village to raise a child.” But in an interview that he gave to Northumberland Today, her son Tim said, “Sometimes it takes a person to raise a village’s children.” That was something his mother certainly tried to do every day that she served the people of Northumberland.

Today we honour someone who for eight years graced these halls here at Queen’s Park, but who for her entire life was the soul of generosity and a very, very special lady in Northumberland county. We thank her for her service.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: On behalf of the Ontario NDP caucus, I would like to welcome the family, friends, colleagues and former staff of Joan Fawcett to the Legislature today.

In the Bible, there’s a verse that reads: “I will show you my faith by my deeds.” There’s something to be said about that line. The way we live, the way we serve should be able to provide a certain degree of insight into who we are, what we stand for and what we hold dear. It should tell you about what’s important to us and what we are willing to sacrifice for. No matter where you fall on the church-versus-state debate, it’s hard not to notice some of the similarities that draw people to commit their lives to service in either.

At their finest, both institutions appeal to the best in us, tapping into a desire to leave the world a little better than when we found it. While both have shaped powerful movements that have changed the course of human history, it is the very real and tangible opportunity to positively impact the lives of those closest to us that gives each institution the strength to wield considerable influence.

It’s clear that the intersection of Joan Fawcett’s faith and political beliefs motivated her towards a life of elected service. I never had the privilege of meeting Joan, but in preparing for this morning, it became very clear that she was equally motivated by two key principles: “Love your neighbour as yourself,” and “All politics is local.”

Regardless of your system of belief or your political affiliation, that’s not bad advice for anyone with the goal of a career in public service. It’s clear that Joan was a woman who spoke volumes, often without saying a word. While she didn’t strike me as a firebrand, it’s obvious that she was no shrinking violet either. This wasn’t because she was shy or reluctant to speak up, but because she knew that what you did and how you did it was the most effective way to demonstrate your convictions. She understood that words were important, but meant little if you didn’t put in the effort to back them up.

To her, politics wasn’t just a profession. She viewed it as a calling, something she was born to do.

Today we often talk about the dearth of female representatives in public life. At the time Joan was at Queen’s Park, it would have been an even greater disparity, particularly as she balanced responsibilities of motherhood and family alongside her career as an MPP, with only 20 women of 130 members here in this chamber. That’s just 15% of the seats in this House.

While history may not remember women like Joan Fawcett in the same way that it will the Rae Luckocks or Agnes Macphails of the world, it’s important to acknowledge that those of us who follow stand on the shoulders of brave women like Joan: those whose efforts call on us to do the same for the next generation of women who take up the challenge of public life, who seek to do the important work that Joan did.

Today, we have the privilege of welcoming Joan’s family and friends to Queen’s Park. While there may only be one name on the ballot, all of us are familiar with the sacrifices that our loved ones make so that we can do what we do. While MPPs want their constituents and neighbours to remember them as effective representatives, there’s something extra-special when your loved ones acknowledge your time in office as time well spent. To all of you, thank you for sharing Joan with the people of Northumberland and the province of Ontario. On behalf of Andrea Horwath and Ontario’s New Democrats, we thank Joan for her exemplary service and commitment to the community she diligently served.

May you rest in peace, Joan.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Before I begin my remarks, I must report that somebody stole my notes, my good friend from Prince Edward–Hastings. I’m sure he took all my notes, Speaker. And I thank him for that.

It’s bittersweet that I have the opportunity to pay tribute to a former colleague and a friend, Joan Fawcett. Andy, Tim and Kristen, welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you, your family and your friends for being here today. Thank you for sharing your mom not only with the people of Northumberland, but indeed the whole province of Ontario. For the birthdays and special events that she may have missed, like some of us do around here from time to time, just know that she never took her family for granted. As many of the members here today that worked with her will tell you, she was doing work to provide a better Ontario that we all enjoy today.

I know first-hand how difficult it is to try to balance public and private life, especially with a young family. Joan began her career as an educator, as you heard, in the early 1970s. She taught at Colborne Public School. She taught there for quite a number of years. Joan’s husband Bob was also a teacher, at the Cobourg West high school.

The availability of a strong, provincially funded education system for all youth was important to Joan and her family. Around 1983 saw the beginning of Joan’s political career as she sat on council in the village of Colborne. As you have heard, to put it in perspective, that’s the home of the Big Apple.

I had the pleasure of first meeting Joan while serving on the Brighton township council. We were municipal neighbours. Joan was, without a doubt, one of the sweetest, most caring people I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing. A devoted and loving mother, wife and grandmother were her most valuable titles in life.

In the words of one of her most admired heroes, Mother Teresa, “We shall never know all the good that a simple smile can do.” “Spread love everywhere you go. Let no one ever come to you without leaving happier.”

As a politician, I think we all have the best intentions to fulfill this with the constituents we meet and serve. However hard we try, we all know this isn’t always the case. Joan strived to model her life, as you heard, after Mother Teresa: always loving, always giving, and deeply caring for everyone she met.

In 1985, Joan made a go at the provincial seat for Northumberland, but wasn’t successful against the incumbent, Howard Sheppard. As you know, we had a tribute to him just a few months back. Shep, as he was known in the community, was well regarded in the riding, and people would often tell Joan that to go against him, she was going to have a tough time. But as you heard, she always retorted that while he was a good representative, she could be much better.

Joan was not happy with the then PC government’s treatment of municipalities in the education system. Always relentless in her endeavours, Joan took another shot at provincial politics and, in 1987, successfully ended the more-than-43-year Conservative reign in the riding of Northumberland.

While in government, Joan served as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Skills Development, and as deputy government whip and chair of the rural caucus. During the brief term of the NDP government, Joan served in the official opposition as critic for seniors, disabilities and women’s issues. She also served as the Liberal caucus chair and as co-critic for agriculture and food.

She was a member of many legislative committees, including the standing committees on public accounts, social development, resources development, and regulations and private bills. She was also appointed to the Select Committee on Constitutional Reform.

A strong advocate for social justice and equality, Joan saw the need for and successfully lobbied the federal government at that time to support and grow the social housing programs in Northumberland county.

Always a believer for volunteering within the community, Joan served with the United Way, the Catholic Women’s League and the Sweet Adelines.

Joan was very aware of the importance of volunteers and how valuable a resource they are, especially in rural Ontario. She was also a strong advocate of volunteer firefighters. During Joan’s term on municipal council in the village of Colborne, she was appointed as council liaison to the fire department. In that capacity, she learned just how valuable this group of volunteers was and still is in its respective communities.

Understanding the vital role they hold within rural communities, Joan introduced a private member’s bill in 1993 that would amend the Highway Traffic Act to provide a decal on the licence plates of volunteer firefighters, to make their vehicles identifiable while performing their emergency duties. This received unanimous support from all three parties and was passed by the Legislature.

Discussion from this debate also sparked interest in using the flashing green light for volunteer firefighters responding to an emergency call.

After her defeat in 1995, Joan decided to enjoy life and retire with her husband, Bob, in the Thousand Islands area, and spend their winters in Florida.

It is Joan’s campaign team that I have to thank for being here today. Some of them, as you heard, join us here today in the members’ gallery and are part of my team right now that helped me: Darlene Warner, who works for my Brighton office; Diana Flesch, and Jim and Adria Williams. Without their hard work on behalf of Joan, which trained them really well, and approaching me to carry on her legacy in 2003, it’s entirely likely that I wouldn’t be here today, so thank you.

My last opportunity to chat with Joan was about two months before she passed. We ran into each other at a year-end ceremony at Cobourg west collegiate high school. We had discussed getting together to catch up soon—she had just moved back into the area—but busyness got the best of both of us, and then it was too late.

Speaker, Joan Fawcett’s years of hard work in this Legislature provided a better Ontario for all of us today.

I’d like to close by thanking Joan for her service and commitment to her community. She remains an inspiration, mentor and friend to me and to the rest of Northumberland.

To her family, thank you for sharing your mom with us.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their heartfelt and kind comments about Joan.

To the family, as we have a tradition, you will receive a copy of Hansard and a DVD of today’s tributes. Again, as you can hear, we hold her in high esteem here, as a former member. We also would like to thank the family for the gift of Joan. Thank you very much.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Nuclear energy

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The energy minister said yesterday that the $12.8-billion nuclear refurbishment over the next 30 years will produce clean energy. But last week, your environment minister said nuclear energy will be gone from Ontario in 10 years.

Premier, which minister is right and which minister is wrong, and which one will you be supporting at the cabinet table?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure from what document the Leader of the Opposition is quoting, but we have a long-term energy plan—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will jump right into warnings if you’d like. Do you want to take a straw poll? Okay. So it stops.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nuclear power is part of that long-term energy plan. It’s very clearly laid out in that plan, and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to take a look at the LTEP.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: What I suggest the Premier take a look at is her environment minister’s speech at the Economic Club, where he said that nuclear energy will be gone in Ontario in 10 years.

Only one of your ministers can be correct. One minister wants nuclear power gone. The other minister wants nuclear power to be the backbone of Ontario. The Premier either supports the nuclear industry or she doesn’t. So will the Premier please tell us, who is her energy minister? And will the person setting energy policy please stand up?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re inching closer—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister, you’re not helping.

You’re inching closer, and I’m going to remind all members again: You use only titles or ridings. I’m going to start being strict on that, even with the heckling.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Nuclear power is part of our long-term energy plan. It will remain a part of our long-term energy plan. There is a refurbishment at Bruce Power that will be undertaken. We are refurbishing Darlington and extending the life of Pickering. We have one minister who is responsible for all of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s nice that you do get quiet when I stand, but as soon as I sit down, you start up again. I’ll finish it.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we have said that we’re not going to build energy we don’t need. The PCs would spend $15 billion on new nuclear; we are not going to do that.

The other reality is that we have a minister who’s responsible for a climate change plan which is not supported by the members opposite, because they apparently do not believe that we need to have initiatives in place to fight climate change, even though it is the single most urgent threat—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question again is to the Premier. The Premier enjoys muddying the waters. The reality is, you have one minister saying that the nuclear industry should be gone. You have another minister saying that it should be supported. Do you even know what your own cabinet is saying? Is this government that disorganized?

The reality is that Ontario’s nuclear industry is one of the few industries that has concrete job security—well, until now. The industry creates the cheapest emission-free power we have and produces 60% of the province’s energy. Just as importantly, it supports 50,000 jobs. Think about that: 50,000 jobs. That’s the same as the population of Welland, Aurora or North Bay.

The Premier must commit to supporting Ontario’s nuclear industry. Furthermore, the Premier should ensure that the environment minister apologizes to the 50,000 people working in these nuclear jobs.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are very proud that our nuclear power is 90% emissions-free, Mr. Speaker. We are investing in refurbishment of our nuclear generation. We have got nuclear power as the backbone of our long-term energy plan, as our baseload in this province. The Leader of the Opposition knows that, Mr. Speaker. For—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, the member from Leeds–Grenville and the deputy House leader, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I can only imagine that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to talk about the realities of climate change in this province, does not want to talk about the reality that there must be urgent action in order to deal with this threat of climate change.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the member from Renfrew.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: He does not want to talk about that, so he’s going on some wild goose chase. He knows perfectly well we’re investing in nuclear. He knows it’s part of our long-term energy plan. But we have to tackle climate change. That is imperative for the survival of the planet.

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal cabinet is perplexed on their energy policy, let’s try something else.

To the Premier: I want to tell you about five-year-old Joshua from Oakville. At age three he was diagnosed with autism. As treatment, Joshua’s doctor recommends 20 hours per week of IBI therapy. But for the past 27 months, Joshua has sat on a wait-list. Until May 1, Josh was just months away from being at the top of that list, but this government kicked him off that list, along with 2,000 other autistic kids—terrible.

Mr. Speaker, why is this Liberal government ignoring the medical recommendations of Joshua’s doctor? Why shouldn’t he receive the treatment that his doctor recommends? Who are we going to trust, the child’s doctor, or the Liberal government’s talking points?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I guess I would ask the Leader of the Opposition why he thinks it’s appropriate to leave children on a waiting list not getting service. We don’t think that that’s appropriate. Some 16,000 more children will get service. I want that child to get the appropriate service that he needs. That’s exactly—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is unconscionable to me, Mr. Speaker, that we would leave in place a system—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time. The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, come to order—and yes, it is the second time; there was too much heckling that you heard me the first time.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What is unconscionable is that the opposition parties, both of them, propose that we leave children on a waiting list and that we leave them without service. That is exactly what they’re saying.

We are investing $333 million to help children get the service that they need and get it much more quickly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: The only people removing kids from the wait-list is this government—2,000 kids removed from the wait-list—but they don’t want to own up to it.

Despite Joshua’s doctor saying he needs 20 hours per week of IBI therapy, that wasn’t the care he was receiving. Right now, Josh receives six hours of therapy per week at a cost of $45, as that was all Josh’s family could afford. Josh’s father wrote a letter—and I want you to think about this. Josh’s father said, “I cannot express how difficult it is to have your child’s health care dictated by what you can afford rather than what the medical professionals say he needs.”

Why can’t Josh have the treatment that the doctor says he desperately needs? My challenge to the government, my question to the government is, how about this: Instead of putting money into expensive radio ads patting yourselves on the back, put it into IBI therapy for children.

Interjections.

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

Just a gentle reminder: You’re weaving in and out of the Chair when you say “you.” It’s helpful to stay third person, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister Children and Youth Services will want to comment on the final supplementary.

It is exactly because I want and we want all those children, including Joshua, to move from a waiting list, where they’re not getting service, into service, and for them to get the right intensity of service.

Last week, I spoke with a number of parents at events that I attended. Their concern is that they want the information about what that transition is going to look like. I understand that. I understand that they want to know what the service is going to look like. They don’t want their children languishing on waiting lists, but they do want to know what the service is, which is why we are putting in place a transition—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: So we’ll just kick them off.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —to help those kids who are languishing on a waiting list get the service that they need. That’s the point of the $333-million investment and that is exactly what we’re going to do. It would be irresponsible to leave those kids sitting on a waiting list, as the opposition suggests.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: You’ll notice, Mr. Speaker, that I didn’t get an answer about reinvesting the money in the self-congratulatory radio ads instead of putting it into children.

Back to the Premier: Joshua’s father called the IBI therapy “hope.” He told us that Josh struggles to convey basic wants and needs. He cannot dress and care for himself as his peers can. He cannot function in school without considerable support and accommodation. The letter the father wrote said that this government is “sentencing Joshua to a diminished life” and this government is “failing Joshua and his family.”

Will the Premier reverse the changes to the IBI before sentencing Josh to a life that is diminished, which the father spoke so eloquently about? I believe autistic children deserve better, but then again, this is the same government that took autistic children and their families to court. It’s shameful. Do the right thing. Will you reverse this decision? The Premier deserves to answer this herself.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I just really would like to understand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to really fully understand what the opposition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: —is saying. Does he want us not to invest 333 million new dollars? Does he not want us to create 16,000 new spaces for children?

The opposition and his critic have had the facts for some time and yet they don’t have the facts straight, and this worries me, Speaker, because it’s confusing families. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, I ask all members of the House, to get the information they need.

I would be pleased to talk to Josh’s family. I have spent much time with many families in recent weeks. We are not taking kids off the wait-lists. We’re putting them into immediate service, a new program with more intensity, longer duration, more—

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

Electoral reform

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier has written new legislation for how political parties and elections are financed behind closed doors, and we now see just how much outside involvement the Liberals actually—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’ll be waiting as soon as I sit down.

Please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The assistant to the government House leader has written to the assistants of the opposition party House leaders to “offer a briefing on the draft election financing reform legislation”—a one-hour briefing with ministry officials to ask questions and discuss substantive issues. It is an insult to the people of Ontario.

Does the Premier really believe that a one-hour, behind-closed-doors meeting constitutes an open, transparent and non-partisan process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we said was that we wanted to get input from the opposition parties before we put the draft legislation into the public realm, because then there will be a long public consultation. We’re proposing that the legislation go to committee after first reading, allowing for consultation over the summer, and then go to consultation again after second reading. So we’re providing for that huge opportunity, which is very unusual in terms of legislation.

All we’re saying to the leaders of the opposition parties is, would they like to have input as the legislation is drafted? Again, it’s an unusual circumstance, but I think that this is a good opportunity. I’ve asked them for input. They have not given me input, but we would be happy to have input on the draft legislation.

If the briefing needs to be longer, we’re happy to make it longer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The letter goes on to say, “In order to ensure enough space, we are extending the invitation to your House leader and two staff.” There will be lots of space because we will not be attending a closed-door, meaningless charade of a meeting.

This is another PR stunt by this Premier. It is not a serious—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

The Minister of Agriculture; the Minister of Natural Resources, second time; and the deputy House leader, second time.

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: By the Premier’s own account, she has avoided any semblance of an open and non-partisan process for over a year.

It’s not too late to do what Democracy Watch, editorial boards, the Green Party, the PC Party and the NDP have all called for, which is to put aside her partisanship. Will she do that? Will she put aside her partisanship, do the right thing and agree to a non-partisan panel today? She still has a chance.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really believe it is time to talk about the substance of the changes that need to happen. I was interested, at the beginning of this process, to know what the leader of the third party thought about union and corporate donations. I’m even more interested now in what she thinks about union and corporate donations.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think I know what I’m doing.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier says she had a revelation a year ago that she was going to change how political campaigns were funded. But instead of using that time for an open, transparent, fast-moving, non-partisan panel to set out the rules about how we get big money out of politics, she chose to spend the time filling the Liberal Party coffers. Now she’s insisting that the only process that can work is one that’s completely controlled by the Liberals at every step.

The only reason for the Premier to oppose a process that’s open is her own political self-interest and the fact that she thinks the interests of the Liberal Party are more important than a transparent, non-partisan process for reform. Why is this Premier making election finance reform a case of, “My way or the highway?”

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it’s astonishing that the leader of the third party still will not talk about the substance of changes.

It’s an interesting coincidence that the decision by the NDP to sell a building just before the changes were made, after it was announced that we were looking at making changes—it’s an interesting coincidence. I am more interested today in what they think about union donations and loan guarantees. I’d love to have their input on that, given the circumstances in the last few weeks.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Premier: Her muckraking is not going to cover up the way that she’s dealt with finance reform in this province.

Mental Health Week began yesterday, and since 2006, there has been a 54% increase in ER visits for children and youth facing mental health crises and a 60% increase in hospitalizations. After four years of frozen hospital budgets and a below-inflation increase this year, ER visits and wait times are increasing, while nurses are being fired in this province.

Will this Premier do the right thing and actually start to properly fund our hospitals and stop firing nurses?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The leader of the third party knows well that we have made a more than $1-billion investment—a new investment—in the health care budget this year. Of that, approximately $350 million, or more than 2%, goes directly and specifically into our hospitals.

It’s true that as we’ve transformed the delivery of health care, as we’ve focused more on quality and outcomes—outcomes that are beneficial to patients—we’ve seen changes that have taken place across this province. But my expectation is that when hospitals make decisions, when they work with us to partner, when they work with us to improve the quality of services, they always have one thing at the forefront and front of mind, and that is making sure that the quality of care is the best that it can possibly be, that the services that Ontarians depend—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberal budget actually claims very clearly a 1% increase in the base funding of hospitals, not what this minister is trying to tell the House today.

In March, London Health Sciences announced that it would have to eliminate another 64.5 full-time positions because of Liberal cuts. At the same time, in the same city, St. Joseph’s Health Care is closing 12 beds and 60 full-time positions are being cut. In my home city of Hamilton, Hamilton Health Sciences cut 97 positions and is faced with slashing $30 million just to keep the lights on.

People expect the health care system to be there for them when they need it, but this Premier is forcing hospitals to make decisions based on deep Liberal cuts rather than on what’s best for patients. Will this Premier stop slashing health care services that the people in this province deserve and rely on?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, we invest almost $52 billion in our health care budget in this province, and we increased that amount by $1 billion. But since the member opposite, the leader of the third party, is so interested in our budget and what was in there, I want to take the opportunity to remind Ontarians that in addition to the $345 million of new funding to hospitals, which is a 2.1% increase to the hospitals’ operating line, we’re investing an additional $12 billion over the next decade on infrastructure, on capital investments.

In fact, we have 35 projects right across the province active today that are rebuilding, renovating and, in many cases, building entirely new hospitals. We’re also providing $50 million of additional funding each year for immediate repairs that are necessary for our hospitals. These are some of the things that we announced in this budget.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order. Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Because of four years of Liberal budget freezes and a 1% base funding increase this year, far below inflation, all across Ontario, communities are seeing cuts to their hospitals. That is what’s happening in this province. The government is on pace to fire twice as many nurses as last year. Nurses have been fired and health care has been cut in Orillia, Windsor, London, Hamilton, Sarnia, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, St. Thomas—and the list goes on and on, Speaker.

The Premier is cutting health care, and patients and families across this province are the ones who are paying the price. When will the Premier do the right thing and stop cutting hospital care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Among the new investments that were outlined in our recent budget, we also allocated an additional $85 million that goes specifically to our nurse practitioners, our dietitians and our occupational therapists in our family health teams and our community health centres to increase their remuneration—their take-home pay—and, most importantly, 75 million new dollars that go specifically towards end-of-life and palliative care. We’re going to be funding 20 more hospices across the province.

We’re continuing our investment in home and community care—an additional $250 million this year. And, of course, the shingles vaccine: Saving Ontario seniors $170—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I was standing, I was going to give you one more sentence. I was just getting the attention of people. You have one sentence. Wrap up, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —and $10 million for behavioural supports in our long-term-care facilities, Mr. Speaker.

Child Protection Information Network

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Premier. Last week, the coroner’s inquest into the death of seven-year-old Katelynn Sampson delivered 173 recommendations. Two years ago, the coroner’s inquest into Jeffrey Baldwin’s death produced 103 recommendations. Clearly, the current child protection system is not serving Ontario’s most vulnerable children well.

Both coroners’ inquests have called for an Ontario-wide intake system and centralized database. Yet, 11 years since Jeffrey’s murder, only 12 child protection agencies are using the centralized computer system, CPIN; 41 children’s aid societies are still waiting.

Minister, we owe it to Katelynn and Jeffrey to have CPIN operating across Ontario. Why the delay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the Katelynn Sampson jury inquest for their very thoughtful work. Their recommendations and consideration of how we support and protect our children are incredibly valuable. My ministry will, of course, consider each jury recommendation to ensure that we help prevent similar tragedies in the future.

It is important to note that, since the prior inquest that the member mentioned, we’ve already completed a number of actions, including requiring non-parents seeking custody—they must provide the court with police checks and a child record search.

We’ve made considerable progress in strengthening our child welfare system, but I do recognize that there is more to do. We’ll continue to work hard for the protection of our children in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The jury has done their job; it’s now time for the minister to do hers.

In 2013-14, this government paid $8 million to Deloitte to consult on the software design that CPIN would run on. In 2014-15, they paid $5.7 million to Deloitte. Why is this money going to consultants instead of the children’s aid societies waiting to access CPIN? We owe it to Jeffrey Baldwin and Katelynn Sampson to get this right. When will the Premier stop spending money on high-priced consultants and allow all children’s aid protection agencies access to CPIN?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’ve talked about CPIN—the Child Protection Information Network—in this House before. We’re creating that system precisely because we want to prevent the kinds of tragedies that have happened to children in this province before.

This system will create one record for every child so that all information can be shared across children’s aid societies. Our intent and hope is that it prevents future tragedies from happening. We have a number of agencies already on the network. We have more agencies coming online this spring.

It’s very important that we get this right. I think everyone can agree that 100% accuracy is required in such a critical system that hosts case files of children in care. I will not speed this up and compromise protection of children in this province. I will continue to work as fast as we can, as responsibly as we can.

Social Assistance Management System

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Over the last few days we’ve learned that the people of Ontario will once again be forced to pay for this government’s incompetence when it comes to the SAMS file. The disastrous implementation of SAMS hurt some of the most vulnerable people in this province, and now we know that the minister knew of the problems all along.

The Auditor General highlighted concerns of consultants overseeing consultants in her last scathing report. In response, the Premier has decided to hire the same consultants to fix the issues they got wrong in the first place, and to pay them an extra $32 million, adding insult to injury.

Will the Premier admit she has failed vulnerable citizens and front-line workers across the province and demand her minister’s resignation immediately?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there were challenges with the initial implementation of SAMS. We have said that. The minister has said that. We asked for a review. We looked for recommendations to help us to fix the system, and following the report of the review, the implementation of a transition plan was put in place to address the exact challenges that were still remaining with SAMS.

We fixed 100% of the priority issues that were identified by the front line, and I think that’s what’s critical. The minister went to the front lines. She met with the people who were working with the system. She talked to them about what the challenges were and addressed those challenges as they were identified by the people who were having to work with this new system, so I am satisfied that that work has been undertaken.

Can we learn from that process? Absolutely, and I think it’s incumbent upon us to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Let me get this right. The minister didn’t see the internal memo addressed to her, outlining these problems. She didn’t see the interim report highlighting the same problems. She apparently didn’t know about the implementation problems multiple jurisdictions experienced with SAMS-like programs. She just had no idea what was going on in her own ministry when it came to SAMS.

Speaker, the minister should know what’s going on in her ministry. Now the people of Ontario are left to pay the price again. Will the Premier hold this minister to account and demand her resignation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite will have read the whole memo. She will know that there were issues that were identified and there were assurances to the minister that those issues were being dealt with. That is the reality of an implementation of a complex and large system: that issues are identified, and then there is a request from the minister’s office that they be dealt with, then the assurance that they are being dealt with.

Now, were there still challenges that remained when SAMS was being implemented? Absolutely. But I’ll go back to the previous question about the implementation of CPIN. We’ve got one opposition party saying, “Hurry up. Implement a system more quickly. Put kids at risk and don’t be careful,” and we’ve got another party saying, “You should have slowed down.”

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with the issues around SAMS and have learned from that process. They are complex implementations and we are going to make sure that we get them right in the future.

Children and youth mental health services

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, we know that one in five young people in Ontario experiences problems with mental health. We also know that 70% of mental health and addiction problems begin in childhood and adolescence, and we know that the stigma associated with mental health remains one of the largest barriers to diagnosis, treatment and acceptance in the community.

Agencies across the province, like Addiction and Mental Health Services KFL&A and Pathways for Children and Youth in my community of Kingston and the Islands, provide important mental health and social services. We know how important community-based programs are.

Minister, as this week is Children and Youth Mental Health Week, can you please update the House on the work being done by your ministry to support children and youth with the mental health challenges that they face?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for this very important question during Children’s Mental Health Week.

As the Minister of Children and Youth, I’m very committed to the mental health and well-being of children and youth in our province. Ontario’s mental health and addictions strategy is making a real difference across the province. We’re investing more than $444 million in child and youth mental health services, and recently we announced $6 million to hire 80 additional mental health workers across Ontario. Those workers are being placed where the need is the greatest in different communities. This work was done in consultation with our lead agencies for children’s mental health.

On Children’s Mental Health Week, I want to reiterate our commitment and, I believe, the commitment of everyone in this House to support youth and support them to reach their full potential.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I’m pleased to hear that significant investments have been made.

In my own riding of Kingston and the Islands,