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

October 20, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Oct-20 (PDF)

L057 - Wed 20 Oct 2010 / Mer 20 oct 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 October 2010 Mercredi 20 octobre 2010

SPECIAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PENSION REFORM

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

HYDRO RATES

GROWTH PLANNING

HOME CARE

CONSULTANTS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

CONSULTANTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

CO-OP WEEK

PENSION PLANS

HYDRO RATES

JOB CREATION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

LITTER

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

HANA’S SUITCASE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

TONY WONG

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CONSULTANTS

PETITIONS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

VETERANS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL

VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

GASOLINE PRICES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the Baha’i prayer.

Prayers.

SPECIAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a report of the Auditor General entitled Consultant Use in Selected Health Organizations. For members’ information, these will be momentarily available in the side lobbies.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PENSION REFORM

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario acknowledge that about two thirds of Ontarians do not have a workplace pension and that providing a secure future for retirement is important. It therefore endorses a modest and gradual expansion of the Canada pension plan (CPP), as the majority of provinces and the federal government agreed to at the last federal-provincial-territorial finance ministers’ meeting in the summer of 2010, and that the province continue to work with the federal government and other provinces to move forward on the expansion of the CPP.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Phillips has moved government notice of motion number 30. Debate?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I, of course, fully endorse the motion. It is my intent to share the majority of my time with the member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Applause.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Thank you, everyone. It’s my pleasure to join in the debate this morning and to follow the deputy House leader in his eloquent remarks. Thank you for that; it was wonderful—

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Very in depth.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: —and very in depth. Thank you, Deputy.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Say hi to your mom.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Good morning, Mom. The member from Welland is here, and he sends his sympathies for your broken foot, so thank you for that. We hope you’re doing okay.

Our government has become increasingly concerned, of course, especially since the global economic downturn, that many Canadians are not saving adequately for retirement. Recent research, policy work and public consultations have confirmed that although our retirement income system has many strengths, a significant minority of Canadians in the future are likely to experience a material decrease in their standard of living upon retirement, unless changes are made.

As you know, on Monday in the Legislature, my colleague the Honourable Dwight Duncan, the Minister of Finance, tabled the following motion that we just heard: “That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario acknowledge that about two thirds of Ontarians do not have a workplace pension and that providing a secure future for retirement is important.

It therefore endorses a modest and gradual expansion of the Canada pension plan (CPP), as the majority of provinces and the federal government agreed to at the last federal-provincial-territorial finance ministers’ meeting in the summer of 2010, and that the province continue to work with the federal government and other provinces to move forward on the expansion of the CPP.”

Pension and retirement income system reforms have been of central importance to this government. The McGuinty government recognized that despite the vital importance of pension plans to the health of Ontario’s economy, it had been more than 20 years since there had been significant pension reform in this province. That is why, since March 2009, our government has taken a number of important steps to address employment pension system issues.

For example, we introduced a temporary solvency funding relief program to protect jobs and families; we’re working to simplify pension division when a marriage ends; we initiated the first-ever actuarial study to examine the financial health of the pension benefits guarantee fund; and we established the Advisory Council on Pensions and Retirement Income. We also initiated technical discussions with the Canadian Institute of Actuaries about funding rules for defined benefit pension plans.

In April of this year, the House unanimously passed Bill 236, the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2010. It built upon the recommendations of the Expert Commission on Pensions, and it helps the pension system adapt to economic changes while balancing the need for benefit security. Specifically, Bill 236 provides for the restructuring of pension plans affected by corporate reorganizations, while protecting benefit security for plan members and for pensioners. It clarifies the benefits of plan members affected by layoffs and it eliminates partial windups.

It increases the transparency and access to information for plan members and for pensioners. It enhances the pension regulator’s ability to oversee pension plans. Finally, it improves plan administration and reduces compliance costs.

This government was clear from the outset that Bill 236 was the first part of a multi-step process to update and to improve the employment pension system. In fact, in the 2010 budget, we committed to introducing further pension reforms, and we were true to our word.

Yesterday, my colleague the Honourable Dwight Duncan stood in the House and introduced Bill 120, the Securing Pension Benefits Now and for the Future Act, 2010. This new bill is a result of extensive consultations, and it builds upon the Pension Benefits Amendment Act. It proposes to make several amendments to the Pension Benefits Act.

Our proposed legislation would strengthen Ontario’s pension funding rules by requiring more sustainable funding of promised benefits and stronger funding standards for benefit improvements. It would also provide a framework to permit more flexible funding rules for certain multi-employer pension plans and jointly sponsored pension plans that meet specific specified criteria. It proposes to clarify pension surplus rules and provide a binding dispute resolution process to allow members, retirees and sponsors to reach agreements on how surplus should be allocated on windup.

It would also provide a more sustainable pension benefits guarantee fund by limiting exposure to the cost of benefit improvements that occur close to plan windup and reduce risk to taxpayers in the future. Furthermore, this proposed legislation would strengthen the regulator’s role and improve plan administration.

Should this new bill pass, the government would have responded to about two thirds of the 142 recommendations in the expert commission’s report addressed to the Ontario government. Remaining recommendations would be considered for inclusion in future reforms.

But we must recognize that in order to fully modernize and strengthen the retirement system in Ontario, this government must work with other governments and the private sector. It’s said that the Canadian retirement income system, or the RIS, is composed of three pillars. I’d just like to go over and explain each of those three pillars.

Two programs administered by the federal government and financed out of general tax revenues comprise the first pillar: old age security, or OAS, and the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. OAS and GIS combine to provide a minimum-income guarantee for older Canadians. Most provinces provide income-tested top-ups to the OAS and the GIS.

The Canada pension plan makes up the second pillar. The CPP is a compulsory earnings-related program that replaces up to 25% of average wages and salaries based on an individual’s career and average earnings. When combined with OAS and GIS, the CPP allows a person with half of the average wage to maintain his or her standard of living in retirement. For people with higher levels of earnings, however, additional income is needed from the third pillar to meet this objective.

The third pillar, made up of privately administered employment pension plans and registered retirement savings plans, is extremely diverse. The third pillar is privately administered but receives government support in the form of special tax measures and legislated minimum standards. Employment pension plans may be either defined benefit or defined contribution plans. A growing number combine elements of both plans. Until recently, male employees were more likely than females to be employment pension plan members, but that’s no longer the case.

We know that the current three pillars for providing for Canadians in retirement are strong. In fact, according to a 2009 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, they had this to say: “Old age income safety-nets in Canada are amongst the highest in the OECD, helping Canada have one of the lowest poverty levels” amongst seniors.

We know it’s an excellent vehicle for helping Canadians in retirement, but we also know that it can be enhanced to ensure more Canadians have adequate savings. In his recent report prepared for the Ontario government, pension expert Bob Baldwin had this to say: “The status quo is an option. However, it is an option that may leave a significant minority of people ... facing a decline in their standard of living in retirement....”

While governments cannot replace investment losses or guarantee future returns, we do have the tools to make saving and planning for retirement easier, more affordable and more secure. Taking steps now will help Ontarians down the road, both as taxpayers and as future retirees. So while this government has made, and continues to make, steps to strengthen the first and the third pillars, we recognize that we must also be proactive in strengthening the second and third pillars.

Ontario supports a pan-Canadian approach to reforms that will provide tomorrow’s seniors with better, lower-cost tools to maintain their standard of living in retirement. Reforms should build upon the strengths and institutions of the existing retirement income system, which has significantly reduced poverty among seniors and currently allows more Canadians to maintain a similar standard of living both before and after retirement.

That is why the Ontario government has been calling for a balanced approach to retirement income reform which would include a phased-in, fully funded, modest increase to the CPP as well as measures to encourage pension innovation. The CPP is a safe and secure means for Canadians to build retirement savings at a low cost. It is a made-in-Canada success story.

This discussion, of course, warrants an explanation, then, of the CPP. When it was created, CPP benefits were considered sufficient to provide an adequate amount of retirement income for most workers when combined with contributions from the other two pillars. Unfortunately, the CPP may no longer be meeting the income-replacement needs of many Ontarians.

As a whole, we’re saving less than we once did, fewer people are taking advantage of voluntary tax-assisted savings opportunities and a smaller portion of the working population today has access to employment pension plans. This means that a significant number of Ontarians could experience a material decrease in their standard of living.

CPP benefits are designed to replace about 25% of a contributor’s career average annual pensionable earnings. The maximum CPP new retirement benefit in 2010 is $934.17 per month, or $11,210 per year. However, most beneficiaries do not receive the maximum benefit. In 2008, only 12% of the new male retirement beneficiaries and 2% of the new female beneficiaries received the maximum pension. The average new CPP pension paid in January 2010 was $6,283 on an annualized basis—just 56% of the maximum benefit.

The difference between the maximum benefit and what people actually receive is due in part to the fact that CPP benefits are based on career average earnings. Annual earnings can vary widely over a person’s working life, particularly at the beginning and at the end of their career. Average earnings also increase substantially with age. Many workers with earnings significantly above the year’s maximum pensionable earnings for most of their career have a number of years with lower earnings. Since CPP benefits are paid on average earnings over an entire career, many contributors do not receive the maximum CPP benefit at retirement.

The CPP provides a secure, fully indexed, defined benefit pension to virtually all working Canadians, as well as survivor and disability benefits, and is fully portable across Canada. CPP does not carry the risk of default that is inherent in private plans due to bankruptcy or insolvency of the employer. CPP administrative costs, which are 2.2% of plan expenditures, are less than half of most employment pension plans. Costs associated with RRSPs are also high compared to the CPP. Many RRSPs have charges of 2% of assets per year or more, which can erode investment gains over time.

CPP costs include the cost of administering pensions, while RRSP costs do not. Almost all labour force participants contribute to and will receive pensions from the CPP, or possibly QPP.

The unique attributes of the CPP make its expansion an attractive option for bolstering retirement incomes. That’s why the government of Ontario, along with the federal government and other provinces and territories, has been assessing options for expansion of the CPP. Any improvements would have to be pre-funded, intergenerationally equitable and affordable for working people and for employers.

This government has repeatedly called for the federal government and all provinces and territories to work together to amend the CPP. Reforms to the CPP will require the approval of the federal government and of two thirds of the provinces with two thirds of the population. Compromise will be necessary, and that’s why we’ve said that any CPP increase should be modest. We should also be prepared to phase it in to better reflect the current state of the economy and to ensure a smooth transition for families and for businesses.

Now we must all work together to build an approach to retirement income and pension reform that builds enough consensus among Canadians to make these reforms a reality. Canadians want to see their governments working together constructively to serve the greater good, especially in times of economic challenge. I believe that pension and retirement income reform is a chance to show Canadians that different levels of government of different political stripes, although they may not always agree, can work together to build consensus.

Indeed, Ontario’s plan to strengthen the retirement income system has been supported by federal and provincial governments of three political stripes: Conservative, Liberal and NDP. Today, our government is inviting opposition members of this House to join in that growing consensus. This House was able to work together in achieving all-party consent for the passage of Bill 236, our first pension reform bill. Our government’s hope is that we can build on that all-party agreement with the motion that is before us today.

The economic downturn highlighted the fact that we need to examine the broader issues of retirement income adequacy and pension coverage to ensure our retirement income system meets the needs of a changing economy and changing demographics. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to look out not only for those who have workplace pension plans, but also for the majority of Ontarians who do not.

The economy of our province receives tremendous advantages from a healthy pension system. Our economy greatly benefits from Ontario retirees with adequate and secure retirement incomes, as they can use their incomes to pay for goods and services. So the retirement incomes, in turn, generate jobs for younger Ontarians. When Ontario retirees can pay for these goods and services with their own pensions, it helps to reduce the demand for taxpayer dollars.

Over the coming 20 years, the portion of the population over 65 will nearly double, from 13.4% in 2007 to 23.2% in 2030, and continue to increase to 26.3% in 2050. Thus, the success, or lack of success, achieved in providing adequate incomes to older and largely retired populations will have an increasing impact on the economic and social well-being of the population in general.

As Ontario’s population ages and more and more Ontarians reach retirement age, it is critical that we take the necessary steps now to ensure that we do all that we can to preserve the spending power of seniors. This is crucial to the health of our economy. More importantly, we have an obligation to create the strongest environment for the financial security of Ontarians in their retirement, because they have earned that from our government. It is their hard work and their dedication that drive the economy of our province and make it such an attractive place to live and to invest.

Ontario’s workforce has built the quality of life, and they have earned the right to continue to enjoy it upon their retirement.

In

summary, this government is working to ensure that all Ontarians have the tools necessary to achieve their full potential and to live with dignity. Making changes today to strengthen and improve Ontario’s and Canada’s retirement income system will ensure that future Ontarians will have a brighter tomorrow. That is why I’m calling for the support of this House in voting for our motion for a modest and a gradual expansion of the Canada pension plan, which will benefit all Ontarians, including the two thirds of Ontarians who do not have a workplace pension and who, therefore, need the additional support of a stronger second pillar.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to be able to speak on the motion this morning, and I would like to begin just by questioning why the government has put this motion forward at all. I’ll make a few points on that.

First of all, the government just introduced yesterday a new pension bill, which we are going to be briefed on later in the week; it’s a fairly comprehensive, technical pension bill to do with defined benefit pension plans. That was just introduced; I assume that probably next week it will be called for debate. But what the force of this motion is going to be and why we’re debating it—particularly when both the federal Minister of Finance and Ontario’s Minister of Finance seem to be in agreement on the motion. So I’m not quite sure why we need a motion from the Ontario Legislature to agree to something that they’re both agreeing on already anyway.

The motion is a little vague in its wording: “That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario acknowledge that about two thirds of Ontarians do not have a workplace pension and that providing a secure future for retirement is important.” How can you disagree with that? “It therefore endorses a modest and gradual expansion of the Canada pension plan (CPP), as the majority of provinces and the federal government agreed to at the last federal-provincial-territorial finance ministers’ meeting in the summer of 2010, and that the province continue to work with the federal government and other provinces to move forward on the expansion of the CPP.”

As I say, that’s the motion. It’s a little vague. I mean, what does “expansion” necessarily mean? I assume that means an enhancement, although I’m guessing on that. Expansion could also mean changing the eligibility criteria to people who don’t contribute or to lowering the age, something like that. But I will point out that the finance ministers of Ontario and Canada already agree to this, so I’m not quite sure why the Ontario Legislature needs to debate it. I will be proposing an amendment to this motion as well, just to recognize that fiscal realities have to be taken into consideration in terms of approaching this situation as well.

I have a letter from the federal Minister of Finance on the issue of pensions and what should be done that he wrote to the Ontario Minister of Finance in June, before they had the June meeting in Prince Edward Island. In it he states:

“I am writing to share with you the proposed agenda for our upcoming meeting of Ministers of Finance and Treasurers on June 13th and 14th on Prince Edward Island.

“Coming out of the meeting, there will be a great deal of attention on our discussions about the retirement income system. It is essential that we continue to work collaboratively on this important matter. I hope we can agree on a course of action to follow and, to that end, I am writing to provide you with my perspective on the way forward on this issue.

“My recent consultations across the country and the work done by our officials since we last met have convinced me that we should seriously consider several specific steps to improve our retirement income system. These improvements would build on the strengths of our system, which includes a healthy balance between government and private sector involvement, with both mandatory and voluntary savings elements.

“There is more that can be done to encourage private savings and broaden coverage by removing barriers that currently prevent some Canadians, such as the self-employed, from participating in registered pension plans. I believe we should work together toward pension innovations that would allow financial institutions and insurance companies to offer broad-based defined contribution pension arrangements to multiple employers, all employees, and to the self employed.

This approach will help reduce costs of defined contribution plans for individuals and employers by providing opportunities for greater pooling of savings, without imposing the costs of a new administrative apparatus. It will help enhance retirement savings and pension coverage, without compromising our current system and without passing costs on to future generations.

“These pension innovations would require changes to the federal tax rules as well as federal-provincial-territorial collaboration on modifications to pension standards. I also think we can do more together to help people saving for retirement to make better-informed decisions, including supporting greater financial literacy and disclosure in relation to retirement savings. Actions towards these objectives will build on the work of the Task Force on Financial Literacy which is to report in December.

“Even with such improvements, I am concerned that some Canadians may not save enough for their retirement. In my consultations, I heard strong support for the Canada pension plan and the central role that it plays in our government-supported retirement income system.” This is kind of the key part as it pertains to the motion today, and this is the federal finance minister’s letter to the Ontario finance minister. “I believe that we should consider a modest, phased-in, and fully funded enhancement to defined benefits under the Canada pension plan in order to increase savings adequacy in the future.

Changes to the Canada pension plan require significant provincial support, and I will be particularly interested in getting your perspective on the possible expansion of the Canada pension plan when we meet in PEI.

“I believe that the types of measures I have set out above represent a targeted, balanced approach to further improving Canada’s retirement income system. I look forward to a fruitful discussion.”

I would say that I agree with most of what the federal finance minister has said in that letter, but as it pertains to the motion before us, he has very clearly stated that he supports “a modest, phased-in, and fully funded enhancement”—he used the word “enhancement,” which is little clearer than “expansion.” I’m not sure why we’re discussing this motion, when it’s obvious the federal finance minister already does support it. Obviously, the provincial finance minister does as well.

I have a letter from him to Mr. Flaherty. I won’t read the whole letter. But he does state in it that Ontario supports—

Interjection.

Mr. Norm Miller: The member from Durham is giving me encouragement over there.

The letter from Minister Duncan to Mr. Flaherty says:

“In the lead-up to the upcoming finance ministers’ meeting in Prince Edward Island, I wanted to take the opportunity to communicate with you about Ontario’s position on strengthening Canada’s retirement income system. I have appreciated the opportunity to work together constructively on this important issue and trust we will continue to have the opportunity to do so in PEI and in the months beyond.

“I have become increasingly concerned, especially since the global economic downturn, that many Canadians are not saving adequately for retirement. Recent research, policy work, and public consultations have confirmed that although our retirement income system has many strengths, a significant minority of Canadians in the future are likely to experience a material decrease in their standard of living upon retirement unless changes are made.

“Ontario supports a pan-Canadian approach to the reform that will provide tomorrow’s seniors with better, lower-cost tools to maintain their standard of living in retirement.” I support that notion that it should be a pan-Canadian approach so it’s more affordable. “Reforms should build upon the strengths and institutions of the existing retirement income system, which has significantly reduced poverty among seniors and currently allows most Canadians to maintain a similar standard of living before and after retirement.

“Ontario supports a multi-pronged approach to reform that would strengthen both the second and third pillars of the system.

“First, I believe we can make regulatory changes to harness Canada’s world-leading private-sector expertise, including financial institutions and others, to provide more efficient, lower-cost retirement options.” I think that is a goal we need to go after. “Current tax and pension rules say that defined contribution pension plans can only be offered where there is an employment relationship. This limits the retirement savings options available to the self-employed and those who work for small businesses.

By changing these laws, we can expand the range of people who can set up pension plans and the range of people who can access them. We could allow large, multi-employer defined contribution pension plans with low administrative costs to provide portable coverage to more Canadians.” The portable part of it is why “pan-Canadian” makes sense. People are moving around to different jobs around the country. Portability is important.

“Second, I believe we should seriously consider building on the strengths of the CPP through a phased-in, moderate increase to retirement and survivor benefits. CPP’s guaranteed benefits are secure, inflation-indexed and portable. The average CPP benefit is about $6,000 per year, and the maximum is about $11,000 per year—lower than the public employment-related pensions of most other similar countries. Any improvements would have to be pre-funded, intergenerationally equitable, and affordable for working people and employers.”

That’s the key part of it as it pertains to the motion today, and what he says is identical to what the federal finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, says.

Based on that, other than the fact that the government needs filler because they have virtually nothing on their agenda, I’m not quite sure why we’re debating this motion this morning. As I say, it’s more or less filler. We had the member from Brant two weeks ago, when we had an opposition day motion here, talking about the fact that motions of the Ontario Legislature don’t really mean anything.

Yet here we’re talking about a motion this morning on a point on which there’s agreement between the federal minister and the provincial finance minister, at a time when the government has just introduced a pension bill which is much more detailed and will address some of the very specific concerns with defined benefit plans and perhaps—I have to get my briefing on it—deal with some more options for defined contribution plans as well.

There’s no doubt that there is, as the letter has referenced, a minority of Canadians who are not saving enough for retirement. I think if you’re on the lower level of the income scale, with the CPP, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, when you retire, your income will probably be about the same, and I’ve got some facts to back that up. But it’s that middle class that, in many cases, is not saving enough for retirement. We do need to look at mechanisms—private sector and others—and as was mentioned, financial literacy and education, to get middle-income earners to plan ahead and save more toward their retirement.

I would also just like to caution that when we’re looking at something like improving the benefits of the Canada pension plan, you have to be very careful, because it is essentially a payroll tax. Companies will pay more, and individuals will pay more.

We just learned yesterday that the economy is fragile. We saw yesterday that the Bank of Canada decided not to increase interest rates because of the fragile state of the economy:

“Economy Too Fragile for Rate Hike, Bank Says

“The Bank of Canada sees slower growth on the horizon and has no plans to raise interest rates in the short term.”

So I will be filing an amendment to this motion to recognize that the state of the economy must be taken into consideration, and that to raise payroll taxes at a time when the economy is fragile will hurt the economy, and the state of the economy will affect the number of people with jobs, etc. That is something we very much need to be conscious of.

I would like to make an amendment to this motion. I would like to add to the motion, after “forward on the expansion of the CPP,” the words “so long as there is recognition of the fragile nature of the economy and that increasing payroll taxes at a time of economic instability is not advisable.”

I’ll give this to the page to pass on to the Speaker, please.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Miller has moved to amend the motion, following the words “forward on the expansion of the CPP,” by adding the words “so long as there is recognition of the fragile nature of the economy and that increasing payroll taxes at a time of economic instability is not advisable.”

Mr. Miller.

Mr. Norm Miller: I think that, over time, having modest increases is a reasonable objective, but we have to be very wary of the fact that if you increase taxes, you can have a negative effect on the prospects of the economy, on jobs, job creation, etc. That’s why I put forward that amendment.

You need to be very, very cautious, particularly in light of the fragile economy and particularly in light of all the tax increases we’ve seen here in the province of Ontario, huge increases in so many different ways that are affecting the ability of the economy to sustain itself; I won’t go through the list, but the health tax and the eco tax, which is now off the shelf, and many, many other taxes. Workers’ compensation, WSIB, has become a huge, huge problem in the province of Ontario under this government, and that’s another payroll tax as well. Those taxes are a negative for the economy.

I think that WSIB has become a bit of a political football here in the last number of years. We’ve seen the unfunded liability of the WSIB double in the last six years. I believe it’s about $12 billion; it was roughly $6 billion before. That’s not reflected, I might add, on the books of the province of Ontario. I think it should be, but at this time, the way the accounting is done, it’s not counted as part of the debt of the province of Ontario. As I say, that’s something that I think should be included.

Currently, the system we have in Canada—first of all, as I pointed out, I think that, with pensions, a pan-Canadian approach is the wiser approach. We have not a bad system right now, in terms of old age security, guaranteed income supplement and the Canada pension plan. That looks after those people who are at the lower income levels fairly well. But the problem is sort of in the middle class.

I’m just looking for some information I had on that. Yes, here it is: “The Baldwin report says that the public pension programs of old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and maximum CPP retirement benefits together replace 73% of pre-retirement earnings for those earning up to half average wages and salaries”—so that’s the lower level of the income spectrum—“42% of those earning the average wage ... but only 21% for those earning twice average wages and salaries. Baldwin notes that ‘an implicit assumption of Canadian pension policy has been that beyond a certain level of earnings, people should look after themselves.’”

I would agree with that statement. I think that the CPP and those three tiers of our retirement income system shouldn’t necessarily be providing us with a life of luxury, but it should provide a reasonable, modest level of retirement income. There is an obligation—I think it’s the Conservative philosophy—amongst all of us as individuals to plan for retirement. That’s where things like literacy and help in the schools, to get people thinking about saving at a young age, are important. The earlier you start, the easier it is to save large amounts of money for retirement.

As soon as you can start saving even a little bit of money over time, you will—it’s a lot easier than if you’re getting towards my age and you’re just starting to think about saving for retirement. There’s not a lot of time to compound the interest and to build up a large nest egg. So it’s important to start at a young age.

As I say, just getting back, I’ve made an amendment to recognize that our party is not in favour of increasing payroll taxes.

Interjection.

Mr. Norm Miller: And as the member for Durham—who I know is keen to speak to this, and I will share some time with him—wants to speak, I will wrap up shortly.

As I say, I think this motion this morning is essentially filler. We’ve got a comprehensive bill that’s going to be debated probably next week on pensions. I think this is filler because the government doesn’t have much on the docket.

I read letters from both the Ontario finance minister and the federal finance minister that show they’re in agreement on this, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to be debating this at this time.

With that, I will pass on my time to the member from Durham, who, as usual, has done a lot of research on pensions and is keen to speak to this debate today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m not too sure how much time—how the rotation goes here, but I’ll stick with it.

The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, our critic for financial matters, has, I believe, put a fair amount of very respectable and balanced comment on the record with respect to, first, protecting vulnerable people, but also the issue of personal responsibility. So I commend him.

In fact, our leader, Tim Hudak, gave us a bit of a pep talk in caucus yesterday—I shouldn’t talk about this—saying to make sure that we look after families in Ontario. That’s his main concern. He starts at the kitchen table and says that you have to have a strong economy.

How this thing really fits together is, most of the suggestions that I hear from the government side, Premier McGuinty’s side—it’s basically like a payroll tax solution. That might not be something that we’re really in favour of, at a time when we have a languishing economy in Ontario. A lot of people, and employers as well, for that matter, simply aren’t seeing any black ink—mostly red ink.

We say this is Small Business Week in Ontario, and a lot of those people who are working are spending their equity. They financed their corner store, their hardware store, their franchise operation by debt. They’re actually creating their own job by borrowing money against capital, maybe taking a mortgage on their house or whatever, to get that franchise operation or the hardware store or whatever it is they’re operating, and they don’t have a pension.

As has been said by the experts in some of the research done—I think I just want to slow it down a bit here. In the research done by the law firm Osler, Hoskin it’s very clear, and even if you look back at the Arthurs report, the expert panel, and I think the minister who started off the debate this morning said it, basically two thirds of people don’t have a pension. That would include most of us here. I should say this openly on the record: There is a pension here provincially. It’s not the traditional pension; it’s actually a defined contribution plan. That’s the new type of pension.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It’s not like the federal one.

Mr. John O’Toole: Oh, no, it’s not like the old one here. The member from St. Catharines, the Minister of Community Safety, does know of what he speaks. He’s one of the senior members here, and he knows that the public’s support for public sector pensions, MPs’ or MPPs’, is quite questionable; I don’t think there’s much support for it at all, given the state of the economy. We live with that, we live under the scrutiny of the public, not even in a partisan way on that thing, because I think public service is a laudable contribution to society and most members take it quite seriously.

But when you look at some of the expert committee reports, especially the Arthurs report—I commend the province for doing that; in fact, I commend the federal government for taking a lead. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty convening the December Whitehorse conference on pensions is a very important first step; that’s exactly what it is.

Mr. Norm Miller: Prince Edward Island in June.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, there’s another one scheduled, as the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka says. I think they’re on the right track, recognizing that the fundamentals of pensions have gone away; they have changed over time.

Now, we should keep this in mind. Let’s put it into a real context this morning. Here is the reality test: What’s the biggest issue in the media today? The strikes in France, shutting down the country of France. What is the issue? Pensions.

Interjection: Retirement age.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, it’s not retirement age; it’s pensions.

The way they’re dealing with it is extending it to 62 from 60, mandatory retirement. In Canada I think also there’s some advice here. I don’t believe they’re doing the right thing by advancing the CPP. You can now start to collect it at 55, I believe; maybe it’s 60. But the key here is, that’s spending money ahead. I think what it’s being done for is to take people out of the workforce. They’ve been laid off early; there’s a lot of resizing of companies. That may not be on the topic here this morning, but here is the real issue: employment.

Second Career is a good example. What are the jobs of the future? There’s no more General Electric, there’s no more General Motors, there’s no more Nortel. Job for life? Finished. That era is over. I say that sadly, and with great concern, when we look at the pages here. Job for life is basically done, and so the employment forecasts for longevity have changed. Not only that; the whole assumptions around actuarial models are all changed. People aren’t dying at 75; they’re living to 95. You can’t retire at 55 and live to 95 and only work 20 years. It doesn’t make sense.

When you see some of the public things here today, they have 70-factor pensions and 85-factor pensions. Let’s take, for instance, the 75-factor. What does that actually mean? A fireman might be a good example of the 75-factor. I’m not picking on them. They did not individually choose the rules; the fancy actuaries and pension fund managers figured out those rules. With 75-factor, you start when you’re 25. You graduate from college and you’re 25 with your training. They are trained; I respect that very highly. You work for 25 years; that makes you 50 years of age with 25 years, so you retire at 50.

That’s impossible. That simply doesn’t work, period. Because you’re going to retire at 50 and live to be 90. You worked 25 years and you’re going to be off for 40 years? Wait a minute. And it’s going to be calculated on your best three years? Wait a minute here. The first contribution to your pension—they are joint contributor pensions—is at 25, and you’re making whatever that money is at that time; maybe up to 10% is the maximum you can contribute. Teachers contribute the maximum: 10% of their pay is put into the fund. Here’s the issue: When you’re 25—let’s go back a few years ago.

I’ve looked at this; when I was a school trustee, it was a huge issue during the era—Mr. Bradley will remember that when Sean Conway was minister, the biggest issue was teachers’ pensions. The government at the time tried to straighten it out, and they did a fairly good job basically. I think they had all parties trying to work to get it solved. It is probably referred to as one of the most successful pension plans today. But by the way, the teachers’ pension plan owes $11 billion, and it’s the best one.

Every single pension is bankrupt under today’s assumptions. Not some, not just Nortel, not just General Motors, Stelco, Inco—what was the strike at Vale Inco about? Pensions; trying to move everybody from defined benefit to defined contribution. What’s the issue in France? Today there’s going to be a statement by the new Prime Minister of England, David Cameron. What’s the issue? Pensions.

Pension funds have all melted away in the big meltdown in the economy. It’s global. I think it’s responsible for the federal government to take a lead. I commend the finance ministers from all the provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, BC. They’re all a bit too aggressive on this. I think we need a pan-Canadian solution. It should probably be tied to a joint contribution plan. The joint contribution plan would be of course the general tax revenue, which helps people who aren’t even working so that when they are too old to work or unable to work, there is something for them.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Did you send a report on pensions?

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Peterborough is quite right. He as a person follows this, I’m sure, as we all do, because this is a community of responsibility that we have here and all members should be trying to do the right thing and respecting the balance. As the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, our critic, made very clear, we can’t unduly burden employers to take and shoulder all this responsibility.

If you look at this new bill—in fairness, we have the motion here, and we actually have an amended motion by the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka. Our critic has moved an amendment which really says, “so long as we have regard for the fragile nature of our economy, it would not be advisable to increase payroll taxes at this time.” I think we kind of agree with that. In fact, the Premier, in fairness, I think reads the tea leaves fairly well. He cancelled the eco tax. Thank God. He should be thinking about cancelling the hydro tax.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: He should; people are struggling. The member from Northumberland knows that. You, I’m sure, have different things on weekends and you hear from different people. They interpret their frustration personally on Premier McGuinty.

In fact, this is a huge problem. By listening to people and doing the right thing, I think people will appreciate that. This motion here today is a bit artificial. I put this in the context that, yes, it’s an important issue; yes, there have been meetings; yes, Bill 236 was the first stage of pension reform brought in in Ontario. They had the Arthurs expert panel report, which I’ll mention briefly. Now, yesterday, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Duncan, introduced a bill, Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act and the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, which is amending Bill 236. Parts of Bill 236 are not even proclaimed. So let’s not move too quickly here and create another mess like the eco tax, which was a bit of a mess. I’m surprised that Minister Gerretsen is still in cabinet.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Oh, come on.

Mr. John O’Toole: I don’t mean this personally. Actually, I think he’s happy to be moved. But the fact is, they put the tax of all tax—they put the Minister of Revenue at the time, Mr. Wilkinson, into the environment ministry. There’s a lot of changes, in fact, recognizing that the assumptions made by the actuaries themselves are wrong.

What are those three assumptions? The three assumptions that the actuaries make are: first, age and life expectancy. As the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka said, the earlier you start to contribute to a plan for the future—which would be an annuity of some sort; there are different names for them: a RRIF, an annuity; same thing. That’s the first one.

The second one is return on equity. What’s the assumption, over the long term, for return on equity? Basically, most of the models have a 7% return on equity. If anybody’s getting 7% today, they’re keeping it a secret, because nobody’s getting that. In fact, there might be a negative drag on return on equity. Lots of businesses today are really spending their equity by refinancing and retooling to become modern and efficient.

The third assumption, of course, is the number of people paying. Usually, the whole thing is shaped on a pyramid theory. Speaker, you are aware; I believe you were a financial adviser or a financial planner in your previous life. Companies today are outsourcing, downsizing, resizing, fragmentizing.

I take, for instance, the company I worked for, for 31 years: General Motors. When we were there, Bob Rae was the Premier of the province and Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie had this problem: They wanted to retool to be competitive and they had a so-called surplus in their pension. So they applied to the provincial government—the provincial government at that time of Bob Rae—and they rewrote a rule at that time, in 1993.

The rule was referred to as “too big to fail.” “These companies are so big they’ll never fail, so we’ll allow them to use their surplus or not fully fund their pensions.” Unfortunately, that’s when the government’s fingerprints were on pensions. They allowed them to take the money out of the pensions, and that means they’re guilty. They gave them the keys to take the money.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Did that happen during the Tory years?

Mr. John O’Toole: No, it happened during the Bob Rae years. He’s now a lawyer.

Mr. Paul Miller: You didn’t change it.

Mr. John O’Toole: We did. No, no. They’re barracking now. I want you to listen carefully.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, it was a very important study. The issue that I wanted to bring to the table was that the “too big to fail” rule ended up pillaging all the pension funds.

Mr. Paul Miller: Did you pay them back?

Mr. John O’Toole: Just hang on for a second. Algoma used the money. It may have helped and saved jobs, so let’s not criticize it. I think there was some merit. Bob Rae is not a stupid man, even though he has changed parties a couple of times. The fact is I wouldn’t accuse him. He did it for the right reasons. Who would have known the future would collapse and cause the problem at Stelco? Air Canada is a federal one. Inco, GM—all of them took advantage of not fully funding the pension.

I gave you the three assumptions. We know those are in some need of repair or re-examination. We also know that the old rule of just tinkering around is not a good idea. This resolution is more or less saying Stephen Harper should fix the problem by increasing the CPP deduction. That’s not the solution either, because most businesses will somehow avoid it by moving out of Ontario or whatever else because they’re already taxed to the max.

Electricity—I was talking to businesses—is killing some of the business. I was at a thing last night where I talked to some business people. These are job creators and infrastructure people, and they were saying that their energy costs are going through the roof. So there’s got to be something there.

My point here is that the pan-Canadian solution is the right solution. I think the province of Ontario, being one of the lead provinces, as well as the other provinces that are already moving forward should come together. But here’s the deal: No employer today—in fact, most of the young people today will work on contract. They’re not going to have a relationship job. They’re going to say, “Look, I’m a great graphic artist; I’m a great software developer; I’m a great maintenance programmer; I’m a great tool and die maker”—whatever you are, you’re going to be contracted by that employer to provide that service.

You’ll have meetings as teams once a week or once a month or whatever it is—quarterly, even—to get together and know the direction of that company. That could be a company made up of people with two or three different contracts, whether they’re a software developer for a publisher, for a printer or for a small business that’s doing some graphic work. Those could be their types of jobs. I know people living and working like this today. They make good money.

Here’s the deal: We’ve got to make it more convenient for the individual to save for their own future. The RRSP rules are prehistoric, and the reason the federal government doesn’t do more on the RRSP rules—I think the maximum contribution is $15,500 a year. That’s ridiculous. Somebody in that job that I just described, a software developer today, could be making $200,000 or $300,000 a year, working hard, but in five years they may be out of a job because they may not be keeping their skill set up with the new software stuff that’s coming online.

We should change the rules for people to protect the amount of income they want some time in the future by having tax rules that make it to their advantage to save today.

In fact, today there’s no advantage in saving because there’s no interest on the money. If you look at young people today—and I’ve got five of them; they’re all well educated and all that kind of stuff and making a lot more money than I do—if you gave them $500, they would spend $5,000.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Look, I wish they would. Here’s the deal, though: They will have to learn to save for themselves. I really, firmly believe that, and I think the curriculum review is a good place to start. I say they should be aware of this at a level that’s appropriate for the grade. I know I’m not an expert on this stuff. I think it should be in high school, though; it should be a mandatory subject.

I would even recommend—many years ago, I took the Ontario securities courses, about 10 courses. My undergraduate degree was economics and commerce courses. I find that kind of an attractive area, so I do pay attention to it. It hasn’t done me much good; I’m still here, still working for a living. But the point is, at least I’m aware.

Now, this discussion this morning is about how do we solve this pension problem? It’s immature and irresponsible to just throw the issue over the fence and blame Jim Flaherty. I think what our member from Parry Sound–Muskoka said is good, and I’ve heard it from—in fairness, the minister yesterday said it as well: We’ve got to get in this together. This is too big, too complicated, and the people of Ontario, indeed Canada, need a solution.

I’ll tell you why: Our young people today are going to be more mobile, not just in the types of jobs but where they work themselves. My five children live in Australia, England and the Isle of Man; the oldest boy was in the air force, he was in Nova Scotia—I’m just saying, all over the world. I look at the young people here today. Many of their families came from different parts of the world. That’s the future. We’ve got to have increased mobility and transferability of savings funds that are protected through pension rules. Individuals should be allowed to contribute maximum amounts.

One of the bright things that the federal government has done is the tax-free savings account. It’s a small start. There’s—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, it will have problems in the future because it’s deferred tax. And they’ve capped it by saying that you can only keep up to $5,000, I think it is.

Mr. Paul Miller: Per year.

Mr. John O’Toole: Per year, which is fine. I wish it was more, but you’re at least making money. But it assumes that money itself—where are you going to keep it? A stock? Most of the stocks are going into the tank. But you’re taking the risk, not pooling the risk.

What the CPP plan from the NDP does is it pools the risk. That’s really what it does. It says that we’re going to guarantee you—they want to double it to $2,000 a month, I think. Isn’t it? You want to double the CPP or something like that? Something like that—$2,500. One of the panel said $2,500. That’s pooled the risk.

I’ll tell you now—I’m over 65—once you get a CPP benefit, Canada pension benefit, and you have a certain income threshold, it’s all clawed back. You don’t actually get it. It comes in as income and moves you up to a tax bracket where it’s clawed back.

In fact, countries that are pool risks like Sweden—why do Björn Borg and all those tennis athletes move to the United States? Because there these universal benefits are clawed back once you hit about $70,000 a year of income.

Here’s what I did in RSPs: I set up a fund when I was working—all my life—bought shares and all that stuff. My brother is more of a freelance guy, and here I am saving. I didn’t have the snowmobile; I bought RSPs. He had the snowmobile; he has no RSPs.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Hang on. So I get older and my universal benefits come in to help him.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: I have a couple of brothers.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: You’d be mad at me.

My point being that the fact is there is a joint responsibility. No one should be left behind, but that does not mean that everybody’s going to have cable TV with the movie channels, the extra benefits. Individuals should be allowed—in fact, encouraged—to save for their own future. That sounds a bit coarse, but some people would rather live for today, as I said in my own case. If you give some young people today $1,000, they’d spend $5,000. If you gave them $10,000, they’d spend maybe $20,000.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Are you saying they’re not responsible?

Mr. John O’Toole: No, no. Look, I’m telling you; I know. They’re capable. They’re just aware that today—“Why would I put money in the bank? They’re only paying 1%,” but the value of their house or these assets they’re buying, their Rolex watch or whatever, is going up faster than money itself.

Here’s the last thing I’m going to say because I should save some time. Here’s the real issue: The problem globally is even bigger than this pension debate. Right now, if you had a lot of assets, money, what would you put it in? Dollars? Bonds? Where would you put it? Say you had half a million or a million dollars or $10 million or whatever.

I tell you what you wouldn’t want to have it in: currency. Absolutely, money itself is the issue. The paper is a temporary store of value; you learn this in Finance 101. Money is a temporary store of value. I cut your grass, you give me $20, and I take the $20 and get my car fixed. It’s a medium of exchange, money. What’s going on today is all about trade, free trade.

Who holds all the American debt, the TARP money, the $3 trillion? China. How much did the Olympics cost? Somebody tried to do a study. No one knows. They just print it. They just print it on the prospect of 8% to 15% growth. You can increase the money supply as fast as you grow the economy. Well, good luck. I think they have probably more debt than the United States, because if somebody called in all the money, pay on demand, there’d be no money.

When you look at the fluctuation in currencies today, we were at parity a week ago, and now it’s down to 95 cents. The people trading money on currency exchange are actually the only ones making money. There is a huge monetary crisis in the world because people are artificially propping up or holding down the value of their currency to create trade. Well, it should be that income from whatever trades should be transaction-taxed.

But the key being here, if you had a lot of money—and Canada was criticized recently, and Ontario specifically, by some of the economists. The pools of pension funds are an example. Our pools are too small. People who want big money for Dubai and all these airports they’re developing and stuff like that want large pools of capital. We don’t have them. The US is running out of them as well.

Right now, I think currency is resources. That’s why China’s buying up the tar sands.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Petrodollars.

Mr. John O’Toole: Petrodollars, exactly right. The real issue here is not the pensions. Pensions is because the market fell apart. We’re not getting 7%; you’re lucky to get 1.5%. If the stuff you’re buying is going up faster in cost, like resources, then the money you have in the bank—you’re better off to have the resources.

These are big issues. They’re not provincial specifically but they’re important to every single person in this room today.

We’ve got to get the federal government to look at the jobs of the future. There’s no more job for life; it’s finished—maybe jobs in the armed forces or policing or something like that; I don’t know. But even pilots today are finished at 45. Athletes who are making $10 million, they’re done at 40. People who are working with skills will be replaced and nanotechnology will make them redundant. Doctors who were trained 40 years ago—with all this robotic medicine, it’s changing. There’s no job for life.

We’ve got to face the fact that people and individuals have to be supported. Each one will have a different plan: “My objective is to have income in the future. Here’s what I plan to save.” Some of that should be protected through tax rules, and individuals and the province should protect the people who can’t protect themselves. We have that responsibility collectively.

I have a lot to say on this. I hope we do the right thing and make sure that we don’t hurt anyone.

The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka was kind enough to share his time with me, but I know the Speaker is eventually going to rule that I have to stop.

I do look forward to—I’ve already had a quick look at Bill 120. There are two really good suggestions in it, but they’re all where you pay. The two new changes here, I think, are quite interesting too. They’re going to have two new types of pensions. These are going to be—where the heck are they here? Anyway, there are two different funds, but it’s up to you to contribute into them. They’re called “additional voluntary contributions.” Basically, that will be handled in

definitions.

This resolution this morning, I think, is more talk about something that is kind of saying that Finance Minister Dwight Duncan and Jim Flaherty are working on this issue. I think the House here supports the need to protect people’s pensions and we have a collective responsibility to deal with that.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s my pleasure to introduce two constituents of mine from Peterborough who are in the members’ east gallery today. Mr. and Mrs. Maloney and their son Frank purchased a “lunch with the MPP” at a charity function in Peterborough in July, so we’re very happy to have the Maloney family here at Queen’s Park with us today.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to recognize Kim Redmond and her grade 5 class from St. Joseph Catholic School in Uxbridge. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce the students from the City Adult Learning Centre who are here with us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of page Carina Hochgeschurz and the MPP from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, to welcome her mother, Colleen, her father, Eric, her sister Katelyn, her grandmother Jan Latimer, her grandfather Ric Latimer, her aunt Linda Warren and her cousin Markie Warren, who are visiting her at Queen’s Park today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It’s my pleasure to introduce the Honourable Guy E. Joseph, Minister of Communications, Works, Transport and Public Utilities for St. Lucia.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSULTANTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Acting Premier. Last year, before the auditor reported on the worst scandal in Ontario history, Premier McGuinty perched on the edge of his boardroom table and made a video confession. He apologized for allowing front-line health care dollars to be used for sweetheart deals with Liberal-friendly consultants, and said, “We’re going to change the rules.” The auditor’s new report reveals he didn’t change the rules that allowed hospitals to hand out sweetheart deals to Liberal-friendly consultants.

Today, a year later, the Premier said that he will bring in tough new rules again. Why should Ontario families believe anything will change this time around?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The first thing I want to do is to say thank you to the Auditor General for a very thorough report. He has recommended changes, and I’m very pleased to say that, this afternoon, I will be introducing legislation that responds to all of his recommendations.

Let’s just remember that it was this government, in 2004, that gave the Auditor General oversight of hospitals. We were the government that gave the Auditor General oversight. We wanted him to do exactly this job. We wanted to find out what was going on that should not be going on.

We also asked the Auditor General specifically to go in and look at the use of consultants—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: In the Premier’s video confession, in his cleansing moment of contrition, the Premier blamed loopholes for Liberal-friendly consultants like Courtyard and Accenture getting rich from money for front-line health care. Then he turned to the camera and said, “We’re going to close the loopholes.” But the auditor’s new report reveals that he not only didn’t close the loopholes, he opened the doors so wide that millions more went to Liberal-friendly Courtyard and Accenture consultants.

You say that your new rules will fix this, but Ontario families have heard this all before. Why should Ontario families believe you?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me repeat: We are the government that gave the auditor responsibility that you refused to do. You wanted to keep this information hidden. You would not allow the Auditor General in to look at these very questions.

This government has a strong history of continually improving transparency and accountability. This builds on what we have done before. We gave the Auditor General the power. He went in and did a very thorough report. He has given us recommendations, and we are following each and every one of his recommendations. Indeed, we are going further than the Auditor General has recommended to include the broader public sector in this legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Ontario families are smart enough to know that the Premier’s video confessional last year was just a PR stunt to deflect attention from the auditor’s eHealth report. Instead of learning his lesson from eHealth, the Premier is still allowing Liberal insiders to be rewarded with sweetheart deals, only this time Ontario families are paying government to lobby government.

Now the Premier is announcing new legislation that he says will stop the sweetheart deals and expense boondoggles once and for all. Are you the only ones who don’t realize that this feigned contrition is just PR?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I find it kind of remarkable that this is now the party that is positioning themselves as looking out for taxpayer dollars. Let’s think about what we’re doing. We have cut—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The member from Halton, who’s not in his seat—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Halton. The Minister of Community Safety. The Minister of Research and Innovation. The member from Oxford. The member from Nepean.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Finance. Minister of Community Safety, for the second time.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Last week, we debated a motion that involved sending a memo to hospital CEOs. That’s fine, I suppose, but we think we need to go much, much further. That is why we are legislating that hospitals will follow procurement rules. We will put an end to the practice of using lobbyists to lobby government. My question is: Will you support the bill? And if you can’t even support the bill, will you post your own expenses?

CONSULTANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Again for the Acting Premier: In the Premier’s video confessional he promises, “We’re going to say no under the rules to certain expenses.” But Ontario families still can’t see what you’ve said no to, and here’s why: Eleven ministers and 19 agencies haven’t posted their expenses for the past year on the government’s expense disclosure website.

Now the McGuinty Liberals say they’re going to fine hospital CEOs that lobby the government. What is the point of bringing in new rules if the McGuinty Liberals continue not to follow the existing rules?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m sure the member opposite is aware that her leader has not posted his expenses, and that is very regrettable. The member opposite knows the ministers—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Community and Social Services will please come to order, and the Minister of Research and Innovation. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean, you’ve just asked the question and you still have a couple of supplementaries yet.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are inconsistencies in the questions and in the facts. I know that Ontario taxpayers take those kinds of things into account. What’s important is that Premier McGuinty and his government have brought much greater accountability across every range.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew should be in his seat.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I can’t; somebody else is.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not my responsibility. We’ve dealt with that issue once before in this House.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The people of Ontario do understand the importance of the legislation that my colleague is bringing forward to further enhance accountability. We look forward to the debate. We hope the official opposition will support enhanced accountability—something this government has worked hard to provide the people of Ontario for the last seven years.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I think there’s something very important that the minister needs to know. First of all, he misled this House by saying the leader has not posted his expenses—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member will withdraw the comment, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I withdraw the comment.

Having said that, this minister must correct the record. Our leader’s expenses were posted minutes after the Integrity Commissioner reviewed them. They’re at ontariopcleader.ca. But the reality is, we put forward the Truth in Government Act, which would have led to more transparency and accountability, but that party defeated it.

The auditor confirms what Ontario families already know: The Premier’s so-called new rules haven’t changed a thing. On page 8 of the auditor’s hospital report, he says that the July 2009 directive you brought in to fix the loopholes at eHealth and the feeding frenzy were ineffective. Higher-priced consultants were given preferred treatment.

If you ignored the rules to fix eHealth, then why would you expect Ontario families to believe you’re going to fix anything this time around?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, in the interests of accuracy, the member is aware and knows full well that all agencies have submitted their expenses by the deadline. The approvals are with the Integrity Commissioner, who is doing a great job at reviewing these expenses, which will be posted, as I understand it in our conversations with the Integrity Commissioner, when the Integrity Commissioner—and I should point out—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m warning the member from Halton, and I’m warning the member from Renfrew.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That is part of the entire accountability and transparency that we have brought to government since assuming office seven years ago.

We’ll have a chance later, in the supplementary, to talk about things that weren’t brought to the public’s attention in the past. But all agencies are in compliance. The Integrity Commissioner is reviewing them. We’ve brought integrity and accountability. I hope that member and her party will support the minister’s legislation later today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: What I didn’t hear was an apology to Tim Hudak, the PC leader, for erroneously telling legislators and the province what he—so falsely accused—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I just remind the honourable member that we have a practice in here of not naming individual names. Please continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Look, in the Premier’s video of confessional, he sheds a few crocodile tears, and he says, again, he’ll change.

But after the camera is turned off, he doesn’t deliver the accountability that he promises Ontario families. Ontario families don’t want more PR schemes from the McGuinty government; they want accountability. Instead of a Premier who rewards insiders, Ontario families want someone who will focus on front-line care first. Why can’t the McGuinty Liberals understand that it is time for a change?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think the member is absolutely right that people want more accountability. Then why didn’t her government put Hydro One under the auspices of the Auditor General? Why didn’t you and your party and leader put OPG under the auspices? Do you think it had anything to do with the yachts and the consultants and the hidden expenses? Whatever became of the Hydro One yacht? And why did you not put hospitals under the auspices of the Auditor General? We’re doing that. That government concealed its expenses, that party never wanted accountability when it was in office, and out of convenience and trying to get votes they try to undermine—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member from Lanark will withdraw a comment that I heard.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

CONSULTANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. For families watching local health services vanish, today’s report by the Auditor General was a slap in the face. It is a damning indictment of how well-connected insiders made off with thousands and sometimes millions of dollars at the same time as families in Niagara and Hamilton were losing emergency rooms. Why is there public money for this government’s friends and insiders, but when it comes to local front-line care, they say, “Too bad, so sad”?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The auditor, at our request, went in to look at the use of consultants in hospitals, in LHINs and the ministries. That is correct. At our request, the Auditor General went in. The Auditor General found practices that have been going on for a long period of time that are simply unacceptable. That is why we are taking action today to put an end to the practices. No longer will taxpayer dollars be used to hire lobbyists to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. That practice will immediately be put to an end. We are also expanding freedom of information to cover hospitals.

This is in step with steps we have taken, since we were elected in 2003, to increase transparency and accountability across this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here is just one of many egregious examples of where our precious health dollars have gone: A consultant already being paid $275,000 a year billed a hospital for $2,100 for accommodations in Singapore and then another $355 for drinks at dinner. Meanwhile, breast cancer patients in London were told that nurse examiners that they rely on would be laid off. If this government can’t find money to support women dealing with breast cancer, why can they spend $2,500 to send consultants to Singapore and buy them drinks?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The leader of the third party references one of the most egregious examples in the report. It is unacceptable to her. It is unacceptable to all of us.

Let’s just remind that we are the ones who, contrary to the other governments when they were in power, gave the Auditor General the authority to go in. We knew when we did that that the Auditor General would find things that needed fixing. He has not disappointed us. He has found significant practices that we need to put an end to. That is why we are introducing legislation this afternoon: because this is all about getting the best value for taxpayer dollars. It is the taxpayers who are funding this. They expect that money to be spent on front-line health care. That is why we are making the changes that we’re making today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members will please come to order.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While patients were being told that there was no ER service, consultants were being told that there are no limits. One hospital paid a consultant $170,000 for two years of expenses, but when auditors asked for the receipts for those expenses the consultant wanted another $3,000 just to produce the receipts.

In Sudbury and Thunder Bay, emergency room patients are being admitted to hallways, to closets, to shower rooms. Why are patients waiting for ER services in a closet while consultants are charging $3,000 simply to write a receipt?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, the leader of the third party has raised issues that the auditor has revealed in his report today. We are absolutely committed to improving health care in this province—and we’ve come a long way. We’ve got almost a million more people with access to primary care. We brought down wait times dramatically for surgeries and for procedures, in some cases by more than a year. We’ve got more than 10,000 more nurses working in Ontario today than when we took office. We have 2,900 more physicians working today than when we took office.

Our health care system is getting stronger. It is getting better. But it is clear today that we need to take steps to further strengthen accountability and transparency in the health care sector, and we are taking that action.

CONSULTANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. Across Ontario, people are watching their hospitals cut services left, right and centre. In Windsor, patients lost their pain clinic, nurses lost jobs and surgical beds vanished.

Meanwhile, contracts to consultants were being handed out like Halloween candy. One hospital hired a consultant at a cost of $163,000, and the firm got six untendered follow-up contracts worth another $1.1 million. Another contract grew magically from $51,000 to $675,000.

Why are patients in Windsor losing surgical beds while consultants are watching contracts grow and grow and grow without any oversight by this government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I have said, the Auditor General has been very, very clear that we’ve got some work to do. We accept that responsibility and we are moving on that today. This afternoon, I will be introducing legislation. If that legislation passes, we will tighten up the rules and enhance accountability and transparency in the health care sector and well beyond the health care sector.

This is just the latest in a series of steps we have taken to increase and improve transparency and accountability. Think back to 2003, when we were told by the previous government that there was no deficit in the province of Ontario. That will never happen again because we have given the Auditor General the responsibility of signing off on our books before the election. That was the first step we took. We’ve expanded—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Hospitals in Ottawa have slashed nearly 100 nursing positions. This summer, one woman arrived at her hospital rape crisis centre looking for help, and she was turned away because supposedly the hospital is in tough times—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I’m warning the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The woman was turned away from a rape crisis centre. Why? Because supposedly the hospital was in tough economic times and they had to cut some services. Today that woman is going to hear about a hospital consultant collecting $210,000 for a four-day workweek.

What does this government have to say to that woman and thousands like her who are dealing with health care cuts while hospitals hand millions and millions of scarce and precious health care dollars to well-connected insiders?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What that woman is going to hear, and what people across the province are going to hear, is that that is not acceptable, that the practices of the past are no longer acceptable. I have spoken to the hospital CEOs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are making the changes that the Auditor General has recommended and we are going far beyond that. I do hope that all parties in the House support this legislation that will take us to a higher level of transparency and accountability.

But I simply must take issue with the premise of the leader of the third party’s question that health care services are getting worse in this province. They are significantly better. Let me tell you how. In your own community, in Hamilton, we have reduced wait times at Hamilton Health Sciences for hip replacement surgery; we’ve taken 277 days off that wait. We have taken—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government has been in power for seven long years in Ontario, and for seven long years they have watched as well-connected insiders have billed our hospitals more and more. For what? For trips to Singapore, for writing receipts for expenses, for six- and seven-figure salaries. They ignored patients who desperately needed investments in emergency rooms and in front-line care.

This government can’t solve the problem. They are the problem. Why would any patient at all in Ontario believe that the government today can actually solve this problem when they have no solutions to the mess and everybody in here knows it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I take issue with the premise of the question. We know what the problem is because we gave the Auditor General the responsibility to go in and look. We specifically asked him to look at the issue of consultants in this province. He was asked to go in; he went in. He did a very thorough job. He has come back with recommendations. We are going to implement every single one of his recommendations and we are doing it today.

This builds on a long history, a history since 2003, of improving accountability and transparency across government. We have expanded freedom of information to cover OPG, to cover Hydro One, to cover universities, to cover Cancer Care Ontario. Local public utilities were brought back under freedom of information in 2004. Today, we are adding to that list. We are—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

CONSULTANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The question is for the Acting Premier. The last time that the auditor reported, Premier McGuinty reacted with PR schemes and bluster. In the PR video that he made before the auditor’s report on the billion-dollar eHealth scandal, the Premier said, “Expenses for OPS senior management, cabinet ministers, political staff and senior executives at Ontario’s 22 largest agencies will be posted online.” It is a year later and 85% of your agencies have yet to post any of their expenses online.

Why would Ontario families believe what the Premier is promising to do to stop Liberal-friendly consultants from getting rich this time around?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I responded to this question in a previous question.

My understanding is that these agencies have in fact submitted on time. Those expenses are with the Integrity Commissioner, who does an outstanding job in reviewing these. I imagine that that office is quite backlogged.

We’re very proud of the fact that we brought this level of accountability and transparency to those expenses. I look forward to those expenses being posted and look forward to working with all parties in this Legislature to enhance accountability. And I look forward to that member supporting the Minister of Health’s legislation later—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Again, it’s his understanding, but the fact remains that 85% of his agencies haven’t posted online. That’s a fact.

The Premier made a second video apologizing for eHealth on September 14, but he’s taken it down from his website. It could be to make room for a new video confessional about Liberal-friendly consultants getting rich off of hospital contracts.

But Ontario families have heard Premier McGuinty promise new rules before. Eleven of your cabinet ministers have not posted their expenses online since he said they would.

The Premier once said that the buck stops with him, but we all know it really stops with his press secretaries, Jane Almeida, Michele Wong and Jennifer Beckermann, because it is through them where he buries his own expenses.

If the biggest scandal in Ontario history won’t stop Premier McGuinty from skirting accountability and transparency rules, then why—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just remind the honourable member, and I’d like her to withdraw the comments because it was appearing to me that you are imputing motive on the part of the Premier. I’d just ask you to withdraw that comment, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Acting Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Had the regulations we’re putting in effect been put in by that government, we would have found out some really interesting things. We would have found out that former Premier Harris received almost $20,000 in consulting fees from Hydro One. We would have found out that Paul Rhodes collected $1,074,000 through contracts with Hydro One, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Health and the LCBO. We would have found that Michael Gourley collected $3.7 million in untendered contracts to provide advice on hydro privatization. We would have found a lot more.

We will be revealing that party’s record of not providing transparency, not providing accountability, not respecting taxpayers, not respecting a brighter future for Ontario, not investing in health care, not investing in education.

Your record is dismal. Your arguments are pathetic. We’re cleaning up—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I appreciate the comment from the honourable member who talked about the children who are sitting here watching this.

New question.

CONSULTANTS

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier. Trust is at the core of care. You can’t have quality care if you don’t have trust. This government’s actions have shaken the confidence of every Ontarian about our health care system. This government’s actions have fostered this culture of entitlement to taxpayers’ money, and the consequences of it are in the auditor’s report for everyone to read. I must warn you, reading this report is hazardous to your health. It will make you sick.

How does the Acting Premier feel about his government having single-handedly destroyed a key pillar of our most cherished government program, our health care system? How does it feel?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that I think the member opposite is misreading the report. What I mean by that is, I’m saying that the Auditor General has shone the light on practices that are completely unacceptable and do not reflect respect for taxpayers’ dollars. We are changing that.

But what I do think the member opposite needs to understand is that it is part of what we have done in government, since we got elected, to continually improve transparency and accountability. There is nothing in this report that makes me—I am completely determined to clean up the problems that the Auditor General has raised.

We are taking action. We are taking action today. I am hoping that all parties in this House will support this legislation to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The government is blaming hospitals, but accepting no blame for themselves when Ontarians expect their taxpayers’ dollars to go towards front-line care services, to build an excellent health care system for all. The minister claims there is no use for hospitals to hire consultants, yet it was this very government that fostered that culture where hospitals felt they had no choice, that there was no other way. If they wanted a result they had to pay for lobbyists, and that was the way business was done with this government.

How can the government expect Ontarians to have faith in our health care system when we saw the eHealth scandal, and once again, we’re seeing high-priced consultants living the high life—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will withdraw the comment he just made. Even over the noise I can still hear some of those things.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Continue.

M me France Gélinas: My question is simple: How can the government expect Ontarians to have faith in our health care system when, just like the eHealth scandal, once again we’re seeing high-priced consultants living the high life while health care services suffer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do expect Ontarians to have faith in their health care system, and the reason they have faith and confidence in their health care system is that every year, health care is getting better in this province.

I was very pleased to recently announce 30 new family health teams across this province, bringing us to a total of 200 family health teams. That means better access to better care right across this province. The people of this province know that they are waiting less time to have key procedures done. We have more than 10,000 more nurses working in this province.

Health care is stronger and we are turning our attention now to quality of care. It is a concept that has been embraced by the health care community. I know that I can speak on behalf of the health care community. We need to do better when it comes to transparency and accountability. We are doing better.

CONSULTANTS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In my riding of Scarborough–Rouge River, my constituents rely on front-line health care services. Especially in these tough economic times, we know that every health care dollar should be spent to improve patient care. This government has made significant investments in our health care system. We have increased access to doctors and reduced wait times. We need to ensure we’re getting the best quality and value for our money.

The practice of spending public dollars to hire lobbyists to lobby the government for more public money is something that has been going on for decades, by former governments of all parties. My constituents find this use of taxpayers’ dollars totally inappropriate and would like to know if the minister believes this practice is acceptable or not.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very glad to have the opportunity to speak to the issue. Let me be very clear: No one should be using taxpayer dollars to hire a lobbyist to ask for more taxpayer dollars.

This morning I spoke to the hospital CEOs and I put them on notice. Change is coming, and in fact, change is here. This afternoon, I intend to introduce legislation that, if it is passed, would ban the practice of using taxpayer dollars to hire a lobbyist to get more taxpayer dollars. This is a practice that has been in place for many, many years. It has been a practice under three different parties in power, but it is time for that practice to end.

In fact, during previous government years, over 150 lobbyists were hired on behalf of organizations that received public funds—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad to see that this government is taking the necessary action to address this problem.

When it comes to accountability for public dollars, I know that the Auditor General released his report today raising concerns around the use of consultants. Ontarians expect their tax dollars to be properly invested in good government policies and services, and so do I. I know that our government needs to set a higher standard for everyone with more transparency, more scrutiny, more responsibility and more accountability.

Can the minister tell the House what you are doing to take action on this particular issue?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have made significant progress, since we were elected, in increasing accountability and transparency in government. One of the results of that is that we have cut in half the number of consultants that were working for government. That’s right: When this party opposite was in power, they were spending twice as much as we do on consultants.

This afternoon, I will be introducing legislation that, if passed, would authorize me to implement new accountability measures for hospitals and LHINs that would require the public posting of expense claim information. It would require reporting on the use of consultants. It would require attestations about each organization’s compliance with the requirements of the proposed legislation. It would enforce potential reductions in compensation should executives fail to comply. It would permit ministry audits of the operations of LHINs and hospitals.

We’re going even further. We are mandating public—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

CONSULTANTS

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Acting Premier. I hope he has had a moment to regain his composure and catch his breath after the last one.

Ontario families will pay $5 for KFC’s double-down sandwich, and it looks like Ontario families will pay a lot more for Premier McGuinty’s double downers. The auditor’s eHealth report exposed a billion-dollar boondoggle of sweetheart deals being handed out to Liberal-friendly consultants. Now the auditor’s hospital report exposes sweetheart deals being handed out to those same Liberal-friendly consultants.

Acting Premier, what makes you think Ontario families can afford it and you?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I will simply reiterate what we have said from the beginning of question period. Bringing in increased accountability and transparency to government and to the broader public service has been at the core of the mandate of this government.

Later today, the Minister of Health will bring legislation to address the challenges raised by the auditor that have occurred under governments over the course of the last number of years. What we’re doing is moving forward. I look forward to that member and his party supporting the enhanced accountability that the Minister of Health is bringing across the public and broader public sectors.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again, the McGuinty Liberals say that tough new rules are needed to stop them from handing out money to their Liberal-friendly consultants. They can’t help themselves.

But he backtracked on the rules he introduced after eHealth. Premier McGuinty has backtracked so often, he has broken every record. Yesterday before lunch, the Minister of Health Promotion said KFC’s double-down sandwich is something the McGuinty Liberals could investigate banning. A little later, after lunch, before the first unlucky bird could hit the fryer, the minister’s office issued a statement backtracking on the double-down ban. How long will it take for Premier McGuinty to break the record of backtracking on his so-called new accountability rules?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: If the kind of accountability rules we’re putting in place had been in place some time ago, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t have expensed $12.25 for his fishing licence, or perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would not have expensed $575 for a television. To the point about fast food, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t have expensed his chicken McNuggets on his taxpayer-paid trip to Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago. Then, to add insult to injury, the Leader of the Opposition expensed his most recent order of chicken McNuggets. At least he’s consistent.

We are bringing openness, accountability and transparency that will prevent the kind of abuse of public tax dollars that happened when that member’s party was in office to give—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. I’d say to the honourable members that with all this talk of food right now and with the clock delayed, your lunch may be a little late today.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Acting Premier. As of November 1 this year, the winter time-of-use rates are going to be put in place. We know that electricity rates will double between 5 and 11 at night and 7 and 11 in the morning. The government is asking people to shift their habits so that they do things off peak, presumably between 11 at night and 7 in the morning. My question to you is, when do you expect students to do their homework—after 11 o’clock at night?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve talked many times about the importance of time of use and how it’s going to encourage people to move off of peak. As we move into the winter months, nothing has changed, and we will continue those efforts.

I guess what I want to talk about a little bit today, as well, is why the third party continues to oppose our efforts to make the important investments in our energy system. Let’s focus on job creation. Our Premier was in Guelph yesterday, where he announced that 380 direct and indirect jobs were being created. This is what the steelworkers of Ontario said:

“Today’s announcement is doubly good news.... More new jobs in Ontario are just what working families need, and helping build a cleaner tomorrow is just what workers want for their kids too....

“From steelworkers making wind turbines to electricians installing solar panels”—I could go on, and I think I will in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, what students would like to know is, when are they going to do their homework? You’re going to double the electricity rates from 5 in the afternoon to 11 o’clock at night and you’re going to double the rate from 7 in the morning to 11 in the morning, at the time kids are home. Heating has to happen, electricity has to go in, and the computer has to be plugged into the wall. So why don’t you answer the question? Why don’t you at least admit that your time-of-use survey does nothing to help students or families with their high hydro bills? When do you expect them to study?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I have answered the question; I’ve answered it many times. But I think what those students also want to know is why the NDP is abandoning our efforts to create clean energy jobs in this province. And, frankly, I think that the steelworkers of Ontario would want to know the same thing, so I’m going to quote once again from the national director of the United Steelworkers, Ken Neumann:

“Today’s announcement is doubly good news. More new jobs in Ontario are just what working families need, and helping build a cleaner tomorrow is just what workers want for their kids too....”

He goes on to say: “From steelworkers making wind turbines to electricians installing solar panels, workers can support their families by working in clean energy.... Workers in other countries know this is the economy of tomorrow.... More Ontario workers know clean energy will power our economy too.”

Why don’t the NDP know that? Why don’t the NDP stand up for the steelworkers across this province? Why don’t—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

GROWTH PLANNING

Mrs. M. Aileen Carroll: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. Communities in the Barrie and Simcoe area face unique challenges when it comes to growth, unique challenges that this government faced head-on with the release last spring of Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth.

My constituents recognize the need to protect agricultural lands and green spaces in the Simcoe area. Yet although the Simcoe strategy was released for public consultation more than a year ago, the government still hasn’t followed up with the draft amendment to the growth plan. There is a real sense in my community that the wait has been long enough and that it is time for the government to move forward.

Can the minister advise if he is considering a growth plan amendment for the Simcoe area, and, if so, when will he be ready to release it?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: First off, I’d like to thank the member for Barrie for her advocacy on this issue. I appreciate this opportunity to answer her questions publicly. I’d like her constituents to know that she has been constantly in touch with me and my staff on this matter.

In answer to the question, yes, we’ll be moving forward with a consultation on a proposed amendment to the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe, just as our Simcoe vision to promote strong and sustainable communities across the Simcoe region anticipated.

We very carefully reviewed the more than 100 submissions we received in response to our vision paper and used them to develop a draft amendment. We are currently finalizing the details, and I look forward to releasing it for public consultation very shortly, within a few weeks.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. M. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Minister. I know that my constituents will be pleased to hear that the draft amendment is on the way.

I’m glad that more Ontarians are discovering Simcoe county and moving to the region to enjoy our unique quality of life and our strong sense of community. Continued growth is vital for our economic development.

Simcoe county has a proud agricultural heritage that we need to promote and ecological treasures that we need to protect. How will the minister’s proposed amendment balance these competing priorities, and what will the proposed amendment seek to accomplish in terms of growth in Simcoe county?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: In vibrant communities, balancing growth with the protection of agricultural lands and natural areas is what our award-winning growth plan is all about.

The overarching goals of the amendment we intend to release shortly for consultation will be to help all Simcoe area communities flourish by focusing growth in areas where it can be best accommodated and by reducing development pressure on natural areas and agricultural land.

It will enhance the area’s economic competitiveness and encourage efficient use of new and existing infrastructure, and it will complement and support the Lake Simcoe protection plan and the greenbelt plan.

In sum, our proposed amendment will provide communities in the Simcoe area with the framework to achieve livable, compact communities and a clean, healthy environment.

HOME CARE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: My constituent Mrs. Marion Avard is 87 years old. She chose to convalesce at home rather than accept her doctor’s advice that she stay in hospital for a month and in a convalescent care facility for another three months. By doing so, she and her family saved the health care system literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But when the family asked to be reimbursed for a mere $500 for the cost of renting equipment such as a hospital bed and a wheelchair, they were advised by the CCAC that equipment rental is only covered for 28 days.

Can the minister tell us how this policy squares with her recent announcement of an expansion of the aging-at-home policy of this government?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the member opposite for the question, and I think it’s a very good question. We are very much putting our focus on improving the array of services that are available outside of institutions, be they hospitals or long-term-care homes. That community care is the future of our health care system. We simply must better support people to age at home, to convalesce at home and to recover at home. We are, I can tell you, looking very closely at what we need to do to further strengthen supports for people in their own homes.

I will undertake to keep this in mind as we move forward to strengthen supports for people outside of hospitals and outside of long-term-care homes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: This is a practical example of how disconnected this government is, from its announcements and professions to its practical delivery of policy. I appreciate the minister’s undertaking and I look forward to seeing what will happen on this particular file.

It’s interesting that on the same day that I got the advice of the decline of the coverage of this benefit, I received an announcement from the Central LHIN that it is expanding its bureaucracy by an additional two senior staff. I would ask the minister: Why on the one hand is there no money to pay an 87-year-old for a $500 rental fee, but there are thousands of dollars to increase the bureaucracy at the local LHIN?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said earlier, this area of supporting people in their community is exactly the direction that our government is going in. There are others who say the solution is to just build more long-term-care homes. Our solution is, let’s really invest where it can make a difference for people: in their homes and in their communities.

Aging at home is undertaking that work through the LHINs for the first time. We are focusing on integrating that care and providing supports for people.

The Central LHIN—the member opposite’s riding is in the Central LHIN—has got projects, for example, that provide housecleaning services to vulnerable low-income seniors in Markham, in Richmond Hill and in North York, helping people stay at home longer. They have a program that provides caregivers to individuals from east Asia who are suffering from dementia. The program provides access to personal support—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

CONSULTANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. The Auditor General found that eight hospitals blew more than $1.1 million of our precious health care dollars on lobbyists in the past three years alone. One particular hospital squandered $675,000 on lobbyists over the past eight years. Why are the McGuinty Liberals only responding now, when high-priced, wasteful lobbying of their government has been going on since they were first elected, seven long years ago?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As we’ve discussed throughout this question period today, we have taken several steps and today we are taking an additional step to improve transparency and accountability.

I think if members of this House from all parties were being honest with themselves, they would know that every party, for the past many, many years, has participated in lobbyists. This is a practice that has gone on for too long. That is why today we are banning that practice. If the legislation passes, we will be banning that practice.

I have spoken to hospital CEOs and board chairs today, and I’ve made it very, very clear that this is a practice that has to stop immediately; that it not wait until legislation is passed. I have also instructed people in my ministry that this is no longer a practice that is acceptable to us, because we do need—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Auditor General found that one hospital recently—recently—hired two lobbyists to get their issues on this government’s agenda. Another had a $50,000 deal with a lobbyist without any documentation whatsoever. How can the health minister claim to be surprised by these findings when the Auditor General has shown that well-connected lobbyists have been lining their pockets with public health care dollars in this province for years and years under this government’s watch?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me go back: Ours was the government that brought in the power for the Auditor General to look at hospitals. That did not happen when the NDP was in power; it did not happen when the Conservative Party was in power. We were the ones who said, through the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, “Auditor, please go in and take a look and give us some advice.” We asked for this advice. We asked for these recommendations.

And today, the day of the release of the Auditor General’s report, I will be introducing legislation that not only responds to all of the recommendations in the report, but goes much further. This is another step in the right direction.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. On October 15, I was proud to be in attendance as the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation held a remembering, honouring and thanking gathering to announce the start of their healing process and to unveil a monument in honour of Dudley George.

I took my eight-year-old grandson Martin and we started early in the morning with the traditional sunrise ceremony in one of the teepees at the former Ipperwash park. Martin learned that it took many years to bring about the Ipperwash inquiry so that we could discover the truth of what happened that tragic night. He had an opportunity to meet Justice Sidney Linden, who released the Ipperwash inquiry report in May 2007.

I know that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is currently working with other ministries affected by that report’s recommendations. Minister, how is this government taking action on the recommendations of the Ipperwash report?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It was a very emotional day and a very emotional ceremony last Friday at the unveiling of the Dudley George memorial. That day came about as a result of a terrible tragedy. The Ipperwash recommendations that my colleague references came about as a result of an inquiry—an inquiry that took a number of years to call, an inquiry which recognized that the heart of healing begins with understanding what actually happened and facing the reality of what actually happened.

Everybody at that day, everybody at the ceremony recognized that that very painful recognition began with confronting the truth about what happened. That was the heart and the beginning of the ceremony, and I’ll address some of the other matters in the supplementary.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I know that we are well on our way to implementing many of the recommendations in the Ipperwash report, with many provincial ministries working directly with First Nations and Métis people of Ontario to review and implement those recommendations.

The agreement to transfer the Ipperwash park lands to the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation is an important example of this. My constituents in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex know that our government committed to transferring Ipperwash park, even though it was not one of the 100 recommendations in the report.

The process started with the signing of the transfer process agreement by the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the chief of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, Liz Cloud. Can the minister tell my constituents more about this process?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: What her constituents and the members of this House will want to know is that the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex has been chair of a working committee that brings together the First Nations and the surrounding communities for healing, recognition of joint opportunities, and how to move from those events—not forgetting, but remembering—into a very positive future.

It’s a result of her very hard work and the work of all those others that my predecessor was able to make the signing ceremony that committed the government of Ontario to transfer the park, and the ongoing work at identifying a better economic future for the First Nations and for the surrounding communities as a result of an inquiry that would never have been called but for the Premier and my colleague Minister Phillips’s dogged determination—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The federal-provincial agreement dated March 2, 2007, and signed by the member from Vaughan in his capacity as finance minister, obliged the federal government to complete several transportation projects with respect to the Flow initiative in the GTA.

Similarly, the agreement obliged the provincial government to complete several projects, and I quote from the agreement: “As part of the Flow and directly related to the commitment of federal participation in the above GTA transit project, Ontario agrees to complete the construction of three important highway projects to improve traffic flow in the GTA within firm and accelerated timelines.” One project was the extension of Highway 407 to Highway 35/115.

This agreement is crystal clear, Minister. Why are you choosing to renege on it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re not. We are going ahead with the extension of the 407.

I think the member opposite, who has access to a lot of information on this file, understands that the first 407 was built in stages. This part of the 407 is being built in stages. We’re moving ahead right now, and we’re moving ahead despite the fact that we had an economic downturn that was not envisioned when that agreement was signed. In spite of that, we’re going ahead. The 407’s next stage is in the works right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: A couple of things here: One is, there was a firm commitment to complete this highway to 35/115; and secondly, despite the economic downturn, somehow the federal government managed to live up to their requirements.

Last night, I attended a public meeting in my riding, specifically, in the hamlet of Columbus. Your decision to renege on the Flow agreement is having a catastrophic effect on this community. You’re proposing now to stop Highway 407 at Simcoe Street, right in the middle of Columbus. This makes no economic sense, no sense from a traffic perspective and, most importantly, it’s going to totally destroy the social fabric of this important historic community.

Minister, at the very least, will you please revisit this ill-considered decision?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to challenge the member opposite on the contention that we’re not living up to the agreement. We’re going ahead with the Highway 404 extension, we’re widening Highway 7 and we are extending the 407 to 35/115—but we’re doing it in stages, which is a responsible approach to extending this road.

On the exit, which is the Simcoe road, we’re meeting with the mayors of the area. I have had many conversations with Roger Anderson and with other political leaders. I know that there are issues around traffic circulation, and we will be dealing with those with the community.

But I remind the House again that we’re going ahead. We are purchasing properties between Simcoe road and 35/115. We are committed to that entire area. The environmental assessment has been completed on the entire corridor. We’re building it in stages and we’re going ahead despite an economic downturn that no one anticipated.

CONSULTANTS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. The orgy of extravagant, high-flying spending on exotic trips, gourmet meals and alcohol for consultants paid for by our hospitals is absolutely disgusting. Reading it made me sick. This information would have never seen the light of day if I had not moved the motion in public accounts calling on the Auditor General to do this work. Liberal backbenchers in committee—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Members will please come to order. The Minister of Agriculture will come to order. The Minister of Finance.

Member from Nickel Belt, please continue.

M me France Gélinas: Let me tell you that Liberal backbenchers on that committee tried to derail my motion, but they were embarrassed into voting for it in the midst of the eHealth scandal.

My question, Minister: How could you allow this disgusting waste of precious health care dollars to occur under your watch?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: History is interesting. Let’s just remember that it may well be that the member opposite introduced the motion, but that is a committee that does have a majority of Liberals on it. We did ask the Auditor General to go in and find out what he found out.

I said earlier today that it’s kind of like pulling the fridge out, you know? Certainly I think most of us have had the experience where you don’t really want to pull that fridge out to see what’s behind the fridge, but when you do, it’s your responsibility to clean it up. So what we have done: We’ve given the Auditor General the power. We’ve asked him specifically to go in and look at these issues. He has reported back, and now our job, collectively, is to clean it up. I do ask the member opposite—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The auditor, in his report, makes reference to funnelling of money from the Ministry of Health through hospitals. We see agencies that were given close to a million dollars from the Ministry of Health to pay for two single-sourced consultant contracts to do work for the ministry. Last October, at the same time as I moved the motion that led to today’s report, I put forward a second motion calling for the auditor to investigate this very practice. The Liberals on the committee voted it down.

With the minister’s newfound love for transparency, can I suggest that she not only clean the fridge but clean the stove? Is the ministry ready to let the AG examine the compensation of senior executives?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do confess that I had a little bit of difficulty hearing the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. I hope all members had the opportunity to hear the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. It is important, when questions are being asked, that the minister to whom that question is being directed—so I hope that we can all learn a little lesson from the experience that the Minister of Health has just had.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker.

I will answer the question that I believe I heard, and the question is, will we end the practice of having the ministry pay through a third party? Yes, we will. That meant that practice is over. We do not do that anymore, and we will not do that in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for question period has ended, and there being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: This morning I introduced a class from St. Joseph Catholic School in Uxbridge, and I named a teacher, Kim Redmond. In fact, I met with the class, and it was Kate Evangelista. They were here, and they really appreciated meeting the Speaker and touring Queen’s Park. Thank you, Speaker, for introducing them as well.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I would like to introduce to the House a civically engaged constituent of Mississauga–Streetsville, Benita Grist, and her sister-in-law Linda Johnston. They are in the east members’ gallery. I’d like members to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: As you know, Monday, October 25, is election day in all municipalities across our province, so I rise today in the House to encourage eligible voters to exercise their vote in the upcoming elections. People will be making their choices for mayor, reeve, deputy reeve, deputy mayor, councillors and school board trustees.

Historical