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

April 14, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Apr-14 (PDF)

L067 - Tue 14 Apr 2015 / Mar 14 avr 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 14 April 2015 Mardi 14 avril 2015

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Energy policies

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Energy policies

School closures

Ontario budget

Housing Services Corp.

GO Transit

Small business

Agri-food industry

Environmental protection

Long-term care

Smoking cessation

Services for the disabled

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Anniversaire du génocide au Rwanda

School closures

Business awards

Suzanne Learn

Anniversary of Rwandan genocide

Anniversaire du génocide au Rwanda / Anniversary of Rwandan genocide

Hydro rates

Vaisakhi

Floyd Sinton

Anniversary of Rwandan genocide

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Motions

Committee sittings

Petitions

Landfill

Automotive industry

Student safety

Dog ownership

Gasoline prices

Legal aid

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Lyme disease

Water fluoridation

Winter road maintenance

Hospital services

French-language education

Environmental protection

Hospital funding

Orders of the Day

Invasive Species Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les espèces envahissantes

Adjournment Debate

Housing Services Corp.

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 1, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this issue the member for Scarborough Southwest had the floor. The member from Scarborough Southwest.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning. I’ll pick up where I was speaking last time. I just wanted to remind the House that I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Ottawa South and the member from Scarborough–Agincourt. Both the member from Ottawa South and the member from Scarborough–Agincourt will be speaking shortly after me.

We are discussing Bill 57,

An Act to create a framework for pooled registered pension plans and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I think the key to this bill, which I was talking about last time, is that it provides another tool for people to save money for a pension plan. As we all know, not even 50% of the people in Ontario have pensions or save for pensions. I think we as a government have an obligation to encourage people to put aside money for when they retire.

In my riding there are many people who come to see me—older people—and say, “I don’t have much money to retire.” They are in their sixties looking for jobs. It’s not a very pleasant situation to be in.

When someone’s younger they think, “I’ll contribute later,” but you have to start as early as possible. And when you start reaching my age, you’ve got to realize that when you stop working you’ve got to have enough money to survive the rest of your life.

I think our government is committed to implementing a bold new strategy to enhance this province’s retirement income security. That’s about all I want to say at this point. We do have other speakers on this matter and I could just pass it on to the other two members that I mentioned earlier.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member for the continuation of the debate.

I ask for the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to speak to Bill 57 this morning, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. Of course, this is a commitment the government made through the fall economic statement. We followed through in terms of introducing legislation last December. It’s an important piece of the puzzle in our efforts to enhance retirement income security for all Ontarians.

This is partly spawned by the federal government’s unwillingness to enhance the CPP, which most Ontarians, indeed most Canadians, are dependent upon. For instance, in my riding of Ottawa South—and even in my own family, my father, who was on the Ontario Parole Board and the Federal Parole Board, did not actually have a pension, so he was dependent upon his RRSPs and the Canada Pension Plan. As he got older, he had to be very careful about spending his money. Many people in my riding of Ottawa South are dependent on the CPP.

It’s incumbent upon us to provide a vehicle—which the PRPPs are—for small and medium-sized employers to be able to provide some security for their employees, and to have it work complementarily to the ORPP, the Ontario registered pension plan. We as legislators have to look 10, 15, 20 years down the road, to see where people are going to be at. I want to go back to the federal government, again, not enhancing the CPP, which I do believe is a mistake, is an abdication of responsibility. In the absence, or the vacuum, of taking on that responsibility of ensuring that Ontarians—indeed all Canadians—have access to a good, solid retirement plan, or some security, we have to take these measures.

I’m fully supportive of this legislation, Bill 57, and PRPPs. As I said, they are a tool: They are a tool to work complementarily to the ORPP, to provide some retirement income security for those people who need it, to provide employers a vehicle by which they can support their employee and, again, work complementarily to the ORPP.

As I said, I hope that we can get this legislation moving forward. I’ll cede my time to the member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Ottawa South for continuation of debate.

We’ll move over to the member for Scarborough–Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning. I’m very pleased to be given the time this morning to support Bill 57, following my colleagues from Ottawa South and Scarborough Southwest.

There was a very important

article written recently by Adam Mayers about the relationship between pensions and healthy communities. As most of you in the House know, as a former registered nurse, healthy communities are very important, not just to myself as a professional nurse, but also to every community here in Ontario.

The author clearly states that, “In the private sector, 76% of employees don’t have a pension.” In contrast, “In the public sector, 86% do.” But the

article is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. It looked at a study by the Boston Consulting Group. They were commissioned by four of Ontario’s largest pension plans, looking at the relationship between pension plans and the health of the community. Now, there’s a strong correlation, according to this article: that when you have a defined pension plan, the community is more healthy.

I’m going to share some of the data as part of my remarks this morning. According to Adam Mayers and the folks from Boston Consulting, “In 2012, Canadian defined benefit plans paid out $72 billion to 3.5 million pensioners. Most of this money is spent where they live.” Again, that’s a good thing. They’re not travelling all over the world; they’re staying here in Ontario. I can’t stress it enough. “In Ontario, 7% of all income in our towns and cities, or $27 billion, is derived from defined benefit pensions.” The

article continues on to talk about how “Seniors with defined benefit plans are confident consumers because the predictable income stream allows them to better plan their” business.

The

article concludes by the following: “Make workplace pensions mandatory to force savings. The coming Ontario Retirement Pension Plan is an example,” according to the author, of such a thing. Also, the author states, “Don’t wait. Governments should do something now, whether enhancing the CPP or going another way.” They also talk about sharing “the risk between the employees and employers, so that pensioners aren’t left managing” their own affairs.

I heard, when we were debating Bill 57, the member from York–Simcoe speak eloquently in support of Bill 57.

I know my colleague earlier talked about the fact that the federal government is not working in partnership with Ontario, but I also wanted to say that we’re not the first province to have PRPPs. Other provinces, like British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec, have all already passed legislation to have PRPPs. We’re following other provinces.

An important message is that in the proposed legislation, in the explanatory note, it’s clearly stated right at the beginning—it talks about how the purpose of this legislation is to provide a legal framework for the establishment of the administration of a type of pension plan that is accessible to both employees and those who are self-employed. We note that this province has a lot of self-employed individuals, and they are mainly small businesses. As such, it is a good thing to have such a framework to support those individuals, to make sure they retire with a healthy, comfortable income.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation, if passed, will also set out rules for dealing with the funds of PRPP accounts for certain family law purposes, because often the family breaks down and a family will move across provinces. It’s very important that we set out the rules to make sure everybody is aware at the time of the establishment of the plan.

The other piece about the proposed legislation is the fact that as a government we have been very clear to support seniors and their well-being as they retire. I have a very aging riding, Scarborough–Agincourt; a good proportion of my constituents are seniors.

More importantly, the fact is that the government, in their fall 2014 economic statement, confirmed our intention to introduce this legislation. And I believe most members of the House to date who have spoken on Bill 57 support the intent of this bill. I hope that we can have further dialogue as this bill gets discharged to a committee, to seek out more stakeholders to discuss this bill further.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the members from the government side for their speeches on Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, but I don’t know who to thank. It’s like speed debating over there. It’s like, how many Liberals can actually speak in one 20-minute slot? It’s like, they’ve got their legislation but they’re not that sure about it, or they’re not that proud of it. We’re just trying to figure out what they want, because normally a member gets 20 minutes to speak on a piece of legislation.

I know my colleague from Huron–Bruce is going to speak a little bit later, and I’ll have the opportunity to help as well, fairly soon, to speak to this bill. But I’m just wondering what the MO of the Liberals is these days. It’s like they’re in and it’s changing like it’s musical debaters, just one after another?

Having said that, I’m going to have to say to them, you’re going to have to pick a lane here.

We’re just after having debated and, through time allocation and the power of the tyranny of the majority, they pushed through, on second reading, Bill 56, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan—You know, that one where it’s going to cost up to 18,000 jobs here in the province of Ontario for every $2 billion that it takes out of the economy; the one where there is simply no demonstrated need for it but it’s a good political move on the part of the government because they’re trying to pretend that somehow, if we pass Bill 56, everybody’s going to retire in luxury here in the province of Ontario, when the reality is that it’s up to everybody to plan.

We’ve been doing that in Ontario through our RRSP system, the federal system, for many years.

The fact that people are not putting enough money into their RRSPs is directly related to the fact that they don’t have enough after you people over there have taken it all from them. And you’re going to do more with your cap-and-tax.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member from—is it Renfrew—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Nipissing–Pembroke.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Nipissing–Pembroke. He always adds a lively contribution to the debate, and I know we’re all awake after listening to his comments.

But we know that the PRPP is not really the way to encourage people to save for a healthy retirement. We have RRSPs; there are those options out there. CPP is the right way; we need to enhance the CPP in order to actually effectively help people who are going to be in a retirement position to be able to afford the everyday costs of living: home, gas in their car, food in their belly.

So we agree with the Ontario retirement plan. That one is one that the NDP had proposed back in 2010, and we agree with that simply because there is buy-in both from the employer and the employee. That is what a retirement plan, really, in a fulsome way, should look like. It shouldn’t be forced on an employee.

In this case, what’s happening is that the employer goes out and purchases this program or product for retirement, and banks and insurance companies are going to charge an administration fee. That’s not really going to help the employee. If the employee wants an RRSP, they can actually access that on an individual basis on their own. So I don’t see how this is really going to help retirement at large for the citizens of Ontario, and I look forward to more debate. Maybe there’s more information that will help us reconsider, but on the basis of this bill, I highly doubt that this is the answer to a retirement savings plan for Ontarians.

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’m glad to have an opportunity to add my voice to this, and my compliments to the members for Scarborough Southwest, Scarborough–Agincourt and Ottawa South for their comments earlier.

There is, I think, a general understanding of how important it is that we move forward with this legislation. As I think members know, there are five other provinces that have passed legislation to implement pooled retirement pension plans, those provinces being British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec. I think it’s also important to understand that, obviously, this will be something that will be adding to what is already in place related to the federal plan.

We’ve been speaking also about our Ontario Retirement Pension Plan over the last year or so, very capably led by my colleague Minister Hunter and, of course, strongly supported by the Minister of Finance. This is all part of a package that we recognize is about dealing with the reality of the fact that people are not in the circumstances that I think they want to be in, in terms of looking forward to retirement.

If I may, in passing, with the little amount of time that I have left: I was very grateful that Minister Hunter, as part of her consultations over the winter break, was in Thunder Bay. It was interesting actually listening to all the people that came forward. I think you could accurately describe it as people from all sides of the political spectrum. Certainly social activists, who obviously lead the charge in regard to advancing social causes, and union leadership, as well as the chambers of commerce all agreed, actually, that we need to find some way to move forward to advance this issue.

So this is a piece of legislation that is important, and we are certainly hopeful that all parties in the House will support it.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure to provide a couple of minutes of questions and comments on Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

I just want to pick up on something that my good friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke mentioned in his address. It’s funny how this government operates the rules of debate. I’ve read the standing orders, but it’s like they’ve cracked a code on how we can have as many people speak for the least amount of time, to be able to get a bill into committee. So I’d really like to have at least one of those members that spoke earlier talk about the government’s plans to move this bill through committee and ultimately come back to the House for third reading. That’s a request, through you, Speaker, to whoever is finishing the two minutes.

I was in my riding last week, and I spoke at the Brockville Chamber of Commerce and had a great speech. I didn’t get one question about Bill 57, but I had a lot of questions about the ORPP. In fact, I ended up quoting Liam McGuinty, the son of our former Premier who, at his deputation before the committee on the ORPP, representing the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, expressed some very valid concerns within the business community. I heard loud and clear, when I was in my riding, the opposition to the government’s ORPP plan, the fact that there is so much misinformation out in the community about that.

I hope that during debate today and in the days ahead, someone from the government will talk about their commitment to Bill 57, and really let businesses know exactly what their plans are.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member for final comments and questions.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: On behalf of my other two Liberal members that spoke earlier, the member from Ottawa South and the member from Scarborough–Agincourt, I just want to comment on some of the remarks made here.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said that we have lots of members here and that we’re splitting the time up. We have 58 members here, 58 that could speak to this bill. Do you want all 58 to get up? I don’t know. We’re sharing our time; we get three in one 20-minute time period and perhaps three in the next 20-minute time period. When we get into 10-minute rotations then perhaps we can get more people standing up. That was also echoed by the member for Leeds–Grenville.

We’ve always brought bills to committee, and unlike the Conservative Party, there has always been debate on third reading—at least as far as I’ve been here there’s been debate on third readings. I heard that was the case before, but I wasn’t around to see that happen.

The member from London–Fanshawe mentioned also, similar to comments made earlier, about the RRSP or the Canada Pension Plan being better. Why would this be bad? I don’t understand why this would be bad. It’s quite clearly laid out. I think Bill 57 will encourage people—the money is pooled into a pension plan—to contribute. I think it’s a good thing to do.

Basically, in some ways, I only save for the Canada Pension Plan, because that’s the one that’s automatically taken from me every single paycheque.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines mentioned something very important: Five other provinces have already implemented this. We’re not the first to do it, and we’re not doing something that’s silly. You have five provinces across Canada that have already done this. So I think it’s a good thing to do. We should proceed with this.

I thank the members for their comments.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s a pleasure to join the debate today. I’m planning on using my entire 20 minutes because we feel that we need to have every opportunity presented to us to represent our constituents and to do the job we’re meant to do.

What we’re facing right now, I’m afraid—from the government side—is a version of speed debating that could replicate speed dating. It’s a little bit ridiculous because saving for retirement is very, very important. Bill 57,

An Act to create a framework for pooled registered pension plans and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is an interesting proposal put forward by Minister Sousa. We need to take planning for our future very, very seriously, but we also have to trust that Ontarians can get it right. Because, Speaker, what I don’t trust, at this stage of the game, is the Liberal government to get it right. I worry about that because so many times in this House we have seen acts come through first, second and third reading that tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to issues.

I am afraid this is just a little bit of window dressing to cover up for other actions of this government that are detrimental to the future of our Ontario population. For instance, they want to talk about pooled registered pension plans, but how much money will Ontarians have to go into their pooled registered pension plans when, on the other hand, they are trying to hit the Liberal hand going into their pocket that is squeezing every last cent out where they can?

We had an eHealth premium introduced—the largest tax in Ontario’s history—by this Liberal government. Where did that revenue go? It was to go to health care, but quietly it slipped into general revenue.

The fact of the matter is, just yesterday, we heard of another knee-jerk reaction and an example of the Liberal government wanting to jump on the bandwagon with regard to using people’s sincere concern over climate change to introduce another opportunity to tax Ontarians. Their cap-and-trade proposition that has come forward in the announcement that we heard yesterday by the Premier and Minister Murray is nothing more than a tax. Unfortunately, there are very few pennies left in Ontario pockets these days. Here we have a government trying to reach in again and squeeze every single last cent out. It’s not right.

It’s interesting: When a government is $300 billion in debt, I question how effectively they can manage a pooled registered pension plan. It’s an interesting concept because I just feel—like they did yesterday—with the debt load that they’re carrying and the enormous deficit, they’re just looking for every possible revenue tool available, all at the expense of Ontario taxpayers.

I really admire my colleague and friend from York–Simcoe. She has given a lot of thought and a lot of time to this issue. She has done her homework. She has taken time to explain to us as a caucus what it means, in terms of the impacts of a pooled registered pension plan. I dare say that I’m worried that the government across the floor from me actually hasn’t taken the time to do due diligence. I think that’s a trend that we’re seeing from this government.

Not only do we see speed debating happening on this floor; we’re seeing speed legislation. So much is knee-jerk reaction. Have they done a cost-benefit analysis of the Ontario pooled registered pension plan that they’re proposing? What is the bottom line? What would this mean for Ontario taxpayers and for people struggling to get by?

If they were really sincere about helping Ontarians, they would be making life a little bit easier in Ontario by way of addressing the exorbitant increases in energy. They would be addressing the issues that really matter. Instead, they’re piling on more pressure after more pressure on the shoulders of people throughout this province. There’s going to be a breaking point, and I worry about that. When we reach that breaking point, Ontario will not be in a position to have a lot of pooling happening because, just like our young people are quickly leaving this province, our seniors will be leaving the province as well and following their children to Alberta.

Mr. Mike Colle: Alberta? Give me a break.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s true. I have people in my constituency who have chosen to follow their children. Their children have good jobs in Alberta. Another family chose to relocate to Saskatchewan. People are moving west. They are looking for a break from the burden that this Ontario government has given. It’s actually shameful.

I think it’s shameful that there was heckling from across the floor, because it just shows how disconnected this government has become from the true population in this province. I cannot believe that somebody would question—valuing family and valuing dollars and tired of having every last penny stripped out of their pocket—people’s motives for moving closer to their family. I think that’s very sad.

When we talk about saving for our future, I can’t help but think about another bill that this Liberal government tried to bring through: the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, where they were going to make small businesses, manufacturers and small farming operations pay out of their own pockets to collaborate so they can match an individual’s contribution to a pension plan. These small businesses are suffering.

Again, they’re just pulling straws. They’re pulling from every different angle because they’re so desperate for money, because they have a huge deficit. We’re paying $11 million in interest on a regular basis. It’s just disgusting how they’re going forward. I dare say that it’s confusing for the average Ontarian, because on one hand they’re talking about the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, where a business would contribute to a pension and match what an individual pulls in, and now we’re debating another bill,

an act to create a framework for pooled registered pension plans. This government is stretching, as I say, for revenue tools every which way they can, because the fact of the matter is, they just won’t curb their wasteful spending. They are on a track that is going to take us right down the proverbial tube, and who’s going to pay for it at the end of the day? It is indeed Ontarians. That’s why so many are looking for an out.

Again, coming back to small business, I just want to take a moment and share a letter that I received from a constituent, a small business in my riding, Exeter Chrysler Ltd., to put perspective on how stressful it is at this stage of the game for business and people to make ends meet. The letter reads:

“I’m writing on behalf of Exeter Chrysler Ltd, a new car dealership in your riding that has been in business for 25 years. As a new car dealer, my dealership doesn’t just sell and service vehicles. Our dealership creates well-paying jobs for 16 men and women in this local community.

“As an employer, I am very concerned about the new cost of doing business.... With a massive red tape burden, high electricity costs, the highest WSIB premiums in Canada, a pending carbon tax, and now an Ontario Registered Pension Plan” and possibly another framework for pooled registered pension plans as well, “these costs make for an increasingly difficult climate for job creation and economic growth.”

It’s interesting because the burden that this Liberal government is placing, according to this person’s perspective, is estimated to take $47 million per year from the auto sector.

Speaker, this individual is just one of hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario who are concerned with the government and its direction.

He closes by asking the government to provide clarity to the business community and the public around the potential impacts that their decision-making and their legislation has. It’s an interesting go.

We need to be very careful as we go forward. Again, I question that we are going down a path where we have a government that’s nothing but knee-jerk activists, if you will, jumping on bandwagons, stretching wherever they can to generate revenue just to cover their backsides.

Again, when we look at, specifically, Bill 57, which deals with pooled registered pension plans, we have to take a look at the people who are interested in this. But I think the manner in which it has been presented, in conjunction with the other legislation that has been debated as well—people across Ontario are finding it very confusing. It’s very important, just in carrying over from my colleague from York–Simcoe’s comments last week, that we have to review exactly what we’re talking about.

With regard to this particular pension plan, what does it mean to be pooled? Again, there is so much confusion out there in the small business world, amongst Ontarians, amongst even legislators, with regard to where this government is going. So let’s talk about this particular act.

What does it mean to be pooled? What does it mean to be registered? Obviously, other pension plans are registered, so that’s not quite as potentially unknown as the pooled part. But this is a legislative initiative that comes from the leadership of the federal government in being able to provide people with a savings instrument that could take them anywhere across the country.

Again, I come back to the fact that there was actually a member from the Liberal government heckling the fact that I said seniors and parents are following their children to other provinces because they are tired of what is happening in Ontario. Meanwhile, this very piece of legislation that we’re debating today allows them to move their savings easier.

Again, I come back to this: How well does the Liberal caucus actually know what’s going on in Ontario, and within their own legislation as well? Again, I question, if they don’t know what’s going on and they don’t understand how their impacts are causing Ontarians to make very big decisions in moving out of this province—

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Or they don’t care.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Actually, maybe that’s it. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex just said maybe it’s not a matter of understanding; maybe it’s a matter that they just don’t care what their direction over the last 10 years has given Ontarians, which is no choice but to “get out of Dodge,” meaning get out of Ontario.

But let’s go back to this particular act. This particular act enables people, if they are tired of what’s happening under this Liberal government, to get out of Ontario and take their savings with them. So the umbrella legislation has been passed federally about two years ago, and because of that, other various provinces have picked up the opportunity that it represents and provided their constituents with companion legislation that would then allow the notion of the pool.

In 2013, the member from York–Simcoe introduced her own private member’s bill, which the government picked up in its 2013 spring budget. Of course, I sat here with the member from York–Simcoe, and I can say, on behalf of the entire PC caucus, that we were naturally very happy that they picked it up. Because of the general confusion around pensions and pension plans—and people from all walks of life have commented on the problem of financial literacy—in terms of this particular concept, we have to utilize an opportunity around pooled pensions to grow financial literacy as well.

That begs the point: Just like we need agricultural and agri-food literacy in our classrooms, we’d be remiss if we didn’t take time to say how important our financial literacy is as well. I would encourage this Liberal government to take a look at how they’re encouraging our education system to prepare our students in that regard.

Coming back to saving for the future, the pooled registered pension plan is a tool, as I said, that the federal government has provided. Finally, in Ontario, we are now making an opportunity available to residents of Ontario to become part of that pension plan that is pooled. One of the things we know about pension plans is that they need lots of members. If a pooled pension plan is going to work, they need lots of members. If you’re going to be able to act in the best interests of pensioners, then you have to have enough money to be able to go out and make good investments.

But again, can we trust this government to get it right? Time and time again, they’ve squandered dollars on scandals and mismanagement. I worry about it, but we have to hold out hope, because in terms of making good investments, it’s much easier, obviously, when you have a large number of participants. That’s the notion, actually, behind the pool: that it goes into exactly a pool, and from there, decisions are made that provide interest on the money that’s being collected and therefore the availability to go out and make investments on behalf of the pensioners.

We need a good return, for goodness’ sake. I can tell you that seniors on fixed incomes do indeed need a good return in terms of their pensions, because their line of living, if you will, has been planned for some time. I worry because this Liberal government, every which angle you look at it, is causing life to become more and more expensive as every day goes by. Just yesterday we heard about a cap-and-trade initiative that’s going to drive the cost of everything through the roof, from groceries to heating your homes to the gas you put in your car.

While seniors have tried to plan and they have a ceiling in terms of what their monthly expenses should be in terms of maintaining a certain quality of life—guess what?—the Liberal government, based on their announcement yesterday, is busting right through that ceiling, and they’re really causing a lot of stress, not only on seniors trying to stretch their dollars as best they can but on all Ontarians. It is such a worry.

Going back to savings: Another thing that we hear often, particularly about RRSPs and the space left in them, is that people don’t put the full amount in. That tells me that they don’t have a lot of money left over because, as I said, the Liberals are making the cost of living in this province skyrocket because they’re so desperate to generate new revenue tools to cover their backsides.

When you take everything into account and when you look at a pooled investment system, individuals have their accounts in a pooled plan for investment purposes, and that means that you have low costs and better investment. Hopefully that allows seniors and people planning for their retirement to have a little bit of wiggle room. There’s general interest in the pooled retirement registered pension plans, and we should look at some of the interest that others have taken in this.

The first one that I’d like to use is the Portfolio Management Association of Canada. They have written to the government in support of this particular initiative, and they’ve also written to the government opposing the Ontario registered pension plan. That goes back to my point earlier. We have two different initiatives that are conflicting, and even the marketplace is recognizing that this Ontario Liberal government can’t get it right.

We have to understand and take what the Portfolio Management Association of Canada is saying to heart because there is probably no other group that understands the value of registered pension plans and the dangers of a specific, dedicated Ontario pension plan.

There is an excerpt from a letter to Minister Hunter from this association:

“We are pleased that Ontario has recognized the advantages of a PRPP program and has moved forward with PRPP legislation. PRPPs provide the opportunity to participate in a simple and straightforward pension plan.”

With that, I will conclude my comments in support.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased, of course, to stand in this Legislature and speak about retirement security and make comments in response to the member from Huron–Bruce.

As we’re talking about Bill 57, the pooled registered pension plan—I always find it a challenge to say “pension plan” when, really, it’s a profit plan. It is a glorified RRSP. It is part of the pooled investment system, granted, and it certainly has its place in that, but it isn’t a pension per se.

As the member said, we’re asking: What does it mean to be pooled? What does it mean to be registered? But I’d like to talk about what it actually means to be a pension. To my way of thinking, a pension has contributions both from the employee and the employer, and these PRPPs don’t oblige the employer to put in.

Interestingly, we’d heard the member talk about how pooled plans need more members in the plan, and these PRPPS, if an employer chooses—and the choice is at the employer level—to have these plans for their employees, the employees don’t have a choice whether or not to buy in. The choice is made for them. So certainly there will be more people in the plan but not more money, because, again, without that employer contribution, how large can this grow? Not nearly as large as it could have if both were contributing, as it would be with a pension.

Another thing is, the member said that we’re getting to a breaking point. While I agree that, as she said, the Liberals are causing the cost of living to skyrocket, we are already at a breaking point. Those two thirds of Ontarians who don’t have a workplace pension—this is not that workplace pension. This is a supplement. This is not a pension.

Thank you very much, that’s my time.

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to provide a few comments. I listened carefully to the member from Huron–Bruce and the member from Oshawa.

Let me say that what the government is doing here is providing just another opportunity for employers and employees to get into allowing their pension money to generate more income into their plan. Yes, it’s a little bit better than an RRSP, because in an RRSP you are the individual who has to make the decision where the money is invested and you determine your own return on investment. But in a pooled plan, you pool the money from everybody and you would have an administrator who will give you some advice that will help you to do better, and that’s the whole intent of it.

The reason the government is proceeding this way is the federal government allowed this to employers in the federal sector back in 2012. Ontario sees an opportunity here to provide it for employers in Ontario, and we’re following along with other provinces.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one comment made by the member from Oshawa. In the plan, where an employer elects to offer a PRPP, enrolment of employees would be automatic, subject to the ability to opt out within 60 days. So employees do have the option. If they don’t like the plan their employer is offering them, they can opt out after the automatic sign-in. That’s a little correction; I think the member from Oshawa is slightly off course.

But I would say to you there is no benefit in what the government is bringing here directly to the government, as was mentioned by the speaker. This is strictly to provide an opportunity for the public to have another tool at their disposal.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s a pleasure to add some comments to the debate today, following my colleague the MPP from Huron–Bruce, who I think summed this piece of legislation up best, but most importantly discussed some of the other issues facing the province of Ontario, some of the initiatives this government is taking that are further taking Ontario down the wrong path.

This morning, for myself, it’s great to rise and speak for a couple of minutes on Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, and to follow up what my colleague from Huron–Bruce said. This government continues to tax and spend. It is the legacy of, first, Premier McGuinty, and now the current Liberal government.

I want to talk a bit about the ORPP, another pension initiative that the Liberals are undertaking. A lot of people in Ontario I don’t think realize that under the ORPP initiative, if you make $45,000 per year you are going to essentially have to cut a cheque to Premier Wynne and the Liberals for almost $800, and the employer also has to match that contribution. So that’s $1,600 out of the economy for every employee in Ontario making $45,000 per year.

I had the privilege of talking to Professor Lee from Ottawa at finance committee, who said that with the ORPP, anyone 40 years or older in Ontario is not going to receive the full benefit of the ORPP. Essentially, they’re going to pool billions and billions and billions of dollars to spend as they see fit.

As the member from Huron–Bruce said, it really is another tax in Ontario. In the meantime, it’s also going to cost about 150,000 private sector jobs.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to be able to stand up to make a few comments to the member from Huron–Bruce on her debate time.

She mentioned that folks are at their breaking point. This really is going to do nothing to fix that. If a person has precarious work, if they’re already working in a low-income job, this is going to do absolutely nothing except take more money out of their pocket. If there is an opt-out portion to this, I’m sure they would be doing that because they need the money in their pocket to pay for child care that’s not affordable in this province. They need it for hydro that’s going through the roof in this province. They need it for transit, for transportation, for insurance for their vehicle to be able to go back and forth.

If the members from the government really want to do something for the people of this province, maybe work on child care; maybe bring our hydro rates down so people can afford it. I don’t think—

Interjections.

Miss Monique Taylor: I listened very closely when the people on the other side of the House spoke, and I would appreciate the same respect back.

This isn’t a pension plan. This is, as my seatmate here said, a glorified profit plan for the banks, for the insurance companies. They’re the ones who are going to profit from this at the end of the day. People who want to participate in RRSPs are already doing that.

This isn’t going to save the breaking point for families in this province who are at their breaking point because, like I said, it’s hydro rates, it’s auto insurance, it’s childcare. It’s the cost of a loaf of bread and a bag of milk in this province these days.

I think they need to switch their focus, keep moving forward with the ORPP. I know it’s not going to save the day for people tomorrow, but at least it will do something for the future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the original debater, the member from Huron–Bruce, for final comments.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I certainly want to express my appreciation to the members from Oshawa, Scarborough–Rouge River, Lambton–Kent–Middlesex and Hamilton Mountain, because it’s important that everybody has an opportunity to share their perspective on Bill 57.

I have to share with you that if Ontario passes the PRPP legislation, almost 90% of all Canadians will have access to PRPPs. This will likely lower the administration costs of pooled registered plans, increase the potential purchasing power of the plans and reduce barriers of interprovincial movement and trade.

As I said, this Liberal government has made living in Ontario very difficult, and with yesterday’s announcement, the cost of living in this province will continue to go through the roof. People need options. If they want to follow their family members to Alberta or Saskatchewan, this pooled pension plan enables that mobility, if you will. We need PRPPs, not an ORPP.

This government has confused the constituents throughout this province to no end. I don’t know whether they’ve purposely tried to do that, but I can tell you, people get it. I go back to my constituent from Exeter Chrysler Ltd. He gets it, as so many others do. This government has laden Ontarians with massive red tape, high electricity costs, the highest WSIB premiums in Canada and a pending carbon tax, and now we have to try to hold this government to account.

We stand here today saying for once, maybe, they’re getting it. They’re seeing that a lot of people are moving out of this province because they can’t afford to live here any longer. This legislation allows them to take their pension plans with them.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise to today on behalf of my constituents of Windsor West to discuss issues that are near and dear to them and impact their everyday lives. Pension plans are one such issue. Whether you are drawing from a pension plan, contributing to a plan or longing for a plan to be offered by your employer, Ontarians are thinking about their pensions and retirement.

I think it’s important to discuss the right pension framework for Ontario. The bill before us today, Bill 57,

An Act to create a framework for pooled registered pension plans and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is the wrong plan.

In Ontario, we are facing a retirement security crisis. As my honourable colleague and NDP pension critic, the member from Oshawa, stated, two thirds of Ontarians do not have a workplace pension plan and personal savings are not enough to fill the gap. Pooled retirement pension plans are not sufficient to make up for this and fix the retirement security crisis in this province.

I think outlining some of the reasons why there is a retirement security crisis in Ontario will help us understand which pension legislation we need to be moving forward. From there, I hope to outline why the legislative regime outlined in Bill 57 is insufficient in dealing with this.

To expand on this point, the cost of living in this province is skyrocketing. The cost to make ends meet in Ontario, to raise your children, and to put gas in the family Chrysler Town and Country minivan are all on the rise. Looking simply at increases in hydro rates in this province will help us understand these rising costs and the impact this has on Ontario families.

According to the Ontario Energy Board, rates have gone from 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour in 2002, to 14 cents per kilowatt hour today. I should point out that this tripling of rates happened over successive periods of Liberal and Conservative governments, both of which were involved in the process of the privatization of our hydro system.

Windsor West is not immune to these increases. One constituent wrote to me in January, in the dead of winter—and believe it or not, we do get winter in the deep south of Ontario—and declared that the rates he was paying were unaffordable. To quote this person directly, the email stated, “These increases [are] absurd. Middle class [Ontarians] can’t afford this. These rates need to lower as soon as possible.”

“As soon as possible,” says my constituent, yet this government only offers more privatization in this area.

The other point I want to expand on is that two thirds of Ontarians do not have a workplace pension plan. Explaining this requires some nuance. In Windsor and the rest of southwestern Ontario, a major issue we are grappling with is the loss of our manufacturing footprint in the rest of North America.

In Windsor specifically, we can see this in the automotive sector. These manufacturing jobs usually come with workplace pension plans. Ideally, these would be defined benefit plans. Simply put, in these plans the beneficiaries can expect a certain level of income in their retirement because it is based on their salaries and years of service. Their retirement benefit is defined.

Unfortunately, labour trends in Ontario are shifting. Statistics Canada reported last week that manufacturing, as a total share of employment in Canada, fell to just over 9% in March. We saw this story published in reports all over the weekend. It speaks to the importance of these industries to Canadians. These industries are vital to the economy of southwestern Ontario.

Statistics Canada also released the latest job numbers last week. Again, Windsor’s jobless rate was among the highest in the country at 11.1% unemployment. This is a staggering increase from the already high February figure of 9.6%.

The Windsor Star reported that, a large part of this drastic increase was because of the 4,500 Windsor Assembly Plant employees currently laid off. Now, these layoffs are only temporary while Fiat Chrysler retools their plant, but these figures underscore how important the automotive industry is to Windsor.

I’m glad that investments are being made in our assembly plant, and I know this will help sustain other industries in my community, like the very successful tooling industry. What I want, and what people across southwestern Ontario want, is to see jobs in automotive and parts manufacturing available to the next generation of workers. We want our children to have the same options we did and benefit from the excellent quality of life that working in an auto plant or a tooling shop offers.

Ontario needs to not only keep its current automotive plants in operation, but needs to attract investment and expand its automotive footprint throughout North America. To do this, my New Democrat colleagues and I have continually called for a comprehensive automotive strategy. This can include incentives for investment, research and development, and coordinating intergovernmental involvement in the automotive industry. We need this government to work with industry and those employed in the sector, to bring automotive investment to southwestern Ontario.

Strategizing around industries that have a history of providing workplace pensions to hard-working Ontarians is one way to help bring about a level retirement security in this province, but of course it’s not the only way. We need a strong public sector pension plan.

With the decline in manufacturing jobs, we are seeing more working Canadians employed in service sector jobs than ever before. Statistics Canada reports that in March, the share of Canadians working in service industries climbed above 78%.

Many of my constituents are employed in the service sector and perform jobs in areas like retail and food service. These people work hard, but are often not compensated nearly as well as those employed in manufacturing. A disappointing characteristic of many service jobs is that they do not come with an employee pension plan. We need real action to help Ontarians plan for their retirement and retire comfortably.

The Canada Pension Plan has been praised several times on both sides of this chamber and is the Canadian benchmark for a strong retirement framework. This plan is universal, portable and directly benefits retirees. It also offers extremely low investment fees.

I think many Canadians were disappointed, although perhaps not surprised, but disappointed nevertheless, when the federal government decided, in 2013, not to enhance the Canada Pension Plan.

Instead, the Conservative government opted for a pooled retirement pension plan model. A pooled retirement pension plan is essentially an expensive pooled savings mechanism that is structured a bit like a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. One of the main problems with these private sector plans is that they charge outrageous management fees, compared to plans like CPP. For example, Canadians pay 2% or more for administration of their RRSPs,

whereas the large public pensions, such as CPP, pay well less than 1% for fund administration. Fees erode returns for Ontarians and everyone across Canada. The most beneficial plans will have the lowest fees. It’s unlikely to find low fees in a pension plan that’s geared towards profiting the administrator rather than solely benefiting its contributors.

The bill before us today attempts to establish and provide for the administration of PRPPs in Ontario. It draws from and largely adopts 2012 federal legislation. If passed, the bill would extend the regulatory authority over PRPPs to the Ontario Superintendent of Financial Services and set out the process for a PRPP administrator to rule on the decisions of the superintendent.

The bill would also include PRPPs in the definition of a pension plan and add PRPPs to the list of vehicles to which a plan can permit a former member or eligible spouse to transfer plan assets.

This bill, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, is flawed by design.

PRPPs do not require employers to contribute to an employee’s plan. Generally, this means there is less in the pool, and we can conceive that this would likely lead to reduced returns. These returns, as I’ve stated before, are subjected to much higher fees than we see in more traditional public plans, like the CPP.

A few points to add here: PRPPs are market-based and cannot offer the predictability that many Ontarians entering retirement require, so that they can plan ahead of time for their retirement. Moreover, employers can offer their employees enrolment into a PRPP but do not have to contribute anything themselves. This is a direct contrast to the employer/employee contribution model we see in the CPP and, most recently, in the Ontario pension plan.

Bill 57 sets up the structure to allow for PRPPs. This Liberal government touted the creation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan as the progressive way forward, only to slot the creation of pooled retirement plans next on the order paper. This government is playing a shell game with our retirement.

I spoke on Bill 56 and asked for details. Instead, I get the government focusing on a pooled retirement regime when they should be focused on setting up the ORPP. We’re concerned that, rather than allowing for the ORPP to take effect and then looking into some supplemental saving options, if they have such a desire to do so, this government has decided to simultaneously introduce the framework for profit-making pooled plans. Yes, on the same day that the Liberals tabled a bill setting out a framework for an Ontario pension plan that includes both employee and employer contributions, they also tabled a bill allowing the sale of pooled, for-profit plans.

Will PRPPs be considered comparable to the ORPP, thus making those enrolled in PRPPs exempt from contributing to the ORPP? This is the question our NDP pension critic has tried to have answered several times, but this government will not provide a clear and comprehensive answer. This question is an important one, and I hope in the coming weeks, the government provides us with a definitive answer.

The clear winners in PRPPs are the large banks and insurance industries. PRPPs are a financial product, not a pension plan. As a product, those administering PRPPs receive a share in their performance. As I stated before, the administrator of the plan erodes the return for the beneficiary through excessive fees. Also, as I’ve said before, employers are not obligated to contribute to their employees’ PRPPs. Despite Bill 57 trying to expand the definition of a pension to include PRPPs, these pooled plans are financial products, not pensions.

I want to clarify with my remarks here. I do not wish to be seen as arguing that financial products do not have a role to play in our retirement savings. Certainly, many families across Ontario contribute to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan or a tax-free savings account or employ other mechanisms to help save for their retirement. What I’m saying is that the financial products must be viewed as additional saving tools and not foundational mechanisms for retirement planning. Purchasing these products can be a way to augment your pension plan, but they cannot become your pension plan.

I’m aware of my time, Speaker, and I’m glad I had a chance to voice my opposition to this bill. At a time when we need to unpack the crucial details of the Ontario pension plan and have a discussion on how to foster growth in industries that provide good jobs to Ontarians, complete with competitive pension plans, this government is appeasing its friends in the financial sector.

Describe a PRPP as you will, it is not a pension plan. A pension provides security in retirement and sees both employer and employee make contributions. A pension is the vehicle of your retirement: a way for you to travel, pay for your hobbies and spoil your grandchildren. A pension is foundational for hard-working, middle-class Ontarians. A PRPP is not a pension at all.

With the little amount of time I have left, I’d just like to go back over some of the points that I made. I spoke at some length about the automotive sector and the importance of the automotive sector—the manufacturing sector, frankly—to Windsor and Essex county, but it’s important across the province as well. I think an important thing to address is the pension security of people who work in all sectors who have a pension plan offered through their workplace. They put in many, many years in order to reap the benefits of that pension.

We’re seeing more and more across the province that those pensions are not secure. We have companies that declare bankruptcy or they close up shop and move on across the border to the States or to Mexico, and they leave the employees who dedicated 20 or 30 years of their life to the company without retirement security, without a pension.

I think that when we’re looking at pension plans for the broader public, we need to make sure that they’re secure plans. When we’re looking at the PRPPs, I think the key here is the excessive fees that will be charged to those who contribute to them. Therefore, their return may not be exactly what they need in order to be able to live comfortably in retirement.

We see the cost of living going up, as my constituent—and this is not the only constituent who has written my office or phoned my office to speak to me about the cost of hydro. People across the province are having a very difficult time paying their hydro bill. They’re deciding between whether they’re going to eat or whether they’re going to keep the lights on.

I think that we need to make sure that when people do have the opportunity to put money away into retirement, into a pension plan, that pension plan needs to be fairly secure; they’re not looking at losing a good portion of what they’ve struggled to put into it; they’re not losing that to these excessive fees; we’re not having people on Bay Street or those in the insurance industry getting rich off of them and them having a secure retirement at the expense of those who struggle to pay into these.

I had also talked about being able to enjoy family time in retirement. I think that’s something else we need to be sure of. Again, a lot of these people who would be contributing are in lower-income, minimum wage jobs. This has to be something where they know their money is secure when they do manage to put it in and that in the future—should they have grandchildren, should they want to retire and travel with their loved ones and their family members—that money is secure and it’s there for them to be able to do that.

We need to make sure that people have the opportunity to opt out. I know a member from the government side had mentioned there is the opportunity to opt out, but I think we see—when you see the commercials on TV, “Phone now and order this,” people think it’s a great idea. They call in, they order it and they don’t necessarily see the fine print that says, “You are now going to be on an auto-ship program,” where they’re going to ship out every month and they’re going to bill you every month.

We need to be very careful with a plan such as this, although I think it was mentioned that there are 60 days and then they have an opt-out period. There are 60 days when they don’t have the opportunity to opt out. I’m curious to know if for the 60 days they paid into it, they are able to get that money back, should they decide to opt out.

I also think that people lead very busy lives and they—

Interjection.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Yes. They’re at work, they’ve got family to take care of, they’re worried about paying their bills, whether they can afford to keep the lights on, and sometimes deadlines pass—they miss the deadline to cancel whatever it was they ordered. I’m afraid this plan is setting them up for that same type of situation, where we could see five or six months or a year pass and they’re paying into something that they don’t necessarily want to be paying into. We need to make sure that it’s clear to people where their money is going.

We need to make sure that everybody understands what this PRPP is and what their rights and obligations are. We need to make sure that they know they have the opportunity to opt out.

But ultimately, we would rather not see this bill pass. We think there are definitely better options available than a PRPP. I certainly wouldn’t want to work my whole life and put into a plan, only to find out when I retire that there’s less in the plan than what I had been paying into it all those years. We need to make sure that whatever avenue people use to invest their money to save for retirement, that money is secure at the end.

I understand that even with RRSPs there is some uncertainty as to whether or not you are going to gain some on your investment or whether you’re going to lose a little bit on your investment. There’s always some uncertainty there, but I think that an item such as the PRPP sets people up for even a greater loss in their investment. That’s something we certainly cannot afford in this province, as I mentioned, with the cost of living going up. We look at the hydro rates and grocery rates; gas rates have gone up.

We certainly want to make sure that when someone is in their senior years, when they have worked their entire life and they’re looking to retire, they have the income and the stability to be able to live not only in comfort, but to be able to enjoy what they have worked their whole life to do.

I think I’m just about out of time, Speaker, so I’ll wrap it up for now. I look forward to further debate, when my colleague from Nickel Belt might have an opportunity to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would like to thank the member from Windsor West. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments at a later time when this bill is debated.

I’d like to thank all members in the House this morning for their contribution to the debate on Bill 57.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a delight to welcome again a frequent visitor, Susan Gapka from the Trans Lobby Group.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to welcome Susan Walmer, executive director of the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, to the House today. She’s a resident of the great riding of Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome my good friend Mark Kunkel from Powassan. He’s here with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m delighted to welcome a student from Saint-Michel school in my riding, from Kingsville: Chloe Mastronardi, who is serving as a page here with us.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome Don McCabe, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; he’ll be with us today. Later today there’s a reception down in the dining room, and I encourage all members to attend.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome Gerald Smith, president of the Ontario Dental Association—they’re not in yet, but they’re in to see people from Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to steal somebody’s thunder and welcome Linda Jeffrey, the mayor of Brampton.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve got a check mark here; I’d like to thank the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for stepping on my normal procedures.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d just like to welcome a couple of guests from the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists. They’re in the east members’ gallery: Lee-Ann Kant and Yvonne Wyndham, who is a constituent of the great riding of Etobicoke Centre.

Mr. Randy Hillier: On behalf of our colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, I’d like to welcome the mother of our page Samantha Lin. Her mother is Teresa Ma. She will be in the public gallery watching question period this morning.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Dr. Stephen Abrams from the ODA, the Ontario Dental Association, will be joining us shortly. He is a Londoner, and I used to work for his mom and dad at the market in London.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome a good friend of many of us here, Susan Gapka. Susan is part of the Trans Lobby Group. Susan had a great opportunity of us going running together in my riding of Ottawa Centre. She’s a great runner. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Susan.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to welcome here today, from my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, a member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Peggy Brekveld, who will be in the lobby here very shortly.

As well, Dr. Jerry Smith, a friend of mine from Thunder Bay, is here on behalf of the Ontario Dental Association.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome Jack and Ann Murphy. They came here all the way from St. Marys, Ontario. Welcome, Ann and Jack Murphy.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I would like to introduce the father of page captain Ryan Arff from Ajax–Pickering, who just happens to be standing beside me. His father, Dietmar Arff, will be in the public gallery this morning, and I’d certainly like to welcome him.

At the same time, on behalf of MPP Amrit Mangat from Mississauga–Brampton South, I’d like to introduce Cindy Atkinson, the mother of page captain Thomas Atkinson. Mrs. Atkinson will be here in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I, too, would like to welcome Mayor Jeffrey. She’s here accompanying the Probus Club of Brampton. I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, OSLA, here with us today. They’re in the public gallery. We’re joined by Peggy Allen, the president; executive members Lorie Grant and Pam Millett; and executive director Mary Cook. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It is a great pleasure for me, as the MPP for Richmond Hill and also as an honorary dentist without the right to practise, to welcome members of the Ontario Dental Association to Queen’s Park; specifically, two dentists from my riding of Richmond Hill: Dr. Elise Wong and Dr. C.P. Giri.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Somewhat anticlimactic: We have the member from Brampton Centre in the 38th, Brampton–Springdale in the 39th and 40th and present mayor of Brampton in the east public gallery: Linda Jeffrey. Welcome home. Welcome back.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask that all members join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the first session of the 41st Parliament. Would they please assemble to be introduced?

Ryan Arff from Ajax–Pickering; Thomas Atkinson from Mississauga–Brampton South; Colin Bryan from Don Valley West; Megan Chan from Oak Ridges–Markham; Olivia Collver from Haldimand–Norfolk; Ashton Corr from Niagara Falls; Misha Davies Gedalof from Davenport; Mira Gillis from Windsor–Tecumseh; Jae Min Han from Markham–Unionville; Abdullah Hasan from Scarborough–Rouge River; Afiyah Islam from Beaches–East York; Samantha Lin from Carleton–Mississippi Mills; Chloe Mastronardi from Essex; Ethan McCready-Branch from Kitchener Centre; Joshua Osborne from Newmarket–Aurora; Cailyn Perry from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound; Luca Riccio-Durocher from Chatham–Kent–Essex; Joshua Rosenberg from York Centre; Madison Rynard from Simcoe North; Ishika Tiwari from Scarborough–Guildwood; Colton Tompkins from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex; and Carina Watson from Halton.

These are our pages for this session.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I’m fond of saying, get back to work.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to start question period before the heckling starts.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Acting Premier. Because of your cap-and-tax plan, you claim the cost of gas will go up three cents a litre. Well, your record says differently. We cannot trust your numbers. Minister Chiarelli once said that the rising cost of hydro was worth about a cup of coffee. However, Ontarians across this province have seen their hydro bills nearly triple under your watch. You said the cost of the gas plant scandal would be $40 million and it ballooned to over $1 billion.

Acting Premier, how much will gas increase under the Liberal cap-and-tax scheme?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that I’m disappointed in the opposition party. They have chosen a side. They are opposing cap and trade. They are opposing taking action on greenhouse gas. But at least I respect them for having a position on cap and trade. They’ve made a big mistake on this, but they’ve made a decision to not support this.

The third party, I think to everyone’s astonishment, has actually chosen not to take a position. There are two sides to this debate. One side says, “Let’s take action; we must take action,” and the other side says—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

A one-sentence wrap-up, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I respect the PC Party. They have chosen a path, the wrong path, but at least they have chosen a path.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I dare say we’re the only party in this House that is standing up for Ontarians across this province.

Back to the Acting Premier: Your carbon tax will increase the cost of everything. You’re feeding your spending addiction from the pocketbooks of hard-working Ontarians. Because—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I expect the same when a question is put, as much as an answer.

Please continue.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Because of high energy prices in Ontario, I often hear from people who have had to choose food over heating. You force them to pick, Acting Premier, between heating and eating. That’s not the Ontario that I’m proud to say I’m a member of. You’re driving people out of this province. Your cap-and-tax scheme will just continue to open the door and usher people and business out of this province. What will Ontarians have to sacrifice next—their home, maybe new shoes for their children, school trips for their children? Deputy Premier, what do you say to them? What will Ontarians have to sacrifice next?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The big flaw in the PC or maybe—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Stormont, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —party is that they don’t recognize that there are costs attached to inaction. We are already paying the price. We’re seeing increased insurance costs—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Today, Premiers from right across this country are joining together in the fight against climate change. These Premiers represent all parties.

The world is moving on. We recognize that there is a problem that is having and will continue to have a devastating impact on our farmers, on our health, on our plants, on our animals and on our ecosystem. We must take action. The time to take action is now, and there is a cost to inaction.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: The cost to all of the Liberal action over this past decade has added up to $23,000 on every set of shoulders in this province. It’s absolutely shameful.

Again, back to the Acting Premier: Because across the globe we’re seeing cap-and-tax systems riddled with scandal, fraud and corruption, it’s only natural for your Liberal government to jump right on that bandwagon. I have to tell you, Acting Premier, that while we support reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we will not support this being done through another irresponsible tax. You’re making it harder for the average Ontarian, and the only winners in this scenario are going to be your Liberal friends.

It may be easy for you to pick winners and losers, but why should the average Ontarian pick between their kids playing hockey or heating their home, as opposed to having to pay their bills? When are you going to stand up for Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s becoming clear that the pro-carbon party is the best friend carbon ever had.

Speaker, what you must recognize and what we all must recognize is that we believe in the principle that the polluter should pay. We know that when we add a cost to carbon, businesses will reduce their emissions because it makes sense for them to do it. Why would we not reward businesses that take action to reduce emissions? That is at the heart of this.

Across the country, there is momentum building—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will come to order. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Several members of the PC Party have actually voted in favour of taking immediate action. That is what we were doing. But it appears to me that what’s happening now is the climate change deniers have taken control of the PC caucus. They are the ones who are driving this change.

I know there are people on your side who think this is—

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

Energy policies

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Premier said, “Call it carbon pricing, cap and trade, a market mechanism ... if you must, go ahead and call it a tax.” I’m glad we agree on something: It is a tax. It’s a tax on everything.

In Australia, we know it costs families $550 every year. Deputy Premier, how much money will your tax cost Ontario families?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think the question is, what does inaction cost Ontario families? We are already paying the price. We’re paying now billions of dollars for the impacts of climate change, and that will accelerate; that will only grow.

Families are paying now. Ask the people of Burlington if climate change is impacting their cost of living. Ask the people who were affected by the ice storm if climate change is affecting their cost of living. We are paying the price now; we will pay the price more in the future. The time to take action is now.

The approach on cap and trade is the right way to go. I just wish the PCs would actually join the—

Mr. John Yakabuski: This is about money and you know it. It’s about money.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member can look away all he wants, but the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order—second time.

Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Deputy Premier: Last night on CBC, your economic development minister, the man responsible for growing the economy, admitted that your carbon tax will take money out companies’ hands and put it into government coffers. He said that it would take money out of our economy. That will mean fewer jobs. That will be the legacy of your carbon tax.

Deputy Premier, how many jobs will be lost under your new carbon tax?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, once again, the question is, how many jobs will be created? We are actually creating jobs, the next generation of jobs.

When the Premier and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change made their announcement yesterday, they made it at a plant that produces programmable thermostats. That is a product that is now in demand globally. It is in demand because people are trying to make wiser use of their expenditures. When people save on their energy consumption, they will save money.

We will reinvest the money in a very transparent way in a range of projects that will help families be more energy-efficient, that will build up public transit to reduce congestion, that will help factories and businesses reduce their pollution. This is an economic generator.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: My final supplementary back to the Deputy Premier: Yesterday, the Premier brought up the fact that she wanted to be able to tell her granddaughter what she did as Premier. She wanted to be able to say that she didn’t have her head in the sand. That’s funny, because this government has had their head in the sand for the last 12 years.

Your policies have driven jobs out of this province and have allowed our energy rates to skyrocket.

Deputy Premier, is your government okay with telling our grandchildren that they’ll have no job and they will owe $23,000 in debt?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, they don’t have to take it from me. Let’s hear what Michael McSweeney, president and CEO, Cement Association of Canada, has to say. He says, “There are good reasons—environmental and economic—to tackle greenhouse gas emissions now, and with some sense of urgency.... We believe Ontario is on the right track, with its plan to introduce a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas....”

David Paterson, corporate and environmental affairs, General Motors Canada: “GM believes there can be opportunities in addressing climate change and that we need to go on with that and do it.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s just about it. Every sentence.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Ken Neumann of the Steelworkers says, “There is a pressing need to address climate change. And if the revenues from carbon pricing are reinvested in Ontario’s economy, we can create a lot of jobs and build things we want and need, like more transit, more renewable energy, and more energy-efficient industry.”

Speaker, there are many people—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. For over a decade, the Liberals have been opposed to privatizing Hydro One. My question is, can the Deputy Premier tell us what has changed?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We in this province have a very clear and tangible need to invest in infrastructure. I think many people came in today and experienced that need themselves this morning. We must invest in infrastructure. Our people are depending on us to do that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We need to pay for it, and we will maximize our assets so we can build new assets, like better infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m sure the Deputy Premier remembers 2003. It was when she and her Premier were first elected. Their leader, Dalton McGuinty, at that time said, “Ontario families want affordable, reliable electricity. They know that the sale of the grid that carries electricity to their homes is a disaster for consumers.”

Can the Deputy Premier tell us whether she and the Premier believed in that plan back in 2003 when they ran under it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think a lot of people are disappointed that the NDP has become the party of the status quo. They don’t want to change; they don’t want to build for tomorrow’s economy. They are rooted in the past. I have to say that they have opposed changes to the LCBO, opposed changes to the Beer Store, opposed changes—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When they oppose any ways to fund transit, they are opposing infrastructure investment. You cannot have it both ways; if you want to build it, you have to pay for it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier first won her seat with a team that opposed the sell-off of Hydro One. Dalton McGuinty said this about Hydro One: “These people have never had their say on this, not in an election, not even in public hearings.” Now this Liberal Premier, this Liberal government, is planning a sale of Hydro One without running in an obvious way on that plan, without any hearings whatsoever with the people of Ontario, without ever explaining to people what it means or how much it will cost Ontarians on their hydro bills.

My question is, will the Deputy Premier tell Ontarians exactly who is behind the Liberals’ 180-degree about-face on this file?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The people of Ontario are looking for the government to take leadership when it comes to building infrastructure. No matter what part of the province you go to, whether it’s small communities or large communities, we hear over and over again that the infrastructure we have is not adequate. Our infrastructure deficit is reducing—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our infrastructure deficit is reducing the ability of companies to create jobs. We must act. We’re acting. It’s disappointing that the NDP has once again chosen to oppose without offering any constructive solutions of their own.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is also for the Deputy Premier.

You know, it wasn’t just Dalton McGuinty. The Liberal energy critic, Sean Conway, had this to say about Hydro One in 2002 in the lead-up to that 2003 election:

“The Tory government has no mandate to sell off the grid and there has been no consultation about such a sale ... The transmission grid—located in the heart of North America—is one of Ontario’s most valuable assets. It is unbelievable that it is being sold without any discussion or debate.”

I agree, Speaker. It is unbelievable that that’s happening. Yet now the Liberal government is planning to do exactly what they crowed about and opposed so vehemently a decade ago.

Can the Deputy Premier explain to the people of this province how and when it is that the Liberals lost their way?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, you know what’s unbelievable? The unbelievable thing is that they ran on this plan. What is unbelievable is that you took the assumptions in our fiscal plan, which included maximizing assets, and you ran on it. So it’s extraordinary that you ran on it but you didn’t know about it.

Talking about losing your way, I have a letter here from May 2014. It says:

“Dear Andrea,

“We are writing to you as long-time supporters of the ONDP who are deeply distressed by the current election campaign ... In this election, we are seriously considering not voting NDP.

“We were angry when you voted against the most progressive budget in recent Ontario history.”

I know they take offence. But let’s see: Cathy Crowe signed this letter, Martha Friendly—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m sure you’ll be getting some Dear Kathleen and Dear Deb letters pretty soon with the direction you’re going through right now.

It wasn’t just Dalton McGuinty or Sean Conway. Even Dwight Duncan, the former Liberal finance minister, said this about asset sales: “We’re certainly not going to rush anything and we’re not going to do it without what I would call a very robust and meaningful public conversation.”

And yet here we are with a Liberal Premier who claims to be the most progressive leader since Confederation planning asset sales without any consultation whatsoever. Exactly how progressive is that?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I hate to go back—but I will—to this letter from NDP supporters who say they were angry when the NDP voted against the most progressive budget in recent Ontario history.

They say: “You have not explained to ONDP voters why this will be a successful election strategy and why they should vote against their principles.”

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To continue, “It seems in your rush to the centre you are abandoning those values and constituencies that the party has always championed. If the NDP does not stand with working people, poor people, with women, with immigrants, then what does it stand for? We urge you to change course.”

Speaker, Grace-Edward Galabuzi signed this letter, Michele Landsberg signed this letter, Geoff Bickerton—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —Patricia Chorney Rubin. Speaker, the list—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, the list is stopping.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m sure all of those folks are carefully watching the right-wing turn the Liberals have taken.

The bottom line is that privatization of hydro is a very, very bad idea. It always has been. We know first-hand that private hydro drives bills through the roof. It is bad for families and it is bad for businesses. The plan doesn’t make sense and the Liberals know it.

Ontarians deserve to know how and why the Liberals lost their way when it comes to public hydro. Can the Deputy Premier explain why the Liberals are taking a page from Mike Harris’s and Ernie Eves’s playbook in planning to privatize Hydro One when they know full well that it is a very, very bad idea?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said yesterday, the easy part of being in opposition is that you get to oppose. But the part where you have a real responsibility is to actually provide constructive advice.

You say you want to build transit. You want to build transit, but you oppose it every step of the way. Once again, you’re opposing investments in transit and in other kinds of infrastructure across this province. If you have a better way to pay for it, we would love to hear that.

We are committed to moving this province forward and to building this province up. We will do that by investing in much-needed infrastructure.

Energy policies

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Deputy Premier.

Experts are warning us that your cap-and-trade tax scheme is vulnerable to fraud, manipulation, higher costs to businesses, and job losses.

The member from Leeds–Grenville asked you specifically how many jobs will be lost. You wouldn’t answer him, so let’s reach into the gas plant scandal file once again and read the confidential advice to cabinet. Your own file tells you how many job losses your carbon tax will bring to Ontarians. The once-secret document states that 5,000 jobs will be lost—

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure will come to order—second time.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Your once-secret document states that 5,000 jobs will be lost and result in “a relocation of business to lower-cost jurisdictions.”

Deputy, why does it always take a secret document to get us the truth in this Legislature?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What is very much on the public record is that the PC Party has been captured by the climate-change deniers. The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington said last June, “I’m very skeptical of climate change.... We can’t worry about what’s going to happen in 50 years.” The member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills said, “CO 2 is a positive gas. We need CO 2 . There is a positive side to that.”

Speaker, I know that there have been many voices, including the member for Nipissing’s, that say we must take action. The question is: Why are you now saying that this action is not what we should be doing?

The business community has been vocal in their support of this because they see the opportunities. I think you should see those opportunities too.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Deputy Premier, you knew about the 5,000 job-loss number. You were in cabinet when this was presented. Finance ministry officials told you about the job losses from your new revenue tools.

So let’s add the ministry numbers up—I know it hurts to hear these facts: 54,000 jobs lost in your pension tax scheme, and they said your cap-and-trade tax scheme will slash another 5,000 jobs or more.

Deputy, look around you. Can Ontario afford to lose another 60,000 jobs? You say this is about emissions, but we all know that it’s only about the cash needed to fuel your spending addiction.

What do you have to say now to those 5,000 families who are about to pay for your latest tax grab?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this is interesting coming from a party that committed to firing 100,000 people. But let’s just say—

Interjections.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’ve received a letter of support for our policy from Ontario business leaders. They say:

“We support your government’s intention to take measures to address climate change by establishing a transparent economy-wide price on carbon.

“We share your conviction that the test of a successful climate policy is one that also enhances our competitiveness and long-term prosperity.”

A number of people signed this letter, including people from Hewlett-Packard, Tembec, Teck Resources, Investeco Capital, The Co-operators Group, Desjardins Group, Jacob Securities, Vancity, Mountain Equipment Co-op, the Cement Association of Canada, Walker Industries, Interface Inc., Catalyst Paper, Philips Lighting Canada, Hydrogenics—

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

School closures

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Education.

Minister, last night my colleague from Windsor West and I attended a meeting in Amherstburg, where that community, along with Harrow and Kingsville, are being forced to pick and choose which community will get to keep its school. We listened as hundreds of parents gathered for an opportunity to speak out, but the meeting was limited to only 90 minutes of comments. Many did not get a chance.

Minister, why is this government silencing communities, that desperately want a say in their school closures, by cutting the required amount of community meetings in half?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m not sure how he thinks I determine the length of the meeting, but whatever.

What I think really is quite interesting is that there are a number of people on the side opposite who actually have a history as school trustees—as do I, and as do a number of people on our side. I think we need to think about the history of the people who were actually trustees.

For example, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, when she was a trustee, supported a motion to close Alison Park Public School and a motion to close Lincoln Avenue Public School.

You mentioned the member from Windsor West. When the member from Windsor West was a trustee on the Greater Essex County District School Board—

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

The member from Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Again to the Minister of Education: Minister, this government’s choice to continue to use a flawed funding formula forces trustees to close schools, which means this government—

Interjections.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: What that means, Minister, is this government’s record for closing schools far exceeds any trustee’s.

Minister, it was clear last night that the communities affected are deeply concerned with what’s happening to their schools. Parent after parent came forward with innovative ideas on expanding the role of their schools into vibrant community hubs.

Instead of taking a proactive approach to the creation of community hubs, this government has chosen to ignore the concerns of families and close schools.

When will this government recognize the importance of neighbourhood schools, stop ignoring the concerns of families and stop closing schools?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Let me just finish here. When the member from Windsor West was a trustee, she supported the closure of Forster secondary school. She supported the closure of Victoria Public School. She did not oppose the closure of—

Interjections.

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

Carry on, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: And she didn’t—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Liz Sandals: And she didn’t oppose the closure of Ruthven or Kingsville public schools, because what they recognized was that as demographics shift, things need to shift.

What she’s failing to recognize is that, in fact, we have put in the budget a $750-million school consolidation fund to help local boards do exactly what she’s asking: create community hubs.

Ontario budget

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Minister, I understand that this morning, you visited the Digital Media Zone at Ryerson University. The DMZ is one of Canada’s largest business incubators and working spaces for entrepreneurs, and it’s based right here in Toronto. This unique community is home to entrepreneurs and innovators of all ages. In fact, innovation and encouraging Ontario’s young entrepreneurs to succeed, ensuring that Ontario is globally competitive, are key priorities for this government.

In light of this, could the Minister of Finance please tell us more about his visit to the Digital Media Zone at Ryerson University this morning?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member from Burlington for the question.

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right: The DMZ is the top-ranked university incubator in Canada and fifth in the world. It’s a unique hub that helps start-ups succeed by connecting businesses with customers and young entrepreneurs.

The member from Burlington is also quite right in the fact that encouraging and fostering innovative ideas is a key priority of this government. Investing in young entrepreneurs in Ontario, the future leaders of tomorrow, is a key component of the 2015 budget. And, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure today to announce that budget date, and I am privileged to be able to table and deliver the 2015 budget in this very House on Thursday, April 23, 2015.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is again to the Minister of Finance, and I’d like to thank him for his leadership.

Minister, I’m pleased to hear of the government’s focus on supporting entrepreneurs and continuing to ensure that Ontario is an innovative hub not just in North America, but globally. It is fascinating projects like the DMZ at Ryerson University and innovative conversations happening in my own riding of Burlington, in partnership with McMaster University, that will help to make this future a reality.

I’m also pleased to hear that the 2015 budget will be tabled next week, on Thursday, April 23. I know that the people of Ontario, the people in my riding of Burlington and indeed all MPPs are eager to hear about our government’s next steps in building Ontario up.

Could the Minister of Finance please tell this House a bit about the upcoming 2015 Ontario budget?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Again, thank you to the member for Burlington for a great question.

The budget will focus on a four-part plan to build Ontario up. It will continue to build in a dynamic, innovative and competitive business environment. Another pillar will be to continue to invest in our people, especially young entrepreneurs. We’ll also continue to invest and build on our infrastructure through unlocking those very assets that we hold so dear, and we will continue to ensure that the hard-working people of Ontario receive the retirement security that they well deserve.

Last June, the people of Ontario gave us a strong mandate to continue to build a better future for the people of this wonderful province, and with the 2015 budget that’s going to be coming out we are doing just that. On April 23, I look forward to tabling what I believe to be one of the most progressive and innovative budgets the people of Ontario will have ever seen.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Minister, the Housing Services Corp. pays for its operations by overcharging social housing providers for natural gas and insurance. Instead of providing housing for our most vulnerable, the money is paying for international travel and investments in Manchester, England. CityHousing Hamilton reported that in one year they paid more than $1 million extra because they have to buy through the Housing Services Corp. A million dollars, Mr. Minister—that’s rent supplements for 140 families.

Minister, if Housing Services Corp. is siphoning more than $1 million out of social housing in Hamilton, how much is it costing Toronto Community Housing?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: First off, Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a blatant inaccuracy from the member opposite when he suggested the other day, with a great degree of disingenuousness, that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister will withdraw.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’ll withdraw.

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: He uttered a number of terminological inexactitudes—

Interjection: That’s much better.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No better. Withdraw.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’ll withdraw—when he suggested that we had removed the Housing Services Corp. from the sunshine list. He ought to know—I think he does know, Mr. Speaker—that you only get reported on the sunshine list if you’re receiving government funds. They set it up that way when they put the legislation in place. That only happened once, and during that year it was reported, so he’s incorrect.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, it isn’t just Hamilton and Toronto. Housing Services Corp. cost Peel housing $200,000 in one year; in Waterloo, $10,000 each year; in Thunder Bay, $750,000; Bruce county; Oxford; Hastings; Halton; Prince Edward; Lennox-Addington. If they weren’t required to purchase services through Housing Services Corp., they could all help people who need social housing.

Minister, 100 housing providers who buy their insurance from someone else are still forced to pay 2.5% to the Housing Services Corp.

Will you support my bill and save housing providers millions by allowing them to buy the services at the best possible price they can find in the open market?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, the honourable member’s bill will be debated very soon, and we’ll see where people align themselves on that.

I can say, for the record, that the Housing Services Corp. is an independent, non-profit corporation. Their board is responsible for monitoring. They’ve made a number of changes at my request. We’re currently undergoing a third-party, independent review of the corporation and all its subsidiaries.

I’d ask the honourable member to wait until we get that report, which will be coming very soon. If there are things we need to change as a government, as a result of that, you can be darned sure we’re going to do it.

GO Transit

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last month, Niagara Falls hosted a rally to show its united support of daily, all-year GO service all the way to Niagara Falls. The people want this and regional councils want this. The member from St. Catharines, who is the chair of the government’s cabinet, spoke at the rally on the need for daily GO service to Niagara Falls. In fact, during the election campaign, the member from St. Catharines said, “I can see it coming in 2015.”

Niagara is united in calling for all-year, daily GO service all the way to Niagara Falls. Was the government’s cabinet chair correct to tell the people of Niagara that they can expect—expect—daily all-year GO rail service to Niagara Falls by 2015?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I actually want to begin by saying that I appreciate this question from this member. I believe this is actually the very first question this member has had the opportunity to ask me since becoming the NDP’s transportation critic. I applaud him for becoming the critic for transportation, and I thank him very much for that question.

Speaker, I’ve had the opportunity on a number of occasions to speak with representatives from the region of Niagara. In fact, as that member knows, our member, my esteemed colleague the member from St. Catharines, has been a very persistent and staunch advocate for additional infrastructure improvements, advancements and investments in Niagara region, including Niagara GO service.

My understanding is that the Niagara region is working very hard with respect to the development of a business case. I look forward, over the next couple of weeks, to having the chance to meet with them, to hear directly from them about the findings of their business case. The Ministry of Transportation and Metrolinx will work with the region to study and analyze that business case and to continue to work on moving forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Minister, during the last election, the leader of your party, and the Premier of Ontario, said that bringing the GO train all the way to Niagara Falls “was a high, high priority.” Despite this, Niagara is not mentioned anywhere in the Metrolinx report. You won’t commit to a timeline, and now Metrolinx is telling us it’s not a priority.

The incredible grassroots organization continues to call for this for Niagara. They have the support of all the mayors, the councils, regional councils, and even the chair of your caucus.

Can you tell the people of Niagara if this government plans to follow through on its words and bring daily two-way GO service to Niagara Falls in 2015?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank that member for his question and for his obvious passion on this. I think that member needs to recognize, as everyone does on this side of the House, that as we go forward with our infrastructure investments and how we prioritize those, all of our decisions regarding these matters will be based on a demonstrated business case and consideration of provincial infrastructure and budget priorities.

As I mentioned, I look forward to receiving that business case. Metrolinx is already working with Niagara region. We’ve heard, certainly, from the member from St. Catharines.

Speaker, people watching these proceedings—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He can’t insinuate that somebody is lying, Speaker.

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, as I was saying, people watching these proceedings from home, from Niagara region, would have to remember that when that party had the opportunity to support our plan to invest $29 billion over the next 10 years, they chose to reject it, not once but twice.

We’re going to get the job done. We’re going to move the province forward.

Interjections.

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

Small business

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. The Premier has prioritized burden reduction so that businesses small and large can continue to grow across the province. In my riding of Newmarket–Aurora, businesses have been asking me about this very important issue. Burden reduction was a prominent theme in both the 2014 throne speech and budget and is also included in the minister’s public mandate letter.

Just recently, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released their provincial report card on this subject. Would the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure please inform this House of Ontario’s standing?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for Newmarket–Aurora for what is a really important question for us as an economy, and certainly for our small business community.

Since 2008, our government has eliminated more than one in six regulatory requirements, or 80,000 regulatory burdens. That’s significant. In fact, we’re working towards achieving our burden-reduction strategy, which will save close to $100 million by 2016-17 for small businesses—very important for our economy.

Because of these accomplishments, in the CFIB’s 2015 Red Tape Report Card, Ontario’s strategic approach to burden reduction has earned this province a B+, tying for second with one other province for the highest mark in the country. We’re proud of that record, but a B+, as far as I’m concerned, is not good enough, and we want to—

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m also very proud of our government’s strategic approach to burden reduction. The CFIB’s grade for Ontario further demonstrates the progress we’ve made.

As I understand it, the CFIB also praised our government for reintroducing and passing Bill 7, the Better Business Climate Act. This bill received all-party support in its passing. Would the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure please inform this House of the importance of Bill 7 for government burden reduction?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member.

I want to thank all parties in the House for supporting Bill 7. This legislation is a clear reflection of our government working with key stakeholders to continue to grow Ontario’s economy through burden reduction and cluster development, which is also really important. It was the CFIB’s biggest ask a couple of years ago, and I give my predecessor credit as well for putting the beginnings of this bill together. It creates an open and transparent commitment to burden reduction. In many ways, it holds our government’s feet to the fire; we have to report annually now on burden reduction, which is why the CFIB wanted us to work with them to do that.

We continue to be a national leader in reducing burden, but there’s much more work to do. I’m looking forward, with this government, to working with the CFIB to continue to ensure that Ontario is a national leader in reducing regulatory burden.

Agri-food industry

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Minister, over the past several years the Ontario Maple Syrup Producers Association has called on both the federal and the provincial governments to adopt the standards of the international grading system to help consolidate maple syrup producers, packers, distributors and consumers. The federal government has listened by implementing recent amendments to the Maple Products Regulations, and is being commended for their efforts, as this new uniform system will make it easier for consumers to identify and buy exactly what they want.

Minister, will your ministry follow suit by amending and aligning our provincial rules with the federal ones to ultimately modernize the maple syrup industry here in Ontario?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank very much the honourable gentleman from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for asking me a question about the maple syrup industry in the province of Ontario.

We recognize on all sides of the House that the maple syrup industry is one of the oldest agriculture industries in the province of Ontario. Some 2,500 producers currently exist in Ontario. We harvest about 1.5 million litres of syrup, making Ontario one of the top three producers in Canada, grossing over $32 million in maple product sales and contributing over $53 million to Canada’s GDP.

We’re very aware of the new standards that have been brought in by the federal government, and I wanted to commend my good friend Ray Bonenberg, president of the Ontario Maple Syrup Producers Association, for keeping his members engaged on this very important file.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, as you know, this is not the first time we’ve talked about this. I’ve written you. I spoke to you about it on several occasions on behalf of Mr. Bonenberg and the industry.

This issue is very important to the industry. Its members don’t have the luxury of waiting around while you and your ministry get your act together. This puts Ontario at a disadvantage which can no longer continue to go unaddressed. The provincial government needs to move forward as quickly as possible so that there’s harmonization of the maple syrup grades.

Minister, you and your ministry have been dragging your feet and holding these amendments up, to the detriment of our maple syrup producers.

The time to act is now. Will you stop delaying and make the necessary amendments to regulation 119/11 before you head off on your trade mission to China? Help our industry before you head away.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In fact, in response to my good friend, I’ll be in China selling maple syrup products produced right here in Ontario.

We are taking a bit of responsible time to consult with small, medium and large maple syrup producers in the province of Ontario. Consultations will seek to identify and address requests made by maple producers, including the grading and classification of maple products. We want to have a robust consultation and we’re aiming to have something in place by January 1, 2016.

It’s our view, when it comes to this policy, we want to make sure we’re in the sweet spot with regard to maple syrup in Ontario.

Environmental protection

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier.

The Hamilton Port Authority continues to push ahead with plans for a risky garbage gasification plant on Hamilton Harbour. This plan would use unproven technology that exists nowhere else in the world save for a single small pilot project in England.

Last November, I asked the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to designate this project for a full environmental assessment. After assuring us that “of course there will be an environmental assessment,” five months later the minister has done nothing.

The city’s outside experts say that a full environmental assessment is absolutely necessary. Will the Liberals listen to the experts and designate this massive and risky gasification plant for a full environmental assessment?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the member knows, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is in Quebec with the Premier, working with other Premiers in other governments to develop an appropriate response to climate change and cap and trade.

I’m sure the minister will very much want to answer this question. I have been handed a note but I suspect you would like the answer from the minister. We’ll make sure you get that answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The problem is that time is ticking away. The report from the city’s experts says the Hamilton gasification plant needs a full environmental assessment. It says the plant would be “the first commercial implementation of this type in the world ... There is no similar scale operational system using this technology.”

In other words, you can’t simply scale up the results from a tiny pilot project in England, as the proponent wants to do, and expect to understand the true environmental impact of this unproven technology in a project of this size. And yet, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is ready to bet the future of Hamilton Harbour on the results of a science fair project.

Will the Liberals listen to the people of Hamilton and the experts who wrote this report and order a full environmental assessment?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Bill Mauro: As mentioned, the minister is not here today. I don’t have a response from him directly on the particular issue that the member has raised, the leader of the third party. I do have a note, however, on Hamilton air issues generally and I can give you some of that information.

In 2011 the ministry introduced new or updated air standards for eight substances which are linked to health effects such as cancer, developmental effects or respiratory illnesses. These air standards take effect July 1, 2016. Improving air quality and combatting sources of air pollution is a top priority for the ministry. The ministry has issued site-specific standards for suspended particulate matter at four of Ontario’s iron and steel facilities.

This is in the context of Hamilton air issues generally. I don’t have a note for her specifically on the issues that she’s raised here today, but hopefully some of this information will provide some level of comfort that the ministry is on the issue when it comes to Hamilton air issues generally speaking.

Long-term care

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We all know that our population is aging, and so too are the many long-term-care homes across the province that house our elderly population. While the care and delivery each and every day by our nurses, personal support workers, doctors, physiotherapists and other front-line health professionals is nothing short of excellent, we also want to ensure that our loved ones are in the best possible facilities.

In the fall, the minister announced incentives for operators to renew hundreds of older long-term-care homes in communities from one end of Ontario to the other. Mr. Speaker, could the minister provide an update to the House on the status of that important project?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Absolutely. I would be delighted to give an update. I want to begin by thanking the member from Kitchener Centre for the question and all of her advocacy for our seniors in this province.

I know that for our residents, a long-term-care home is just that: a home. All Ontarians who make long-term-care facilities their home deserve to live in comfortable, inviting and safe environments, Speaker. That is why our government is providing increased support to long-term-care-home operators to reach our goal of redeveloping 30,000 long-term-care beds. That’s about 300 homes, Speaker. That’s almost 50% of our homes that are going to be modernized.

We have been working with the sector to refine our supports in order to ensure this redevelopment program is successful. We recently distributed a survey to all our operators because we want to do this in a collaborative fashion.

The results have been great, Speaker, and I look forward—

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

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear the minister’s commitment to ensuring that older Ontarians are getting the best care in the best environment possible.

The minister noted in her answer that our government is working with stakeholders to bring about this very substantial undertaking, and that kind of collaboration is essential for any project of this scale.

Long-term-care-home operators do have a vital role to play in seeing the success of the redevelopment of these plans, but the voices of residents and their loved ones are just as important. Could the minister please tell us what she is doing to ensure that all parties are at the table?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Again, thanks to the member for Kitchener Centre. She’s absolutely right. We want this to be a collaborative process in which all stakeholders, whether they are operators, whether it’s the LHIN, whether it’s families or whether it’s residents, have a say. That’s why my ministry has established a stakeholder advisory group to guide us through redevelopment, which includes representatives, as I said, of operators, LHINs, municipalities, family councils and resident councils. My ministry is also in the process of conducting collaborative information sessions with stakeholders at locations across Ontario.

I also want to take a minute to give a shout-out to the former Minister of Health and Long-Term Care who actually launched this process. Thank you so much, Minister Matthews.

I want to thank our stakeholders, as well as the folks in my ministry, the health capital branch, who have been truly burning the candle at both ends to make this a success.

Smoking cessation

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, your government has stated that public policy will be based on science and evidence. With Bill 45, you have done a grave disservice to the people of Ontario, and it is contrary to both science and evidence.

Countless studies and research have proven that vaporizers are the most effective smoking cessation tool. They have been demonstrated to be up to a hundredfold more effective than nicotine patches, gums or inhalers.

Bill 45 is entitled the Making Healthier Choices Act, yet you are taking away the most effective choice available to those trying to quit smoking and to live a healthier lifestyle. Minister, will you consider this overwhelming evidence in favour of the use of vaporizers as a cessation tool, or would you rather keep these people addicted to tobacco?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to thank the member opposite for that question. I want to assure the member opposite that our goal in Ontario is to help smokers stop smoking, because that’s the one way we’re going to reduce smoking rates in Ontario.

What we’ve done with Bill 45 is actually taken a middle-of-the-road, responsible approach, because we’re not banning e-cigarettes. We’re not banning e-cigarettes; they continue to be legal, but what we are trying to do is to make sure that people who don’t smoke at all—our youth—don’t start taking up e-cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. Mr. Speaker, what we’ve really done is taken a very responsible approach, balancing both sides: making sure that smokers have the opportunity to switch to vaping, if they should so want, but also making sure that those who don’t smoke at all don’t start vaping.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It is not a middle-of-the-road approach; it is an extreme approach.

I can tell you the personal story of Brian Letts, who after smoking for 53 years finally quit smoking three years ago with a vaporizer. Or I can share with you the expert advice of Dr. Bhatnagar, a professor and practising cardiac surgeon with the University of Toronto. The professor has researched the use of vaporizers and has testified to how they are drastically reducing tobacco harm in our society.

Minister, in this case, the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against your government’s position. Will you listen to those who have finally been able to quit smoking and those in the medical and academic community who know that it is safe, and abandon your attack on people who want to quit smoking?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to assure the member opposite that his constituents can continue to vape cigarettes. And I respect Dr. Bhatnagar very much, but I also know that he runs an online vape store, so I just wanted to point that out.

I just want to continue to say that we believe that this is the right approach that our bill is taking. We’ve done wide stakeholder consultations and we look forward to this bill going through committee.

Services for the disabled

For years, the province of Ontario has been leasing this land to the camp, but the lease is up, and now the province wants