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

February 17, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2015-Feb-17 (PDF)

L043 - Tue 17 Feb 2015 / Mar 17 fév 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 February 2015 Mardi 17 février 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Introduction of member for Sudbury

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Power plants

Public services

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Mining industry

Social Assistance Management System

By-election in Sudbury

Biodiversity

Housing Services Corp.

By-election in Sudbury

Animal protection

Member’s comments

Members’ Statements

Member for Nepean–Carleton

Attawapiskat hospital

Government and community services fair

Cornwall Community Police Service

Mental health

Kindness Week / Semaine de la bonté

Tendering process

International Mother Language Day

Kaley’s Acres

Private members’ public business

Committee membership

Tabling of sessional papers

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Justice Policy / Comité permanent de la justice

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Interns and Creating a Learning Economy Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des stagiaires et la création d’une économie d’apprentissage

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Curriculum

Forest industry

Distracted driving

Hospital services

Off-road vehicles

Credit unions

Environmental protection

Correctional facilities

Employment practices

Winter road maintenance

Missing persons

Credit unions

Off-road vehicles

Hispanic Heritage Month

Orders of the Day

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Ms. Hunter moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Associate Minister.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Speaker. I’m pleased to stand today before the House for the second reading of Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2014. This bill commits our government to introducing a new mandatory provincial pension plan, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, by January 1, 2017.

Over the past several months, I have travelled across the province to discuss our plan with Ontarians. I’ve spoken with countless individuals from business, labour organizations and associations, families and communities. These conversations produce a diversity of opinion, but the common thread I am hearing is that people are concerned about retirement security. They are concerned that there is a gap between what they have and what they will need. This concern is exactly why we have introduced this bill: to move to close this gap and help give the people of this province financial security that they deserve in retirement.

From Thunder Bay to Toronto, from Windsor to Ottawa, I’ve heard from people who are concerned about their futures and their children’s and grandchildren’s futures. When I hear people’s stories, listen to their concerns, and talk to them about their futures, it really solidifies for me why this issue is on everyone’s minds and why it’s such an important topic.

Retirement security is not just a financial issue. It is not economic or actuarial. It is about people. No matter where we’re from, people are talking about the lives they’re looking to create now and for the future. Whether it’s a young couple sitting down for a meal in their new home and talking about growing old together; new parents talking about their baby’s future; or current retirees talking about how their kids and grandkids will be prepared for their golden years, all of these people are talking about their futures.

Underlying all these conversations is the question of how we’re going to afford those dreams now and for the future. It’s in listening to these concerns that our government made the decision to take action by moving forward with the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

As Canadians, we are fortunate to have a strong, three-pillar retirement system that is already in place. Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement make up the first pillar, in addition to the GAINS program in Ontario. The Canada Pension Plan makes up the second, and workplace pensions and other tax-assisted savings make up the third. For several years, this system has been helping many workers in Ontario to achieve their retirement savings goals. In recent years, however, there has been a growing need for this system to evolve, to change, to meet the needs of our workforce.

With a three-pillar system, we know that if one of the pillars cracks, the whole structure becomes less stable. That’s what we’re seeing now and on the horizon.

Several recent studies have shown that a significant portion of Ontarians are not saving enough to maintain their standard of living in retirement. In fact, the Ontario Ministry of Finance analysis suggests that about 38% of households with a primary earner between the ages of 45 and 59 may be undersaving for retirement.

There are several reasons for this. The proportion of Ontarians with workplace pension plan coverage is low and is getting lower. In 2012, only 34% of workers in Ontario—one in three—participated in a workplace pension plan. The numbers are even lower when we look at just the private sector, where only 28% are benefiting from membership in a workplace pension plan.

What this means is that people must rely on personal savings, but many aren’t taking full advantage of the voluntary savings vehicles that are out there. In 2012, only 16% of people without workplace pension plans contributed to RRSPs. Add to this the fact that lifespans are increasing.

While increasing life expectancy is a sign of higher living standards and better health outcomes—something we should be proud of—it also places more pressure on personal savings, creating a need for them to stretch further. Those who have managed to put money away are becoming worried that they might actually outlive their savings.

Many of the Ontarians I spoke to fear they will never be able to retire at all, while others are concerned that the physically demanding nature of their jobs will prevent them from continuing to work, before they are financially prepared to retire.

Add this up, and we have the potential for many workers to be living below their previous standard of living upon retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our current retirement system, while strong, is simply not meeting the needs of many Ontarians.

According to a recent report released last month by the Public Policy Forum, more than any other subset of the population, a portion of middle-income earners, private-sector employees and young Canadians are more likely to experience a declining standard of living in their post-work lives. For these at-risk groups, government programs such as the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and guaranteed income supplement will be inadequate in providing sufficient income replacement. This trend is deeply concerning for our government.

Over the next 20 years, the number of seniors in Ontario will almost double. When a growing portion of our population faces inadequate savings, they will spend less. When that happens, consumption has the potential to slow along with growth. Further, this places pressure on our economy and those publicly funded institutions, like health care, that we hold so dear. That’s not good for people. That’s not good for business. That’s not good for the economy.

We know that Ontarians expect leadership. That’s why we need to take action now to ensure that future generations can have the financial security they deserve going forward. The cost of inaction is simply too high. Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that Ontario’s preferred solution is the enhancement of the Canada Pension Plan. The CPP is a great example of a strong public institution. It is an efficient and effective program that is fully portable across the country. It is already supporting a modern and mobile labour force.

Unfortunately, the CPP does not offer a large enough benefit to ensure financial security in retirement. In 2014 the maximum CPP benefit was about $12,500 while the average benefit paid in 2013 was only $6,800. Ontario has advocated for CPP enhancement since 2010, with the Premier and finance minister leading national conversations on the issue. Unfortunately the federal government said no and shut down any and all discussions on this issue despite a willingness on the part of the provinces and territories to move forward.

Of course, we know that just because you don’t talk about an issue, it doesn’t mean it’s not there, no matter how long you ignore it. When one pillar is weakened, the whole structure is unstable. That’s why our government made the choice to act now and build in more retirement income security and move forward with our plan. After a lifetime of contributing to the economy, we believe people deserve a strong and secure retirement.

The ORPP would be the first of its kind in Canada, supporting working Ontarians who do not have a comparable plan. It would build on the key features of the Canada Pension Plan to address the retirement needs of a modern, mobile, 21st-century workforce. Retirement experts recommend that people aim to replace 50% to 70% of pre-retirement earnings to maintain a similar standard of living in retirement.

As announced in budget 2014, the ORPP would aim to replace 15% of an individual’s earnings, between a low earnings threshold and a maximum annual earnings threshold. It would require equal contributions to be shared between employers and employees, not exceeding 1.9% each on earnings up to an annual maximum of $90,000. Combined with CPP, this would supplement voluntary savings measures and provide a secure retirement income floor for participants for life.

The ORPP would also be designed to ensure that benefits be earned as contributions are made. Over time, the ORPP would expand pension coverage to more than three million working Ontarians, helping to supplement their retirement income by ensuring a predictable, stable source of funds for life indexed to inflation. It would be managed by a publicly administered entity at arm’s length from government, which would leverage the experience of Ontario’s highly regarded public pension plans and strong financial services sector. It would pool longevity and investment risk.

We committed to consulting with Ontarians to ensure we are creating the best plan possible for the people of this province. As part of this process, in December we released a consultation paper that outlined the government’s current thinking and preferred approach on key design features of the ORPP. The purpose of this paper was to gain input and feedback on essential components in the design of the ORPP, including:

—defining a comparable workplace pension plan;

—determining whether the ORPP’s minimum earnings threshold would mirror the CPP’s threshold of $3,500; and

—defining how best to address the needs of self-employed individuals to achieve retirement income security.

Our government’s preferred approach is to define “comparable plan” as “defined benefit” and “target benefit multi-employer.” This is because these plans most closely mirror what we’re trying to accomplish with the ORPP, like providing a benefit for life, including mandatory employer contributions and locking in funds. We recognize that defined contribution plans are an important part of the retirement savings landscape, but they can fall short in providing that secure retirement income floor that people need and rely on.

The second major focus is determining what the minimum earnings threshold should be. While we recognize that all Ontarians share the need to save for retirement, for some having a job does not guarantee sufficient income to escape poverty. We do not want to place an additional financial burden on these individuals and families. At the same time, though, we need to strike a balance to ensure people are maximizing their benefits in the long term.

This is especially true for people who might experience periods of low earnings, like young people or recent immigrants. For a majority of low-income earners, Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan do a pretty good job in terms of income replacement. So we have presented a preferred option of mirroring the Canada Pension Plan’s $3,500 minimum earnings threshold.

Our third major focus is determining the proper treatment for the self-employed. Currently, under the rules of the federal Income Tax Act, the self-employed have a unique status as both the employee and the employer. Under these rules, individuals would not be eligible to contribute to the ORPP. What our government has done is committed to consulting on how best to assist self-employed individuals since achieving a secure retirement future is important to all Ontarians.

As well, we’ve made a commitment to boost financial literacy across all age groups and demographics. This way, while the ORPP will provide a secure floor, people themselves can be empowered to better use the voluntary tools out there to save.

Over the past several weeks I’ve been to all corners of the province. I have met with business, both large and small, of all types; labour; organizations and associations representing a wide range of workers from artists to mechanics, from doctors to sheet workers, financial planners to entrepreneurs, individuals and families from across the province, to get their views on these key design questions. We have received important feedback, Mr. Speaker, and we look forward to incorporating the ideas of Ontarians as they move forward with the design of the ORPP.

There are some who will tell you that Ontario can’t afford the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan or that now is not the time to act. What I’m hearing is that we can’t afford not to act. As we move forward with the ORPP, we have been mindful of the impact on business and we’re taking steps to minimize these impacts.

For instance, in the budget we outlined that enrolment would occur in stages, starting with the largest employers, and contribution rates would be phased in over two years. This would especially assist small business with the transition and help lessen the short-term impact. The reality is that today the cost and administration involved in certain workplace pension plans have made it difficult, if not impossible, for some employers to offer them. The ORPP would allow employers who may not otherwise be able to offer their employees the opportunity to contribute to and accumulate benefits—to help them save for their retirement years.

We’re also hearing from leading economists that the ORPP will have a positive impact on the economy. Former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge has said in his analysis that the short-term costs of such an enhancement would be outweighed by the long-term economic benefits.

In his 2014 report, Macroeconomic Aspects of Retirement Savings, Dodge states: “An increase in household savings will have a small negative effect on aggregate demand in the very short run, an effect which will automatically be offset in part through the exchange rate and other structural adjustments and which should be offset by an easier monetary policy and/or increase in public sector or agency borrowing to finance infrastructure investment. In the longer run, higher household savings would enhance growth of output and incomes.”

This means that more retirement savings now would mean more capital being available for investment, which, in turn, would increase productivity and improve economic growth and job creation.

Dodge further states: “A higher saving rate would underpin higher retirement income without increased tax rates on the working population.” This would support “a higher investment rate ... hence higher productivity, larger investment income, and increased government revenues.”

That’s good news for Ontarians and for Ontario businesses. As one small business owner from Markham rightly said at a recent consultation, “When we share a little, we gain a lot.”

While not easily quantifiable, the security we can give to workers is important for business, and our economy, to be successful. We know that employees who feel more secure about their own futures tend to be more productive. More than that, we know that business owners care about the well-being of the people who work for them. This is something that I saw first-hand when I was vice-president at Goodwill Industries.

During my tenure there, the Ontario government raised the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade. As many will know, wages are a major expenditure of Goodwill. We worked with the government through the lead-up to the implementation. We planned and we found ways to absorb the costs. What I remember most about when the increase went into effect was not the cost to our business; it was the confidence the increase in wages gave to some of our employees. That confidence translated into more productive workers who were able to feel secure in the take-home pay that they were receiving.

We believe that a workforce with a secure pension will continue that momentum, and that confidence will spread throughout the economy. That’s what we’re working towards for 2017. In order to get there it is essential that we work quickly and effectively towards solidifying the details of the plan now. That is why we are asking members of this House to support this bill.

This bill outlines our government’s commitment and obligations to implement the ORPP and provides an overview of some of the key principles and features of the plan. Bill 56, if passed, would require this government to establish the ORPP no later than January 1, 2017. This is an ambitious goal but, as I have explained, we know the cost of inaction is too high.

Mr. Speaker, this bill lays out some of the rules governing the participation in the ORPP. To be eligible to participate in the ORPP an individual employee would have to satisfy the following criteria: The individual would have to be between 18 and 70 years of age. The individual would have to be employed with an eligible employer in Ontario. The individual could not be participating in a comparable workplace pension plan. The individual’s annual salary and wages would have to be above a minimum threshold. The individual would not be receiving a retirement benefit from the ORPP.

The bill also outlines some rules concerning contributions to the plan, eligible employment, and payment of the retirement benefits and survivor benefits.

The legislation, if passed, would give authority to the government to request and collect specific information, including personal information from employers, public bodies and the federal government, and would require disclosure of the information by the employers and public bodies for the purpose of establishing the plan.

Mr. Speaker, as outlined in the budget, we will establish an entity at arm’s length from the government to administer the plan. The responsibilities of that entity would include collecting and investing contributions, and administering benefits, among others.

We want to emphasize that the contributions and any accruals from investment would be held in trust for the members and other beneficiaries of the ORPP. It would be managed for the benefit of workers and will not be included as part of overall government revenues.

As we move forward, we are continuing to leverage the expertise of the members of the Technical Advisory Group on Retirement Security. I would like to extend thanks again to these individuals for their advice, opinions and support: Keith Ambachtsheer, Susan Eng, Murray Gold, Melissa Kennedy, Jim Keohane, Bill Morneau and Barbara Zvan. In addition, we are pleased to have Michael Nobrega, former CEO of OMERS, as the implementation lead.

Together, the input from Ontarians and our pension experts will ensure that we’ll be able to design the best plan possible for the people of Ontario. Passing the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2014, is an important step in strengthening the retirement income system in our province and ensuring that Ontarians can have confidence in their retirement futures.

This bill is about securing our collective futures. It’s about building, for the people, the confidence and the security they deserve. Once in place, the ORPP would help millions of Ontario workers achieve the retirement future that they deserve. Put simply, it’s the right thing to do. That is why I ask the members of this assembly to support the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2014.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Comments and questions? The member from—sorry about that.

Interjection: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I just moved. It’s a new riding, Speaker. Just kidding.

Thank you very much, Speaker. I’m pleased to respond to the associate minister’s speech on Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

Boy, we see it quite differently on this side of the House. We see it more like Jack Mintz. Jack Mintz says this is ridiculous, this is regressive, and this is completely the wrong idea at the wrong time.

The minister says she has had broad consultations. I think she must call ahead and say, “You like this? Yes? Oh, we’ll come and talk.” “You don’t like this? Ah, I can’t make it.” That must be the way they’re doing it, because they’re not going into the real places in Ontario where the real people live and work and are scared about what this government plans to do, and that is to take more money out of their pockets and more money out of employers’ pockets, which translates to less jobs in Ontario. If there’s one thing that we don’t need in Ontario right now, it’s less jobs. With the implementation of this plan, that’s what we’ll get.

One of the things that Jack Mintz said—and I’m looking forward to having a longer period to speak on this bill at some time.

Young people today who are barely getting by, but are able to somehow cobble together enough to make a down payment on a home, would rather see their money invested in that home than in a pension plan that is a dream way down the road. Equity in a home is the greatest asset that most people ever accumulate. If they can do that, if they can be putting their money into equity in a home, they will be far better off than with this scheme of this government, which is completely politically driven and makes no sense whatsoever. I hope that before 2017, they see the light.

Thank you very much.

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

M me France Gélinas: We all know that close to 66% of working Ontarians do not have a pension plan and look at their future and their elder years with angst, anxiety and fear. This is not good.

I am really privileged to come from an environment—to come from Sudbury—that is highly unionized and where lots of people have pension plans. I can tell you, it is a game-changer. It is a game-changer for my family, my 92-year-old in-laws. He has this little pension that comes every month, and they’re able to budget and they’re able to live their elder years in peace and security because they have budgeted all their years. Although the pension is not very big, it comes every month and they can count on it. I think that everybody in their elder years should be able to count on a little bit of money that, if you budget right, you’re able to make ends meet.

I have lots of fears about the programs that the Liberals are putting forward, because I want to make sure that the money that Ontarians are putting for their retirement will be used for that and not be used to fatten the pockets of people working in the insurance industry and the investment brokers and everything else.

Is this a path that we should take? Sure; absolutely. We should make sure that people are able to live their elder years in dignity, with enough money to make ends meet. But the path from here to there—their goal is good, but the path they take to get there is worrisome, worrisome of money being squandered like they have done on so many other files. Look at auto insurance; look at eHealth; look at Ornge; look at everything else. It’s worrisome. It has to be done right, and I’m not sure we’re there.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I’m pleased to add a few of my comments to the conversation this morning.

First of all, I would like to thank Associate Minister Hunter for travelling across the province and hearing from so many people and consulting with the people. It’s important to have their input. I know that she has been speaking to not only businesses, to labour, to organizations, but to the people from the street, so that we can get this right. That is our intention.

I know that among her conversations, one thing is clear: Everybody is in agreement that Ontarians are not saving enough, and there is a concern about that, so we need to do something. In the absence of action from the federal government, we are coming forward with this plan.

We’re taking our time to consult. I know that now, there’s a consultation paper that is being released, and the plan design details are being developed, with time, in stages, so we’re taking the time to get this right. We need to hear from the people. We need the people’s input. It’s very important.

I want to be clear: This is not a tax. This is a vehicle. It’s a way to help people save for their retirement, so that they can retire with dignity, as my colleague said just a few moments ago.

We want to help businesses adjust. This is why it is planned to come into place in 2017. That will coincide with the reduction in employment insurance premiums. The enrolment would occur in stages, with the largest businesses first, and then the others following within another two years. We’re being cautious.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to end by saying that the cost of inaction is too high, as Minister Hunter said. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Speaker. It’s great to be back in the Legislature debating bills. Unfortunately, we’re debating the same old job-killing payroll taxes, and that’s exactly what this bill is.

You can put the associate minister out there, and she has a wonderful smile and talks about how great this is going to be for everyone across the province, but when you talk to people at these consultations, and you hear from them and their concerns about this—the government is still forging ahead.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke talked about the fact that these people seem to be hand-picked that are going to these consultations.

I can tell you that I received a call from the executive director of the Quinte Arts Council. She went to the consultation that was being held in Kingston. As she was driving from Belleville to Kingston, she was fully in support of this, because it sounded so nice. How could we not look out for the futures of people in Ontario by having a retirement pension plan of our own here in Ontario?

But after hearing from all the businesses that showed up at that consultation, she left there saying, “This is the worst possible thing that we could do in Ontario.” She is worried that the companies that are going to be affected by this are no longer going to be able to make charitable donations to her non-profit charity because it’s going to cost them more, because indeed this is a job-killing payroll tax.

Mr. Yakabuski talked about Jack Mintz, a very well-renowned economist.

The president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Allan O’Dette, and all of his members are extremely concerned about this as well.

Employers are having a difficult enough time right now in this environment, trying to survive with soaring electricity prices, rising WSIB rates, and just the sagging economy that is the result of this government being in power for now 12 years, and they want to bring in more difficulties for our employers and our job creators out there. Let’s think this over.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Associate Minister of Finance for final comments.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I am very proud to rise and speak to Bill 56 today. I want to thank the honourable members who have spoken on this bill: the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, the member from Nickel Belt, my colleague from York South–Weston, and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Speaker, we are listening to the people of Ontario. We have consulted on the key design features of this plan. We want to ensure that we get this plan right, that we design the best possible plan for the people of Ontario.

We know that pensions are part of people’s deferred compensation. It is part of their benefits, having worked a lifetime. When people retire, they deserve to retire with dignity and with some comfort.

Our plan for the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan is to provide a strong retirement income floor for people so that they will have income for life. If people retire without adequate income, there is the potential that that would slow consumption. If that happens, that’s not good for the individual, that’s not good for business and it’s not good for Ontario’s economy as a whole.

As my colleague has said, the time to act is now—the time to build and to design a retirement income system that is there for the people of this province. Over three million Ontarians would have stronger workplace-based pension coverage as a result of this plan.

One of the individuals in our consultation has said that when we give a little, we gain a lot. That is what we intend to do by the development of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. It’s ensuring that we have a strong retirement system for all Ontarians.

Thank you, Speaker.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to respond to Bill 56.

I think that all of us have a certain sensitivity around the issue of a pension and the importance of a pension, but when I look at what we are looking at today, I’m reminded of the Premier’s own words. Her words were, “People are not saving enough for retirement, and if we let this go unchecked, we’re going to face a huge economic crisis.” This she said in November 2013.

Naturally, there are a couple of reactions to this kind of comment. One of them is that you want to go and look and see if in fact it is true that it is a crisis, and are people saving? The second point you want to look at is, of all the economic crises that face this province, is this the one that requires immediate attention? On both counts, I found a different point of view.

For instance, on the issue of people not saving enough, people need to know that from 1990 to 2008, Ontarians led the country in savings. Ontarians put aside double the savings of the rest of the country. In the last two years, that has dropped down to the national average, but it is certainly clear that saving has always been part of the Ontario psyche.

For a more up-to-date analysis, one need only go and look at the McKinsey consulting firm study that came out. Last week, they published the results of their findings: 83% of Canadians are on track to maintain their standard of living. In fact, Fabrice Morin, the principal of McKinsey, said that “if even 30% of the value of people’s homes had been included as a financial asset, the proportion of Canadians with adequate savings for retirement would climb to 87%.”

The comments made by Jack Mintz have already been referred to in the speeches this morning, but it’s important to add here that, as he writes, while some Canadians have insufficient replacement income at retirement, it is widely agreed that three quarters to four fifths of Canadians do well, even projected into the future. This suggests that a scalpel is needed, not an ORPP sledgehammer.

It becomes very clear that this question, as the Premier says, “If ... unchecked, we’re going to face a huge economic crisis”—I started to look around at some of the other crises that she seems to have little interest in, and one that struck me as very important is that which the Ontario Auditor General has indicated to us most recently.

She’s very concerned about the growing debt: “Although the government projects that it will not have a deficit in 2017-18, until then, it will still need to borrow to finance annual deficits, fund infrastructure investments and refinance existing debt. ‘We project that by the time the annual deficit is eliminated in 2017-18, the net debt will stand at about $325 billion. That is about $23,000 for every single resident of Ontario.’”

Ultimately, the question of how much debt the province should carry and the strategies the government could use to pay it down is one of government policy. However, this should not prevent the government from providing information that promotes further understanding of the issue and clarifies the choice it is making, or will make, to address the province’s growing debt burden.

I want to come back to that $23,000 that each of us owes in public debt and make sure that people understand that when we’re talking about needing a pension so everyone has money to pass around and buy and sell with, they are restricted by that $23,000 debt that they have to pay. We know that it’s crowding out other spending. We know that just the interest on the debt is the third-largest item, after health and education, that this government has to deal with.

The other thing that I found interesting: I looked around, and now today when you go to see your doctor—the timer is there because there’s a crisis developing in that field. The nurses have agreed to come back and go to arbitration, so they at least have come in from the cold. But they are still in the cold as far as any kind of final disposition of their circumstances.

We can look at the crisis in education, in funding for schools and the buildings, and all of the turmoil that that is creating around the province, and it seems strange that the Premier would choose this particular idea as an economic crisis and one that she is concerned about developing into a full-blown economic crisis. I’d like to know when she decides that her finances in this province demonstrate a full-blown economic crisis. When is she going to look at that? When is she going to look seriously at the impediments to making a profit in this province?

When is she going to look at the cost that government regulation, legislation, red tape and burdens that have been piled on and piled on and piled on the private sector businesses in this province? Because they’re the ones who are going to be looking at taking that 1.9% off the paycheque of their employees and out of their own pocket.

I have difficulty following the logic here—why this particular issue, which many agree is not an issue. I think it’s a bit like being told by someone, “You don’t look well. Are you okay?” Eventually you begin to have self-doubt: “Did I save enough money? Am I ready for retirement? Can I do this?” That’s what has happened, and now, for the purposes of the Premier, it’s going to look like a huge economic crisis.

I would argue that there are many other, much more pressing, issues. If we are looking at the private sector, who is basically the funder for this Bill 56, to provide the money for this, I think we need to look at the private sector and look at what problems they are facing today and that they’re looking at the fact that they may not be able to provide jobs. The cost of energy and the cost of competition with others in other jurisdictions are certainly putting a great deal of pressure on them. Now they find out that this would be mandatory—mandatory unless you have a comparable pension. That’s a topic unto itself, but what I wanted to mention is the people whom this bill does not capture.

First of all, the people who have defined benefit pensions—that would include all of the public service and many large businesses. But there’s a whole group of people that have private provided pension plans. The government has, only so far, said that it will consider “comparable.” I have a vision of “comparable” taking years to decide because there are so many things that remain unanswered about how this would flow, when it would be agreed on that it was a comparable pension—are companies going to give up the pensions they’ve been providing? What obligations would they have to their employees?

It just sounds like a legal feast while people try to figure out what it means for them and what is the best interest of their employees and, quite frankly, what they can afford.

Just to give you one example of this, a friend of a friend told me about the fact that in their employment they have 9% provided by the employer fully. They don’t make any contributions to their defined contribution pension plan. So obviously there are going to be ones that are more generous than others. So the inequities in the manner in which this is going to be dealt with create all kinds of scenarios and nightmares of how you would end up with something that was fair and reasonable, whether you were comparable or not.

I mentioned that the people who have the defined benefit are not part of this. The people in the public sector are not part of this conversation. So all of the money for this pension plan comes from the relatively small and, I’m afraid, shrinking position of the private sector. The businesses certainly look at this as being a draconian way of looking at their business situation and how they might survive this.

For those people who want to quibble about whether it’s a tax or not, just be clear: It’s a deduction. It comes out of your pocket. Anything that goes to the government in that kind of mandatory way, I think most people lump together as a tax.

The other group that is left out, of course, of this conversation are the people who are already retired and the people then who have no job. I think it’s really important to remind people that there are 600,000 people in this province who have no job. That means they aren’t eligible for a pension. The stats that the various groups have done—which I will get to later—about the layoffs that people will have to endure mean they’re not in the pension conversation. As job losses come as a result of higher tax and higher deductions, then those people have no pension. When you’re looking at it as a zero-sum game, obviously that’s not the case.

One of the things that this government seems to forget or fail to appreciate is the fact that it’s only when business makes a profit that they are able to pay taxes. When they look at the cost of doing business continually rising all the time, this pension scheme is certainly not something that they, as a group, in the small/medium area particularly, can see their way to being able to do without doing one of two things: You either cut staff or you raise the price of goods. And if you raise the price of goods, you run the risk of pricing yourself out of the market.

The important thing here really should be what impact this is having and if it has, in fact, an impact that will hurt the very people it is designed to support. I don’t think that enough care has been taken in the consultation to be able to demonstrate that in fact it wouldn’t be hurting people who would theoretically benefit from this pension.

I would say that one job lost is one too many. You have just destroyed the value of doing this if it has the impact of layoffs. People have examined these stats. We’ve looked at the kind of potential—and job loss is very much a part of the conversation, and so I think that just on the basis of eliminating someone from the ability is too much.

The issue of “comparable” is a black hole. I think it will be a very difficult thing to try to come out with a fair process. I mentioned the fact that the people with no jobs obviously are the ones out of the system. People who are retired are out of the system. People who have defined benefits are out of the system.

But the people then who are employed, aged 18 to 70—I thought it was very interesting that we’re now covering from age 18 to 70 to be eligible to make contributions

if they were working. So when we look at that issue, obviously there’s a great deal of concern about the way in which this is actually going to be done, because when people see themselves as either the employer or the employee, they naturally have questions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me for just a moment. I would ask the gentlemen in the members’ gallery—we do appreciate the fact that you’re here to observe, but I must ask and must insist that there be no discussions up there, so that we can allow for fair and equal debate on both sides. I appreciate your being here this morning, but I would appreciate your co-operation as well. Thank you very much.

Back to the member from York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: So when the two groups, then, are looking at this, they naturally have questions: When must I start submitting my contribution? When would I get the first cheque? How does this work for me? When would I retire? When would I receive the cheques?—various questions. So there’s a great deal of concern about the actual way in which this would work.

The bill is also silent on groups of people who obviously want to know—it’s silent on the fate of part-time workers, students, and specialized groups such as the agricultural workforce. They obviously have very different kinds of work settings in many cases than other businesses, and so these are groups that have some interest in this.

I mentioned the questions: When do I begin contributing? When do I receive pension benefits? What happens if I’m laid off? What happens if I change employers? These are all natural questions that would come. The only thing I could find that might help them—at least designed, I guess, to help them—is on the ministry’s own website. If you haven’t been there, you should make a point of going. There’s a chart there that says, “See how much Barbara, Bonnie and Bernice would get from the ORPP”—the Ontario Registered Pension Plan—“if they contribute for about 40 years.” I’ll repeat that: for 40 years.

So three people are shown here. One earns $45,000, another earns $70,000 and the third one earns $90,000. Well, the contribution on the $45,000-a-year salary is $2.16 a day, and that’s matched by the employer. The contribution of someone with a $70,000 salary is $3.46 a day, again matched. The $90,000 salary contributes $4.50 per day, so we’re looking at $9 a day contributed.

The point I want to make here is the fact that this shows if they contribute for 40 years. So while we’re talking about the bill, I think it’s important to realize that this is what the ministry is saying, and they are looking it as a 40-year term. That’s not uncommon, by the way, for people to look at the maturity of a pension to be about 40 years, but it doesn’t give constituents of mine much comfort seeing something like this, because they’ve heard the minister say that they are going to be accepting payments starting on January 1, 2017.

So with that as the only real date given, and a chart on the ministry’s website that says, “You’ve got to contribute for 40 years before this would be what would you get,” I think it should serve as a sobering influence on people who see this as an opportunity that will come by them very quickly.

I also thought about $4.50 a day. I don’t know about you, but that somehow had a ring to it; that used to be a lunch. So the idea of $9 a day—oh, and what will the $9 a day give you? It will give you, after the 40 years, $12,815 a year. I think that’s a really good chart to have a look at to get a sense of what some of all of this means.

I touched on the issue of comparable, and I want to come back to it for a moment because it is so important to be able to appreciate—how are you going to measure this? We have no idea how the government is going to measure this. At one point it was floated out that they were going to only look at defined benefit contributions as a comparable pension. Then, that seemed to sort of fade away and there wasn’t the same reference made to it. But I think it’s really important to give some kind of reassurance to those people, both employed and employers, of the safety of a private plan.

People have been doing this on their own for years and they may have a level of satisfaction and they certainly have a lot of money already invested. What happens to that if it’s deemed not comparable? There’s clearly a cost involved in making all these changes, if they were to be made, and a cost involved to wind up a plan, never mind whether that windup is fair.

I visualize a great deal of red tape going on in this and possibly some sort of tribunal to decide fairness about a pension or whether it’s comparable, and a huge amount of effort made, and therefore cost, to be able to move already existing pensions into conformity or wind them up. Any of those things requires time, expertise and cost. I think that people are well to be skeptical of that.

The other thing that nobody has talked about is the fact that Toronto is the financial centre. All of the existing plans are being currently looked after by members of that Toronto financial centre. I don’t think that I’ve seen any analysis or any look—I think because it’s a bit premature, but it nevertheless begs to happen—that those institutions that have currently functioning pension plans that they provide for their clients—what happens there? What happens if they are deemed non-comparable?

Do we see an unravelling of the financial business community in this city because the government has chosen to interfere and make decisions for us? I think that there’s a real concern about that issue and the financial centre, the impact that it would have.

The last thing that I think I have time for is to touch on the issue of enabling legislation. Bill 56 is enabling legislation. The associate minister made reference to the fact that there had to be certain privacy laws that had to be adjusted in order to allow the ministry—I assume it would be the Ministry of Finance. So it all has to be general comments and enabling legislation.

I think it’s really important for people to understand what that means. If you were to read Bill 56, you would see that there is very little—almost no—detail in it at all, in terms of the way in which it works. In defence, the ministry says, “We went out and consulted on those issues.” But the problem is those things that are left to regulations. Regulations are not a public process. The people who are invited are invited by the ministry to come and lend a hand to the details.

One of the problems with that means that the kinds of questions that I have raised on behalf of people who are interested in this—people who want to know, “When does my cheque come? How long do I have to pay in? What happens if I move? What happens if I get laid off?”; all those kinds of normal questions that people would have—none of those are dealt with in Bill 56. There is nothing there to give anyone any sense of where we’re going with this in the details.

No one is able to read that bill and say, “Oh, my circumstances would be included in the comparable,” or, “My circumstances would not.” There’s nothing to give anybody any confidence, because of the fact that this is enabling legislation.

What that means is that, once again, we’re left in the dark until those regulations have been made. At that point, they get posted, but it’s the stroke of the cabinet pen that determines what those regulations look like.

I think it’s really important for people to understand that what I’m suggesting here today is, first of all, when the Premier said, “People are not saving enough for retirement, and if we let this go unchecked, we’re going to face a huge economic crisis,” this is a crisis that she has chosen. This is not one of the many—I think three police investigations might hit that list too. It has nothing to do with the kind of severity of the crisis that the Auditor General has pointed out. It has nothing to do with the severity of what we’re watching outside, that doctors and nurses and educators particularly, just to name three, are looking at a crisis in their own circumstances.

We are talking about a bill that provides us with no detail of how it’s going to impact.

One of the fundamental reasons for people being elected to the Legislature is to be able to be a conduit both ways between the electorate and the legislators. What we find here is that this is a murky kind of situation that we’re in. All that the businesses know, and all that we know, is that the private sector is on the hook. It is the businesses that are the ones that actually create wealth in this province and are the ones that are expected to dig deeper and shell out the money. That’s all they know at this point. That is the plan.

I think it’s reasonable for people to think that that’s not good enough. It’s not good enough when people like Jack Mintz say that this is a sledgehammer when we need a scalpel.

People aren’t denying that there aren’t some people that have not saved for circumstances. That’s not the issue. That’s not the bill before us. The bill before us will in fact, I believe, damage those it purports to want to help. When one person is laid off because of this shift in the financial responsibilities of an employer to provide for all employees and he can’t do that, that one person is a demonstration of the fallacy that lies at the basis of this bill.

I want to finish with where I will begin the next time I have the opportunity, and that’s a quote that is the giveaway to explain this whole process that we’re engaged in. It’s a quote from the 2014 budget, and it’s important to end on this note because it’s where I will begin next time:

“By unlocking value from its assets and encouraging more Ontarians to save through a proposed new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, new pools of capital would be available for Ontario-based projects such as building roads, bridges and new transit. Our strong alternative financing and procurement model, run by Infrastructure Ontario, will allow for the efficient deployment of this capital in job-creating projects.”

Well, that’s really why we need to get that 1.9% out of everybody’s pocket. That’s where the money really is designed to go.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I’m close to time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the member from York–Simcoe for your debate this morning. You will be allowed to continue with your debate at the appointed time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Seeing as how it is now almost 10:15, this Legislature stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

Introduction of member for Sudbury

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Chief Electoral Officer and laid upon the table a certificate of the by-election in the electoral district of Sudbury.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): I have a letter that reads as follows: “A writ of election dated the 7th day of January, 2015, was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and was addressed to Ellen Kerr, returning officer for the electoral district of Sudbury, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Sudbury in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Joe Cimino, who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Sudbury, has resigned his seat.

This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in Sudbury on the 5th day of February, 2015, Glenn Thibeault has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election dated the 13th day of February, 2015, which is now lodged of record in my office.”

It is signed by Greg Essensa, the Chief Electoral Officer, and dated, in Toronto, February 16, 2015.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier, government House leader.

Mr. Thibeault was escorted into the House by Ms. Wynne and Mr. Naqvi.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have the honour to present to you and to the House Glenn Thibeault, member-elect for the electoral district of Sudbury, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let the honourable member take his seat.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s delightful to introduce Gwen Davis, née Sutcliffe. She’s a former Hepworthian and she actually babysat me as a child. I trust she never thought she’d ever see me here. Welcome.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to welcome a contingent of corrections officers. I have Randy Simpraga and Carsten Schiller from Local 135, which is down my way in Windsor. I’d also like to welcome James Nowe, Raffaella Tassone and Greg Arnold as well.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, it’s my great pleasure today to welcome Adrian and Draupadi Quinn, along with Katelyn Crane, Brooke Murphy and Tamara Elstub. They’re from Kaley’s Acres. Kaley’s Acres was recently awarded the Premier’s Award for agricultural innovation. We are excited to have them back here today visiting us, as they bring bags of kale chips for all members of this House to enjoy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It gives me great pleasure to introduce, in the members’ gallery this morning, Ruth Howe. Ruth is a long-time friend. I’m glad to have you here in the members’ gallery at Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome Monte Vieselmeyer, who is the co-chair of the management-employee relations committee with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and all the correctional, probation and parole officers in the House today. Thank you very much for your service.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s a pleasure for me to introduce, on behalf of my colleague Christine Elliott, Chris Eaton. Chris Eaton is the dad of Riley, who is a page serving here. Welcome.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’d ask the House to join me in welcoming members from OPSEU here in the House. We have Kulvir Saini, Gordon Cobb, Pete Wright, Len Elliott and Monte Vieselmeyer. Thank you so much for being here.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome Smokey Thomas and others from OPSEU here today. Thank you for all the work you do every single day.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to introduce Allison St-Jean from my community office in Ottawa. She’s in the east gallery along with Elise Roiron, who is my legislative assistant here at Queen’s Park. Thank you.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It gives me great pleasure to welcome members of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Black, African and Caribbean Network who are joining us here in the Legislature. Joining us is Shannon Ryan, Valerie Pierre-Pierre and Wangari Tharao.

This group is a national network of organizations and individuals dedicated to responding to issues related to HIV and AIDS in Canada’s African, Caribbean and black community. I’d like to welcome them to the Legislature. They were here on February 7, when they had an awareness day. I just want to say thank you for being here today, and thank you for your hard work on behalf of all Ontarians.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to introduce Dr. Kelly Hoogeveen, who is here. She is the mother of new page Niko Hoogeveen, who is from Alcona Glen in Barrie.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: May I just begin by congratulating the new member for Sudbury, Mr. Thibeault? Welcome to the House.

Interjection: Where is he?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Where is he?

Interjection: He’s over here.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Oh, you’re over there. I can’t see that far, Glenn. Anyway, welcome.

My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, the Sudbury by-election was not without a dark cloud cast over the electoral process. Caught on tape is a discussion between your deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, saying to your former candidate, Andrew Olivier, “We should have the broader discussion about what it is that you’d be most interested in doing, and then decide what shape that could take that would fulfill that is, what I’m getting at, whether it’s a full-time or a part-time job in a constit office, whether it is appointments, supports, or commissions, whether it is also going on the” executive—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —“we would just need to better understand what is it that you most want to do.”

Premier, that sure sounds like a bribe to me, and the OPP obviously—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I’d ask the member to withdraw, and then your time is up, so please withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdraw.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You have the right to remain silent.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I will make it clear now: We will have order.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, I just want to congratulate the new member for Sudbury and to welcome him to our caucus.

He ran a positive campaign in Sudbury. He campaigned on the issues, and he has been and will be a strong voice for the people of Sudbury. We are thrilled to have him here at Queen’s Park.

As I have said repeatedly—I have said in public, I have said to Elections Ontario and I will continue to say—I had, in my role as the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, made a decision to appoint a candidate in Sudbury, and at the same time—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will withdraw.

Mr. Bill Walker: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You have a 10-second wrap-up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: At the same time, I worked very hard to try to keep the past candidate involved in the party. That’s what those conversations were about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: Premier, your spokesperson has said that “any suggestion that anything was offered in exchange for any action is false,” yet on the tape your deputy chief of staff clearly says that the new member for Sudbury would actually be very open—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): President of Treasury Board, come to order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —to a job in his office as a constituency assistant. That is offering him a government job.

Pat Sorbara also said: “Let’s look at other ways ... you can be involved,” and that some of these other ways would allow Mr. Olivier to “meet with the Premier regularly.”

Premier, honourable ministers in the past have voluntarily stepped down for actions of their staff because it’s the right thing to do. Will you at the very least demand that your deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, step aside?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the member opposite well knows, the duties of the deputy chief of staff in my office are separate from the ongoing investigation. They’re separate from any role in a by-election, so it is not necessary.

The member opposite also knows that, at the request of the opposition parties, there is an investigation going on. The authorities are examining any allegations, and those investigations are independent of the work that is going on in my office.

As I have said repeatedly, any suggestion that anything was offered in exchange for any action is false, Mr. Speaker. I had made a decision that I was going to appoint a candidate in the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order—second time.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): President of the Treasury Board, come to order—second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The context in which those conversation took place was the context in which I had decided to appoint a candidate. Any of those conversations were about keeping a young man involved in the party, and quite frankly, I think it’s the responsibility of a leader to try to keep past candidates involved in the party. I think that’s part of our responsibility.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier. I think the Premier misses the point of the law in this case, and the law is clear. This young man wanted to stay involved in the party, he had indicated that he was going to run in the nomination process again, so he wasn’t, as you said in your news conference this morning, a “past candidate” or a “failed candidate,” and therefore you could offer him a job. He was actively in the candidate process, and you intervened. The allegations are—and they’re pretty clear on the tape to me—that a job offer was made or other arrangements could be made, and that may very well be found to be against the Criminal Code and against the Election Act.

Do you really want someone in your office—your deputy chief of staff—who has criminal-wrongdoing allegations hanging over her? How can that person possibly serve the people of Ontario when she’s so tainted in terms of reputation and it’s hurting your reputation and it’s hurting the reputation of the Premier of the province of Ontario and the office that you hold?

Will you do the right thing, the honourable thing, and get rid of this—

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The number of leaps that the member opposite makes in that question is quite remarkable.

I made a decision, which is my prerogative as the leader of the party, to appoint a candidate. That decision was made. There was not a nomination race because I made a decision that we were going to appoint a candidate. I decided, Mr. Speaker, that having Glenn Thibeault as the candidate for us in Sudbury was the right decision. I made that decision and then we tried to keep a young man, who had been a past candidate, involved in the party. That’s what happened, Mr. Speaker. That’s what those conversations were about.

Quite frankly, I had decided that I did not want that young man to find out that I had appointed a candidate in the newspaper. That’s why I had a conversation with him. I wanted him to know that we wanted him to be involved, and I think it’s the responsibility of all leaders to keep people involved in the party.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. New question.

Power plants

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Last week was the two-year anniversary of you becoming Premier, but it was also two years ago last week that the gas plant files were deleted. The OPP has since recovered thousands of gas plant emails deleted by Liberal staffers. Many of those staffers testified in the justice committee hearings and, like you, took an oath to solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those staffers responded to the many freedom-of-information requests on the gas plant scandal. With the knowledge and confidence that all their files were deleted, they boldly swore, “I have no responsive emails.”

Premier, will you launch an investigation into which of your staffers lied under oath?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re going to start tiptoeing around it—I’m going to make a ruling: Withdraw, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the government House leader is going to want to speak to the process, but I will just say that the member opposite knows that hundreds of thousands of documents went before the committee. There were dozens of witnesses who spoke to the issues. We opened up the process.

Two years ago, when I came into office, in this office, I said we were going to open up the process and we were going to make sure that the committee was able to ask the questions that they needed to ask and bring the witnesses on any issue that they deemed to be relevant. And that happened.

I’m encouraged that the report has been written. I understand that it will be released shortly. That’s a good thing. I think that it was very important that the committee was allowed to do its work, and it was allowed to do its work because we opened up the process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Again to the Premier: One freedom-of-information request asks nine senior staff for all their files related to the gas plant scandal from January 1 to October 1, 2012. Five Liberal staffers wrote back, “I have no records,” but the OPP then recovered emails from Laura Miller and others relating to the gas plants within that time period. Laura also told the justice committee under oath that she had no documents.

Premier, when people file a freedom-of-information request, when MPPs ask questions in committee, they need to know the answers are truthful. Laura Miller, now executive director of the BC Liberals, hasn’t spoken to the OPP. When are you going to show some moral leadership, call Premier Christy Clark, and demand she send Laura Miller back to Ontario to co-operate with the OPP?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Let me first of all start by welcoming the new member of provincial Parliament from Sudbury to this House. I look forward to working with him.

Speaker, as the member opposite noted himself, there is an active OPP investigation going on in the matter. I think we should let the Ontario Provincial Police do its work when it comes to any allegations there may be.

What we know is that this Premier, when she became the leader of this government, immediately opened up the process and ensured that hundreds of thousands of new documents were submitted to the committee. Speaker, the justice committee, as you know, has been looking into the matter for the last two years. They have heard from about 93 witnesses, and they have had ample information to consider in order to ensure that they can provide guidance to the government when it comes to major issues that the committee was looking at.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, let’s go back to that freedom-of-information request where five Liberal staffers wrote back, “I have no records.”

According to an affidavit, in her role as special assistant to the Premier, Beckie Codd-Downey was to “identify individuals who may have responsive records.” In December, the OPP recovered gas plant emails seized on computers from the Premier’s office. Much to our shock and surprise, here’s an email from the very same Beckie Codd-Downey. It reads, “Talked to Dave. Will delete my” emails. Talk about the fox running the henhouse. She was in charge of identifying the very individuals who may have gas plant emails but didn’t put herself on the list.

Premier, why is Beckie Codd-Downey employed in your government today?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my previous response, this Premier and this government have opened up government significantly. We have implemented significant record-keeping reforms such as mandatory staff training.

In addition, Speaker, we have passed a very broad accountability act which implements key recommendations from the privacy commissioner, such as ensuring the preservation of records and prohibiting the wilful destruction of records with the intent to deny our right of access to records, and introducing a new offence with a fine of up to $5,000 for the wilful destruction of records.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I withdraw.

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Again? I withdraw. Is that okay?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s try it without the editorial.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, these are very important changes that this government has undertaken. The former Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, has credited our government for improving record-keeping across government.

Public services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Ontario families are looking for the government to make life a little bit easier, but instead of dealing with people’s problems and helping families, this Premier seems very busy with her problems, whether it’s three police investigations or putting her political interests first. Meanwhile, moms, dads, teachers and community leaders are worried because the Liberals are closing their neighbourhood schools. Once these schools are closed, Speaker, they are gone for good.

Will the Premier put her own interests and the interests of the Liberal Party on hold, pay attention to what matters to people, and stop allowing schools to be closed and sold off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party. I will answer the issue around the school consolidations and closures, but I wanted to speak to the work that we’ve been doing over the last two years, because she referenced helping people in the province, and I just want to go over some of the things that we have done.

We’ve extended our investment in affordable housing by $801 million. We’ve increased the minimum wage. We’ve increased legal aid. We’ve increased the Ontario Child Benefit by $100. As of this past September, all four- and five-year-olds in Ontario have access to full-day kindergarten. We’ve strengthened community and developmental services. We’ve helped 8,000 families who didn’t have help before and who have help now.

Mr. Speaker, those are all initiatives that we have taken in order to help people in this province, in order to help people in their day-to-day lives and help the families of this province. That’s the work that we’ve been doing over the last two years.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s my list of the Liberal record. Across Ontario, nursing positions are being eliminated, and for over two weeks, 3,000 home care nurses were walking the picket line in this province. The Liberals have cut hospital budgets, Speaker. Ontarians face longer wait times for home care and for long-term care. The Liberals have attacked the women and men who provide health care services in this province.

The treasury is full, however, when it comes to sweetheart P3 deals or paying for scandals like Ornge and the gas plants. When a Liberal needs a helping hand, the good times keep on rolling, Speaker, but when it comes to health care, the Liberals say that our cupboards are bare here in this province.

Will the Premier start funding health care properly and end the Liberal waste and corruption that plagues this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the question seems to have shifted, but let me just take this moment to say that I’m very pleased that the negotiations were completed and that there’s an agreement with the CCAC nurses. That’s a good thing.

I actually would have thought that the leader of the third party would respect and honour the collective bargaining process. The fact is, when there is a disagreement—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sergeant-at-Arms.

Interruption.

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

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was actually talking, Mr. Speaker, about a collective bargaining process that reached a successful conclusion, and we have agreements. I hope that we can come to an agreement with OPSEU. That is absolutely our intention: to bargain at the table and to come to an agreement.

On the question of health care: The funding for health care continues to increase year over year in this province. We are making more investments in health care. We will continue to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps this Premier is not aware, but going into arbitration is not the successful conclusion of a collective bargaining process.

But do you know what, Speaker? The OPSEU members who were out on the front lawns of Queen’s Park this morning remind us about how important our public services are to the people of this province. People want to see—and expect—their corrections facilities being safely and properly staffed, day in and day out. They want to know that their ODSP and social services cheques that are supposed to be going out to the most vulnerable people in Ontario are actually going out and reaching those folks. They want to know that troubled children are getting the help and protection that they deserve.

But rather than investing in services and the people who deliver those services, the Premier is gutting services and ordering up pink slips for the people who deliver those services. Don Drummond said the Liberals were going to fire 100,000 people. Will the Premier stop this attack now and—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I would just say to the leader of the third party that she knows full well that when both parties agree to arbitration, that’s part of the process. That’s what has happened.

I want to pick another point out of that grab bag of things that the leader of the third party talked about: talking about investing in the people who deliver the services in this province. I think it’s actually shameful that the leader of the third party was not supportive of a budget that invested more in personal support workers and gave them an increase, one that they have not had for many years, and that invested in early childhood educators and developmental support workers—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Increasing the salaries of those people who do the essential and vital work of looking after some of the most vulnerable people in this province is absolutely a hallmark of our budget. The leader of the third party didn’t support it, and doesn’t even acknowledge that those people are getting support because of the changes that we have made.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. I’d like to think that people actually get into politics because they believe in public services. I want to believe, in fact, that integrity and respect once mattered to the Premier of this province. Members of every party owe it to Ontarians to restore their faith in government. It’s time to start undoing the damage done by the Premier and her party by showing that integrity and trust, in fact, do matter.

Will the Premier show leadership so that we can begin the important task of rebuilding confidence and trust in our political institutions and government by putting Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed on leave?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have been very clear about the actions that I took in Sudbury, and I will continue to be clear. I made it clear that I made a decision as the leader of the party to appoint a candidate. Having done that, there were conversations with the past candidate about keeping him involved in the party. That’s the decision that I made. Those are the actions that we took.

I had made a decision that Glenn Thibeault was the candidate that we wanted as our candidate in Sudbury. He will be a wonderful MPP for the people of Sudbury. The conversations with the former candidate were about keeping him involved because I had decided that I was going to appoint a candidate to run in the by-election.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In its investigation into bribery in the Sudbury by-election, the OPP says that “reference to the Premier’s authority threatens the appearance of the government’s integrity”—not just the Premier’s personal integrity, not just the integrity of the Premier’s office, not just the caucus or the cabinet or the candidate for that matter; the government’s integrity. And yet the Premier insists on protecting Liberal insiders Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed.

According to Mr. Lougheed, the Premier was behind the offer to Mr. Olivier, so the Premier can also direct him and Pat Sorbara to step aside until this investigation is complete. Will the Premier actually show some leadership and begin to rebuild the public trust by doing the right thing?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said repeatedly, any suggestion that anything was offered in exchange for any action is false. There was no specific offer. There was no commitment. There was a discussion about how this young man might want to stay involved.

I have to say, the people of Sudbury had all this information when they went to the polls. They made a decision. They have sent Glenn Thibeault to Queen’s Park, and I think we need to respect and honour the decision of the people of Sudbury.

What I have to do as the leader and what I have to do as a politician is answer questions. Of course, the opposition have asked for an investigation; that investigation is happening. It’s taking place. We will co-operate. My responsibility is to answer honestly. That is what I have done, and I will continue to do so.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A few short months ago, the Premier apologized for scandals and cover-ups. “It won’t happen again,” she claimed during the election campaign. “I learned my lesson,” she said. But all the Premier learned was to deny, obstruct and ignore the truth. She learned to protect Liberal insiders at all costs and that nobody is ever held to account under her watch.

Now she’s at the centre of a bribery scandal. The OPP are investigating. Elections Ontario is investigating. There is a culture of arrogance and entitlement in the Premier’s office and the Premier is refusing to clean it up. This does not pass the smell test.

Ontarians deserve better. I certainly believe that. My caucus believes that. I believe the other opposition party believes that. Does the Premier agree that Ontarians deserve better?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think—I know—that Ontarians deserve to understand exactly what happened, and what I have said is exactly what happened. I made a decision as the leader, which is my prerogative as the leader of the party, to decide on appointing a candidate. I made that decision. I didn’t want the past candidate to learn from the newspaper that I had made that decision. So yes, I had a conversation with the past candidate, and those conversations were about how that young person might want to stay involved in the party.

Quite frankly, I would expect that the leaders of the opposition parties, of any party, would want to keep someone involved if they had been involved as a candidate in the party. I think that’s a responsibility that we have as leaders. That’s what I did. We have a new member for the riding of Sudbury. The people of Sudbury made that decision, and I think we need to respect the decision of the constituents of Sudbury.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Premier. As you’re well aware, Premier, your Sudbury Liberal kingmaker, Mr. Gerry Lougheed, Jr., told your former candidate, Andrew Olivier, that “I come to you, on behalf of the Premier...,” and that “They,” meaning your office, “would like to present”—in this case Mr. Olivier—“options in terms of appointments, jobs, whatever.”

I think, Premier, that this backroom political dealing seems a little dubious—so dubious, as a matter of fact, that the OPP is investigating Mr. Lougheed, a man who happens to be your appointee to the Greater Sudbury Police Services Board. I just don’t see how he can lead a police services board while being under investigation for bribery by the OPP.

Premier, will you remove Mr. Lougheed from the board until the OPP finishes their investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, police services boards are responsible for the provision of adequate and effective policing services in the municipality. I understand that the Sudbury police services board addressed this issue last week. They took a vote, Mr. Speaker, and they voted to have Mr. Lougheed remain in place. They made that decision. We don’t direct the police services board. They made that decision. They want to keep him involved.

To the

preamble in the member’s question, I talked about wanting to keep this young man involved. There are many ways that people can stay involved, and for all of those things, there would be an application process. There would have been a process through which he would have had to go to get any of those positions. Those were options; those were suggestions about how that young person might want to stay involved. As I’ve said, I think those are conversations that I would hope leaders would have with past candidates on all sides of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Premier, Mr. Lougheed informed Mr. Olivier that he would tell the Premier to call him. He coached Mr. Olivier to ask—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, second time.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: —and I quote, “ ... ‘what are you giving me, for me to step down, that is worthwhile?’ ... And I think that’s the point, only you and [the Premier] can have that conversation.” Those are Mr. Lougheed’s comments to Mr. Olivier.

Well, Premier, either you were aware of specific job offers or Mr. Lougheed was making unacceptable claims on your behalf. This is a possible breach of the code of conduct that all members of the police services boards are subject to, Premier, and I’ve asked the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to investigate.

So, Premier, were you aware of a job offer? Will you remove Mr. Lougheed from the board until the OPP finishes their investigation?

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to restate what the Premier said. I think it’s a very important point, that police services boards are responsible for the provision of adequate and effective police services within their municipality. Among their duties, police services boards generally determine the objectives and priorities with respect to police services within their community and establish policies for the effective management of those police services.

Speaker, the Police Services Act does not give the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services any authority to remove a board member, as all board members of a police services board are appointed by the province or municipal council and they’re subject to a code of conduct which is in the regulations under the Police Services Act.

In this particular instance, as we know, the police services board looked at this matter, they considered this matter, and they voted to keep the chair in his position. If there is a breach, OCPC has to investigate that matter, Speaker.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, my question through you to the Premier: Did the Premier personally make the decision to offer a bribe to Andrew Olivier not to run for office?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I’ll ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, it’s in the Election Act—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do you want to restate the question?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, let me try this way:

Section 96.1 of the Election Act has a

section entitled Bribery. It deals with how you’re not allowed to do the kinds of things that happened in the last election. So to rephrase my question, utilizing the language of the Election Act, under

section 96.1, Bribery, did the Premier personally make the decision to offer that bribe to Mr. Olivier or not?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Whether it says that in the act—you can’t use that language in this House and you can’t accuse a member of bribery. That’s the ruling, and it will not happen again. Withdraw.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Okay, I withdraw—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No. Let’s get this clear: Withdraw, and then I’ll explain to you what I’d like to offer you. Just do the withdrawal, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I did. Again?

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Sorry, I’ll do it again: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question in a way that does not use the language that is not acceptable in the House.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I don’t know. We debated this legislation in the House. It was a word used in the legislation, but I’ll try. Did the Premier personally make the decision to offer a “blank” to Andrew Olivier not to run for office?

Interjections.

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

Let me apologize if I’m not being clear enough. First of all, you cannot say anything indirectly that is meaning the direct word. Second of all, it’s not the word or the quoting of the law; it’s the accusation of a member being part of that or saying that. So I’m going to ask the member—if one more time you attempt to say the word again, I’ll just pass.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, I will try again. I used the word “blank,” so I’m going to try another word. Did the Premier personally make the decision to offer something to Mr. Olivier that was contrary to

section 96.1 of the Election Act?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well said.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The decision that I made, the personal decision I made—

Interruption.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s just my bracelet—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know. It just fell off.

The decision I made was to appoint a candidate in Sudbury. I made that decision, so there was no nomination race; there was no other process. The process was that I decided to appoint Glenn Thibeault as our candidate. Then I decided that I would want to keep the former candidate involved, and so that’s what the conversation was about. It wasn’t about anything other than keeping him involved as a part of the Liberal team, as a part of the family, because he had been our candidate, and I knew it was a difficult process when the leader makes a decision to appoint. But I had made that decision, and that was the personal decision that I made in this process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, that’s pretty contrary to the facts, Madam Premier. When you look at the recordings and you read the transcripts, it’s pretty clear what happened. You made an offer way before he actually—that all that had happened.

Let me ask you this: When did the Premier tell the deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, or the Liberal kingmaker, Mr. Lougheed Jr.—and offered them something that was contrary to

Section 96.1 of the Election Act, entitled Bribery?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The premise of the question is that the member opposite knows what was going on in my mind at every moment and knows when I made the decision to appoint, and he doesn’t know that, Mr. Speaker. What I’m saying is that the decision to appoint—I had already made the decision to appoint. That decision had been made. Glenn Thibeault was the person whom I wanted as our candidate in Sudbury. That decision was made, and the conversations were about keeping the past candidate involved.

That’s the truth, Mr. Speaker. I’ve told Elections Ontario that. I will continue to tell anyone who asks me that that is what happened. That is why we were having those conversations.

Mining industry

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank everyone for the warm welcome.

My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Ontario’s mineral sector has a tremendous impact on job creation across the province and is vital to the economy in the north, particularly in my hometown of Sudbury.

Sudbury has a rich history when it comes to mining. The Sudbury basin has been producing ore for over 100 years, and the local economy relies on a healthy mining industry. I’m proud that Ontario remains the top jurisdiction for exploration and production of minerals in Canada.

Will the minister please inform the House on the status of mining in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: That is a great question. I want to start, of course, by welcoming the member from Sudbury to this Legislature. We are very proud to have him on our team. I know he’ll be a very strong voice for the north and for the constituents of the Sudbury riding.

As the member mentioned, Ontario is the leading jurisdiction in Canada for exploration and production of minerals. People need to know that there are currently 43 mines operating in Ontario, and the potential for growth continues to be very significant. There are actually over 30 mineral projects in the advanced stages of exploration right now in the province. The number of direct jobs in the mineral sector: production, 26,000 in 2014, and, in the supply and services sector, another 41,000 jobs.

Our government continues to work hard with the mining sector to create jobs and enhance economic prosperity through responsible development of the province’s mineral sector. We know that the member from Sudbury will be a great help in making that happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: The mineral exploration industry is an incredibly important contributor to our provincial economy. I know personally how essential fostering a strong mineral sector is to ensuring that northern Ontario remains on a positive track.

In Sudbury, we have seen the benefits of a diversifying economy from mining to fabrication and processing, and a growing mining supply and service industry. We continue to see the different ways this is spurring innovation across our community, across our province and across our country. I am pleased that the outlook for mine expansion in northern Ontario continues to be a promising one.

I understand that there have been several announcements of new investments in mining in Ontario. Can the minister elaborate on those most recent mining developments?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The fact is that 2015 is off to a tremendous start. In January, New Gold moved a step closer to construction of their virtually $1-billion Rainy River gold project by securing federal and provincial environmental assessment approvals. That’s a very exciting project in the Rainy River area.

This month, Centerra Gold, a global mining company, announced that they’d be investing in the province of Ontario. Centerra’s $300-million partnership with Premier Gold Mines will help advance northwestern Ontario’s Hardrock gold project in the Greenstone/Geraldton area—great stuff.

But it’s not just in the northwest, Speaker. As the member mentioned, the Sudbury area is home to five projects, including KGHM International’s Victoria project and Vale’s Victor-Capre project, both of which are large nickel-copper-PGM-rich deposits.

Our government is excited by these opportunities. We’re going to keep looking forward to it. We’re looking forward to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference coming up in a week or so in which we’ll join you; we hope you’ll join us.

Social Assistance Management System

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you recently announced that your seamless rollout of SAMS now requires a third-party adviser to tell us what front-line workers have been telling you for months: SAMS is not working. This is all too lame. We know that “adviser” is simply a code word for “consultant.”

Minister, given your government’s track record in signing sweetheart deals with consultants and other insiders, will you disclose who this consultant is and exactly how much the taxpayers of Ontario are going to pay for this?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I also would like to congratulate our new member from Sudbury.

I’d like to explain to this House a number of the actions that our government has taken in relation to SAMS since we last sat in December.

First of all, the initial issues encountered in November involving the accuracy and delivery of benefit payments have been addressed. Overall, SAMS has now processed three successful pay runs for both ODSP and OW monthly payments. This means that SAMS has processed over two million payments to our most vulnerable families.

Because of the various issues that were raised with me, I’ve spent the last several weeks visiting a number of ODSP and Ontario Works offices across the province, and I’ve heard first-hand from workers the challenges with SAMS and listened to their experiences during the transition. I’ve also talked to dozens of mayors and other municipal officials clearly expressing their concerns and the concerns of their staff.

I do want to thank all these hard-working staff for them ensuring our most vulnerable—

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Speaker, my question is back to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Your government is saying it hasn’t got money for doctors, nurses and affordable housing, but when it comes to hiring consultants, there’s never a shortage of money for them.

Minister, you recently poured an additional $16 million into the SAMS boondoggle to try to save face for your government. This money could have paid for a lot of food, heat and hydro, dental appointments and housing for our most vulnerable citizens.

I ask again, Minister: How much more is it going to cost the taxpayers to cover your incompetence and mismanagement? What is the timeline for the minor glitch to be fixed? Most importantly, when will the people who are hurting the most as a result of your boondoggle receive the services they so need and much deserve?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Certainly, as a result of my investigations over the last couple of months, I do agree that the implementation of SAMS must be improved. In the coming weeks and months, we will be taking specific actions to deal with immediate issues and improve the implementation of SAMS.

I have decided that we will select an independent third party adviser who will provide further advice and assistance, evaluate our progress and recommend actions to help us reach our goals. Our municipal partners and staff delivering services to clients will be fully engaged in this review.

We have established a technical working group that now is going to include front-line workers. In fact, members from CUPE have already been part of that working group on a couple of occasions to bring their perspective to the table.

We need to make this system, complicated as it is, simpler and more user-friendly. To this end, we will be requesting the services of a new set of fresh eyes on the issues while we continue to improve SAMS.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. OPP investigator Detective Erin Thomas says, “I believe the words spoken by both Lougheed and Sorbara to Olivier assists me in my belief the Criminal Code offence has been committed.” Lougheed and Sorbara were both speaking on behalf of the Premier. Is the Premier now suggesting that they were acting on their own behalf? Or were they acting on her behalf?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s important that the people of Ontario actually understand what’s going on here. You see, Speaker, the NDP won the riding of Sudbury in the last general election. Five months later, the member resigned.

We ran an excellent candidate, who happened to have been a member of the New Democratic Party before he decided that Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberal Party understood the issues of the north and could drive positive change. A superb candidate with a superb track record chose to run for the Liberal Party.

The NDP, understandably, are not happy that the people of Sudbury rejected their candidate and elected our candidate, and I think it’s time that the NDP actually accepted the will of the people of Sudbury, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Ontario should know that in response to a serious question about criminal allegations conducted by this government, the Deputy Premier gave a story unrelated to that question.

New Democrats have asked for the Premier’s deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, and for Gerry Lougheed, who is on the police services board for Sudbury, to step down until this investigation is completed—a very reasonable request. They both claimed they were acting on behalf of the Premier.

Is the Premier suggesting that she had no conversations with Sorbara or Lougheed about Andrew Olivier and the Sudbury by-election?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Premier has addressed this issue, so let’s learn a little bit more about the person the people of Sudbury have elected to represent them here.

Throughout his career, Glenn has shown an unwavering commitment to a better, fairer Sudbury. He has fought tirelessly for supports for persons with developmental disabilities and for quality services for families struggling with autism. As a director with the United Way, he led many successful campaigns in support of community development, and as a proud volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters and minor hockey and football leagues, he has helped empower Sudbury youth to achieve their full potential.

Glenn remains focused on building opportunity and prosperity for all members of the great community of Sudbury. Whether advocating for greater retirement security, enhanced consumer protection measures or significant investments in the Ring of Fire, Glenn has put Sudbury and Sudburians front and centre. We welcome his election.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Biodiversity

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is for the very enthusiastic Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

But before asking my question, I too want to welcome the new member from Sudbury. It’s a rare occasion when the government wins back a seat on a by-election, and I want to thank you, Mr. Thibeault, and the people of Sudbury for the confidence they’ve shown in you and the party.

My question relates to biodiversity. Ontario’s economy, its environment and its cultural identity are intimately connected with biodiversity. We are fortunate in Ontario to benefit from a great variety of species and an abundance of different plants, animals and ecosystems. Biodiversity is in many ways nature’s insurance plan. That diversity provides resilience to disturbances like pests, disease, droughts, floods and forest fires. For Ontario families, and families in my riding of Beaches–East York, biodiversity plays an important role in keeping our air clean and our water safe.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: Will the minister inform the House of what our government is currently doing to strengthen and protect biodiversity here in Ontario?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Let me add my welcome to the member from Sudbury as well. We look forward to working with him in the years ahead.

To the member from Beaches–East York: Thank you very much for the question.

Ontario has the most up-to-date biodiversity strategy in Canada, and we’re the first province to update our strategy to be consistent with the targets adopted internationally by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

This year, my ministry will be working with the Ontario Biodiversity Council on two important projects. We will be developing the State of Ontario’s Biodiversity report, and in May we will be holding the Ontario Biodiversity Summit.

I’ve also reintroduced the Invasive Species Act, which, if passed, will make Ontario the only jurisdiction in Canada with stand-alone invasive-species legislation. It will also provide the tools necessary to prevent, detect, rapidly respond to and eradicate invasive species across the province.

My ministry is also undertaking a commitment to plant 50 million trees, including one million trees in urban areas, by 2025, and I’m pleased to report that we’ve already planted 16 million since 2008.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to thank the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry for his response and for his dedication to biodiversity in our province. I particularly want to commend him for championing the very important Invasive Species Act, Bill 37. We need to be able to rapidly respond to invasive species and prevent their introduction into our ecosystems. I hope that we are able to move this important bill through the House, with the co-operation of our fellows opposite.

My constituents in Beaches–East York recognize that conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity is a shared responsibility, and it’s critical that the provinces and territories and the federal government all work together to address these threats to our diverse ecosystems. It’s essential that Ontario is working with colleagues in other jurisdictions to develop strategies to protect our common interests. For example, resources like the boreal forest and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway span across various jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, again through you to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: What are we doing in this government to engage with our counterparts in other provinces and with the federal government, and how are we advocating for Ontario’s interests?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I thank the member from Beaches–East York for this question as well.

Just last week I was in Ottawa, meeting with my colleagues from across the country to discuss the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity. The discussions we had during these meetings were a significant step toward future collaboration on issues related to species at risk and invasive species.

I was proud to lead the conversations regarding invasive species and advocate for more collaboration between our jurisdictions to address this threat. As a result, we agreed to develop a federal-provincial-territorial task force to support future efforts to fight invasive species.

Also, last week the federal government announced Canada’s 2020 biodiversity targets. I was pleased that my ministry was able to contribute to the development of these Canada-wide targets and will do our part through our biodiversity strategy and government plan to advance these goals.

Working with our partners in other provinces and states, the federal government, municipalities, stakeholders and aboriginal communities—together we will strengthen Ontario’s biodiversity, grow our economy and protect our natural heritage.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just a reminder to all members that you use only the title or the riding, and we’ll leave off all the explanatory notes of how great members are.

I will defer to the next question to the member from Oxford.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, we’ve discovered a lot of questionable expenses at the Housing Services Corporation. Just after the Legislature rose for the break, we received FOI documents that show that your provincial appointment received $72,000 a year in affordable housing money paid to his personal consulting firm, and a $262,000 payout to the former CEO that you told the media you weren’t even aware of.

You claim that HSC has reported to you, but either you haven’t read the report or you missed some of the facts. We’ve been asking you for that report since December and still don’t have it.

So Minister, if you actually read the report, what are the problems that are still in there?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member’s concerns. They’re concerns that I share. I also appreciate the fact that it was our government that put accountability and transparency regulations in place—

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —that were missed by the previous government when they set up this corporation. Those enabled us to spot some red flags.

I wrote to the corporation and said it wasn’t good enough. They have now agreed to abide by cabinet spending guidelines. The board member who was referenced is no longer a board member, and the HSC has requested of us, voluntarily, that we do a third-party independent audit of their operation and all their subsidiaries—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, when the waiting lists for affordable housing have increased by almost 40,000 since you were elected, we can’t afford money being siphoned off out of the affordable housing envelope.

If you received a report four months ago that contained all these questionable expenses and contracts, why didn’t you act then? You claimed there is a review, but you haven’t even issued a request for proposals to find someone to conduct that review.

Will you stop burying the facts and ask the provincial auditor to look at the Housing Services Corporation today?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member is pulling an alarm on a fire he and his government set. I’m not sure whether his lament is that his party didn’t put the mechanisms in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m not sure his lament is that we actually did put those provisions in place, and I’m not sure that his worry is that we, having discovered some problems, are about the process of correcting those.

The best political advice I ever got was from the late great Sterling Hunt, who said, “Tell the folk what’s broke and how you’re going to fix it.” That’s exactly what we’re doing with the HSC.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock, please. New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians take the OPP seriously. We take Elections Ontario very seriously. And when they are both investigating bribery allegations that come straight out of the Premier’s office, we take those extremely seriously. Why isn’t the Premier of this province taking those allegations and those investigations seriously?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I am, and we are, taking them seriously. I’ve already said many times that I have had a meeting with Elections Ontario. I have talked to Elections Ontario about what went on and I have said exactly what I said in this House, that I had made a decision to appoint a candidate, that we were working to keep the past candidate involved. I take the processes and the investigations very seriously. We will fully co-operate with them, as we have done up to this point.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Premier, police investigations and Elections Ontario investigations obviously are serious matters. They compromise the confidence and the integrity of this government. Leadership means stepping up. It means taking responsibility and taking this investigation seriously, and finding those people who were responsible and holding them accountable. But all the Premier has said is that she wouldn’t do anything differently. Why isn’t the Premier showing the needed leadership on this issue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to that part of the statement that I’ve made in this House a number of times now, where I said—and I will say again—that I believe it is the responsibility of the leader of a political party to work to keep people involved, even when there are difficult passages.

I don’t know if the member opposite has ever been through a nomination process or has ever lost an election, but I have, and I can tell you that you want to stay involved and you want to know that the party wants to keep you involved. Because it’s not a good feeling when you lose an election. It’s not a good feeling when the leader appoints a candidate. I understand that. That’s the decision I made: to appoint a candidate. I knew that that was going to be difficult for the past candidate and so we wanted to keep him involved.

I hope that the leader of the Conservatives and the leader of the NDP would do the same, that they would work to keep those candidates in Sudbury involved, Mr. Speaker. I hope they—

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

Animal protection

Mr. Mike Colle: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, last month you announced that there would be significant changes to protect marine mammals held in captivity in Ontario, like whales, dolphins and walruses. The care and protection of marine mammals in captivity is an issue that many Ontarians feel strongly about, and that our government committed to reviewing using the best available science. Minister, your announcement included a plan to bring forward new legislation related to prohibiting any new orca whales and to regulate a higher standard of care for our marine animals.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister provide further details to the House on the forthcoming policy changes and explain what steps you’re going to take to stop the abuse of marine animals in captivity in our province?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for the question. Speaker, our government is moving to enact higher standards of care for marine mammals in captivity. We will also be bringing forward legislation that will prohibit the future acquisition and breeding of orcas in Ontario. Stronger protections for marine mammals in captivity are all about making sure that these unique animals receive the best possible treatment and habitat appropriate to their specialized needs. This is something that Ontarians expect and that these animals deserve.

The new standards will be based on the findings and recommendations in a report we commissioned by marine mammals expert Dr. David Rosen of the UBC Marine Mammal Research Unit. His report, Speaker, emphasized the need for specific standards of care for marine mammals and outlined the areas that those standards should cover. The report is fairly detailed and provides recommendations to the government as to what those standards of care should be. In the supplementary, I look forward to elaborating on those standards.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Colle: Many people in Ontario are pleased to know that the government will be bringing forward legislation to prohibit the acquisition of orca whales and will be implementing higher standards for the care of all marine mammals. This is an important step toward ensuring the well-being of these magnificent creatures.

Minister, you have announced that you will be introducing higher standards of care for marine mammals in captivity, but Ontarians need to understand what areas these standards will cover and how they will be developed. Additionally, while introducing new standards is an important part of ensuring the protection of these unique animals, Ontarians need to be assured that the new rules will be effective and that they will work.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please tell the House how the enhanced standards and protections will be developed and ultimately enforced?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member again. I’m very proud that our province has the strongest animal protection rules in Canada. Based on the scientific foundation presented by Dr. Rosen, we will be developing new standards of care in such areas as light, sound, water quality, enclosure size and more. This work will be informed by a technical advisory group of experts from the scientific enforcement industry and advocacy communities to get advice on the final standards.

Having specific standards of care for marine mammals will help enforcement officials at the OSPCA to ensure that these unique animals are receiving the appropriate care and conditions for their well-being. I have every confidence in the OSPCA to do that. In fact, I’m proud that our government has increased funding for the OSPCA from $500,000 to $5.5 million annually to support them in the important work they do.

Member’s comments

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Earlier today, the member from Nipissing, in a question to the Premier—and I want to point that at no time was an accusation of any kind levelled against a member of this House. We understand we enjoy protection from that as colleagues. But the word, if I’m allowed to use it during a point of order—my colleague used the word “lied” in referring to a possible accusation against, allegations against, members of the staff of the Premier’s office. Speaker, you ruled that that word must be withdrawn.

My concern is that staff do not enjoy the same privilege that members do. If you extend that privilege to staff, then how can you not extend it to the entire citizenry that we represent, whether they be accused of criminal offences, whether they be accused of terrorism or whatever? If we cannot use that word when speaking about someone who is not a member of this assembly, then I think you are handcuffing us in a way that, in my opinion, would be wrong.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for his point of order, and indeed I accept it as a point of order. It is in line.

Members will know that there’s no exhaustive list of words and phrases that are unparliamentary. A comment that is ruled out of order on one occasion may indeed be accepted on another. The decision depends on the context, the tone, and whether or not the comment has caused general disorder.

However, to his specific point, the member is correct. Any attempt to infer directly or indirectly that any honourable member of this House were lied to is always out of order. However, this does not mean that any other use of the term is always in order. As I said, it depends on the context, the tone, and also the reaction. The Speaker has an obligation to preserve order and decorum in the House, and guiding members towards the use of temperate language is one way to do that.

I appreciate any assistance that any member can provide me on that. In this regard, we ask that they engage in a respectful discourse, and I will continue to listen carefully. I accept what the member has indicated to me and I will do my best to ensure that the order of the House is maintained, with the assistance of all members.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order, Speaker: I just wondered, could you update this House on the progress of the Speaker’s advisory committee on security?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll give the member a very short answer: The answer is no. However, with clarification, we will be meeting with that task force one more time, and I don’t want to inject any comment until the final meetings have taken place.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1145 to 1500.

Members’ Statements

Member for Nepean–Carleton

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is with a great degree of humility that I address the assembly here on our first day back. It’s also the first day back since I ended my leadership bid for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. As a result, I wanted to say thank you to a number of people across the province who have enriched my life and who have given me an amazing experience and who I wish to say thank you to.

I had a group called #moms4lisa across the province who agree with my stand on choice in child care, and I want to say thank you to Tracy Skelton of Oakville for doing that.

I travelled from Windsor all the way to Cornwall on the 401. I got to go to Sudbury and Thunder Bay and all points in between. For any member of the assembly to have that opportunity is so incredible, to see this great province.

I have a profound appreciation for every member of this assembly, and I want them to know that. I have profound appreciation for the Progressive Conservative Party, its members and the remaining leadership candidates.

I received advice from time to time in this leadership bid from many unlikely faces, many from my own party but also from the NDP House leader, the finance minister and even my former nemesis, Dalton McGuinty.

Ladies and gentlemen of this assembly, I want to say to you today how proud I am, as a member, to be standing here in this assembly for the fourth time in my career. I look forward to completing this mandate and running again in 2018.

Speaker, through you to all members of this assembly, particularly to my own caucus and to members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, I would like to say thank you.

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

Attawapiskat hospital

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m so glad you’re staying. Come and give me a hug.

I want to bring to the attention of this House the situation with the hospital in Attawapiskat and to say that, as you know, just before the new year, there was a diesel spill in a brand new fuel-handling system they’d installed at the hospital in order to not have these types of things happen again. Well, the impossible happened and this thing spilled and, unfortunately, it contaminated the crawl space underneath the hospital in Attawapiskat.

Just so that people know, the hospital is fairly new. It’s only about 20 years old, and it’s a pretty darned good facility, considering where it’s at.

The community in Weeneebayko has been working really hard, and the staff have been working extremely hard in order to try to make a good th