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

April 15, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Apr-15 (PDF)

L068 - Wed 15 Apr 2015 / Mer 15 avr 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 15 April 2015 Mercredi 15 avril 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Home care

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Energy policies

Privatization of public assets

Automotive industry

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Poverty

Alcohol legislation

Environmental protection

Carbon monoxide

By-election in Sudbury

Transport par autobus / Bus transportation

Visitor

Correction of record

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Carbon monoxide

Awesome Foundation London

Firefighters

Hockey

Events in India

Environmental protection

Project HOAP

Polish war veterans

Awards ceremony

Introduction of Bills

Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Money Transfers), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur (transferts de fonds)

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Taxation

Government anti-racism programs

Highway improvement

First responders

Off-road vehicles

Hospital funding

Off-road vehicles

Dental care

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Wind turbines

Off-road vehicles

Taxation

Government services

Orders of the Day

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 14, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West had the floor, completed, and we’re now into questions and comments.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I very much look forward to the opportunity to speak on Bill 57, the pooled retirement pension plans. I think that this particular piece of legislation—and many who are listening out there will probably know these products as PRPPs. This discussion is very important in relation to the discussion around the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, the ORPP. I would argue to you, Speaker, that both of these things, the ORPP and the PRPPs, go hand in hand.

We need to ensure that Ontarians are saving more. I think one of the alarming statistics or data that we continue to see, not only just in relation to Ontarians but Canadians writ large, is that we’re not saving enough. We’re not putting enough aside as a future nest egg to be able to have a comfortable retirement and maintain our quality of life. So everything and anything the government can do to help assist people save is important. We have the RRSP system, which is voluntary in nature; so is the PRPP system. If this legislation is passed, it will be voluntary in nature.

But that’s why the third piece, the ORPP, is extremely important in combination with the CPP, where we create that incentive for people to put some money aside as a safeguard that will allow people, Ontarians in particular, to retire with sufficient income that will ensure that they have a decent quality of life. This, I would argue, Speaker, is in the current framework and is absolutely an important issue that we need to deal with. I’m really proud that our government is taking a leadership role, not only in Ontario but in Canada, in making sure that we have secure retirement income for Ontarians.

I urge all members to support Bill 57.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Look, everybody deserves to retire with dignity. In this particular instance, Speaker, the expression that we’ve heard more than once is that we’re using a sledgehammer to kill an ant, as some would say, in place of a flyswatter, perhaps. This is going after the 13% who desperately need our help, and I would agree wholeheartedly that we need to do something to help those 13% who need our help. But we’re putting out here an overarching bill that will hurt the 87% to help the 13%.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and just about every association from the restaurant association to the construction association talk about how this will hurt business. Ninety-seven per cent of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is against this. The chamber of commerce already told us that Ontario’s job market is in crisis. The government’s own Ministry of Finance told us, quite clearly, how many thousands of jobs we are going to lose when this bill passes: 18,000 jobs for every $2 billion taken out of the system. It could be 54,000 jobs.

As I said yesterday in question period, look around. Speaker, we can’t afford to lose those 54,000 more jobs. Day after day after day, companies are leaving: 2,700 companies left Ontario last year—2,700 fewer companies here today than last year. We are in crisis and we can least afford to go down this path of an overarching ORPP.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Retirement for all Ontarians, for all Canadians, is an extremely important subject because when you come to the age that you’re ready to retire, I think we all worry about, can we afford the cost of living? Part of that is good planning on an individual’s part, but also a part of that is having the means to save, to plan for that retirement.

The CPP is a federal program, it’s a good program and there were talks about enhancing that. That’s probably the most efficient way of handling it to help people retire, not just for Ontarians but throughout Canada, because I’m sure that other people have the same challenges that we’re facing here. But that didn’t happen. The federal government has declined to enhance the CPP in order to help everyday, hard-working Ontarians, and therefore other choices have to be made.

We have the RRSPs that people can access on their own, as they need or as they feel they can contribute to. We support the ORPP that the government has presented. We think it’s a good initiative because it’s a partnership: You’ve got employees participating and you have employers participating.

But in this case, Speaker, the PRPP—and the name of this bill really doesn’t explain what it really is. It’s a glorified RRSP. It’s driven just by a worker’s contribution, and it’s not the solution to how people should be saving for their future retirement.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from—I always have trouble with this one.

Interjection: Newmarket—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand up and address the issue of Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. I always like to take it back to some of the original issues, because there is a lot of rhetoric around what should be done and what needs to be done. I agree with members who say that Ontarians need to save more for our retirement. I think virtually everybody agrees with that. I’m concerned about my children and their retirement.

But it’s just not enough to say that Ontarians need to save for retirement. Ontarians need new vehicles so that they can save for their retirement, and the pooled registered pension plan is simply one of them. This is a new type of voluntary, tax-assisted, individual retirement savings vehicle administered by a licensed third party.

They’re really intended to make it easier to save for retirement by providing employees and self-employed individuals with additional savings vehicles that are low-cost—that’s really achieved through its simple design and its economies of scale—professionally managed and portable from one workplace to another. In addition, they have a more favourable tax treatment than group Registered Retirement Savings Plans, so there are significant differences between those and traditional retirement savings plans.

PRPPs are intended to be particularly beneficial for small and medium-sized businesses that may not have the capacity to offer a more traditional pension plan, so the government is encouraging investment in voluntary retirement saving tools such as this one.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Windsor West has two minutes.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking to Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. I had 20 minutes to share our concerns, on this side of the room, around the pooled registered pension plan. During my time, I also spoke about the plans that are offered through employers—so, those who work 20 or 30 years toward a pension and then we have these companies that pack up and leave, and leave those employees without their retirement benefits.

My concern about these PRPPs is the security. If we have companies where people are working 20 or 30 years toward retirement and there’s supposed to be a plan there for them when they retire, and those companies are able to pick up and move over to the States or to Mexico and not honour their commitments to provide a pension for their employees—my thinking is that this plan is very much the same. People who struggle to save for retirement are going to be putting money into this plan and essentially—the member from Newmarket–Aurora pointed out that this is a voluntary plan administered by a licensed third party.

Those third parties actually charge exorbitant fees that cut into the savings these people have struggled to put into them for their retirement. So essentially, what they put in could be very different from what’s available to them when they retire.

I’d like to address the fact that it’s voluntary. I believe they, from the other side, mentioned yesterday that for 60 days it’s not voluntary. For 60 days, employees have to pay into this. My concern is: At the end of the 60 days, are people going to remember to opt out? When they do decide to opt out, are they going to get that 60 days’ worth of contributions back, or is that money they’ve now lost and don’t have available to put away into a vehicle they would rather have when they retire?

I think these are concerns that need to be addressed from the other side.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Good morning, Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There seems to be a problem here. Are we okay?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I’m sorry. I’ve just been told I’m going to be sharing my time with—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I believe the member has already spoken on this, so we’ll have to have someone else.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry, the member will sit down. The member has spoken on this.

I recognize the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to clarify that I’m going to be sharing my time with the member from Kitchener Centre, the minister responsible for seniors and the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

Interjections.

Mr. Chris Ballard: That was fairly easy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m glad we’re all having a wonderful group conversation. I’m having trouble even hearing the speaker.

Please go ahead.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll just reiterate what I said a few minutes ago: that I agree totally with what members before have said. Ontarians do need to save more for retirement. We’re certainly not doing enough of that. But at the same time, Ontarians recognize that they need different, new, less expensive saving vehicles, and pooled registered pension plans will give them that.

I just want to take the discussion back to some of the basics of the bill. Ontario introduced this legislation, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2014, to implement PRPPs in the province by December 8, 2014. As we’ve said—I want to take it back to some of the basics—PRPPs are a new type of voluntary, tax-assisted individual retirement savings vehicle. They’re administered by licensed third-party administrators such as regulated financial institutions, with investments pooled to reduce costs and improve returns.

PRPPs are intended to make it easier to save for retirement by providing employees and self-employed individuals with additional savings vehicles that are low-cost. And they’re low-cost because they are simple in design and through economies of scale, with individuals pooling their resources. They’re professionally managed and portable from one workplace to another. That’s critical, that they’re portable from one workplace to another.

In addition, they have a more favourable tax treatment than group Registered Retirement Pension Plans, or RRSPs. PRPPs are intended to be particularly beneficial to small- and medium-sized businesses that may not have the capacity to offer traditional pension plans.

Encouraging investment in voluntary retirement savings tools such as the pooled registered pension plan is an important part of our strategy to make sure that Ontarians are able to save for their retirement, and that they have a variety of different vehicles—low-cost vehicles—in order to save for their retirement.

A bit of history about the PRPPs: After two years of federal-provincial-territorial collaboration in the development and the design of PRPPs, the federal government was the first to introduce a legislative framework for PRPPs, in December 2012. This framework applies to employees in federally regulated sectors such as banking, telecommunications and interprovincial transportation and the three territories. Legislation must be passed, however, in each province before PRPPs can be made available to individuals in provincially regulated sectors and self-employed individuals working in the province.

The federal government continues to advocate for provinces to introduce the necessary provincial PRPP legislation. When we look across the country, where are the other provinces and territories at with regard to implementing this very important legislation?

British Columbia has the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act from May 2014; Alberta implemented the same act in May 2013; Saskatchewan has the Pooled Registered Pension Plans (Saskatchewan) Act, which received royal assent in May 2013; Nova Scotia has a similar act that was implemented in 2014; and in Quebec the Voluntary Retirement Savings Plans Act received royal assent in December 2013. Across British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia the legislation mirrors the federal PRPP Act so that provincial regulations come into effect before the legislation can come into force.

I will leave it there, Mr. Speaker, and turn the floor over to our member from—

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Kitchener Centre.

Mr. Chris Ballard: —Kitchener Centre. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I thank the member for doing my job there. I appreciate that. The member from Kitchener Centre.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Always happy to help, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very pleased to join the discussion today on Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. Last year we informed Ontarians that this government is very much committed to addressing the retirement income crunch that many people are going to be facing in the future. That’s why we are introducing this very innovative new strategy that’s going to help people save for the future, save for their senior years.

PRPPs are a new type of voluntary, tax-assisted, individual retirement savings vehicle. And the reason why you see our government bringing this forward is to make it easier to save for retirement for employees and also for self-employed people—for that segment of the workforce that we often hear is unprepared for retirement.

This is an additional savings vehicle that is going to be low-cost. It’s based on a very simple design model and it will be professionally managed. It’s going to be portable, so if a worker moves from one job to another they can take the plan with them; it transfers, it’s going to follow them to the next workplace.

The other advantage here is that PRPPs will have a more favourable tax status than group Registered Retirement Savings Plans, or RRSPs. PRPPs are designed to be of particular benefit for small and medium-sized businesses that oftentimes don’t have the capacity and the wherewithal to offer a plan to their workers, the traditional type of pension plan you see in larger workplaces. PRPPs would be administered by licensed third-party administrators, such as financial institutions, which are regulated. These, of course, have their investments pooled to reduce costs and that improves returns.

If you will remember, the 2014 budget and the fall economic statement stated that the government intended to move forward with the PRPP plan. The framework at the time, we noted, would be consistent with the model introduced by the federal government. We already see this being adopted in a number of provinces. You’ve already heard this mentioned by my colleague from Newmarket–Aurora.

On December 8, Ontario introduced legislation to implement PRPPs in this province. If this bill is passed by the Legislature, it would come into play once supporting regulations have been developed. It should be noted that as a voluntary retirement savings vehicle, the preferred approach is that PRPPs would not be considered a “comparable” workplace pension plan. That’s in the context of the new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, or the ORPP. People enrolled in a PRPP would not be exempt from taking

part in the ORPP. In December of this past year, Ontario released a consultation paper that looked at feedback on some key ORPP policy issues, including what constitutes a “comparable” workplace pension plan.

I touched earlier, Mr. Speaker, on the federal model and the framework provided to Canada’s provinces. The background on this is that after two years of federal, provincial and territorial talks, Ottawa did introduce a legislative framework for PRPPs, and that happened in December 2012. This framework also applies to workers in federally regulated sectors—telecommunications, banking and a few other areas, to name a few. It should be noted that legislation must be passed in each province before PRPPs can be made available to employees in provincially regulated sectors. That also applies to self-employed people working in our provinces.

You heard mention of how this is working in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec. I want to mention that here in Ontario our framework is going to stress that it’s voluntary. It will be automatic enrolment. There will be licensing. Contribution rates are going to be looked at. The initial rates and increases to those rates would be set by the administrators. It will be locked in. You’ll see pooling of investments. And it will be low-cost.

This made-in-Ontario model is largely consistent with the approach that is being taken by other provinces. Encouraging people to invest in voluntary retirement savings tools such as the PRPP is a very important part of our strategy to help Ontario workers retire with greater financial security. By taking this action now, we’re going to strengthen retirement for Ontarians and support those who are most at risk of undersaving. Ultimately, it will protect our economy.

I now yield to my colleague from—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Ottawa–Orléans.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: —Ottawa–Orléans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A pleasure.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry; the minister responsible for seniors affairs.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Evidently this morning, Speaker, we have—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There’s a little confusion today.

Hon. Mario Sergio: No, it’s quite all right. Actually, I was going to say—not wanting to do your job—that after me comes the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this particular piece of legislation. I’m quite in agreement with my colleague the member from Nipissing when he says that seniors, when they reach a particular age, are entitled to live in dignity. I think this is really the core point of this piece of legislation. We all agree that when we reach retirement age we would like to retire and live in dignity. I think this is where we have to separate the two views, if you will.

If we can agree on that, then the next important question should then be, if something has to be done, how are we going to do it? What is the best way of doing it? We have seen the, if you will, unwillingness of the federal government to make some improvements to the federal pension plan, so we said that unless we get co-operation, we’re going to go on our own and we’re going to do it ourselves. And we are on the way. So if nothing happens until then, Speaker, with respect to co-operation from the federal government, as of 2017, I believe, the plan will start to kick in.

We are kind of late, as a matter of fact, because we are not the only province willing to do this provincial retirement pension plan. I think we already have another five Canadian provinces, including Saskatchewan and Quebec, I believe. Let me read them to you, Speaker, because it’s important. We’re not the only one that is looking to make improvements to the provincial pension plan. British Columbia and Alberta have already done it, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec—they have all passed legislation with respect to provincial pension plans.

I have to say that I don’t have to go very far away from my own riding, because my riding consists very highly of working-class people and has been like that for a heck of a long time. I have the pleasure of serving this House here as the minister responsible for seniors, and that affords me the opportunity to travel throughout Ontario. I have to tell you, Speaker, that the seniors in Hamilton, the seniors in York West, the ones in Kingston and Thunder Bay all want the same thing.

If they don’t have that wonderful peace of mind that they’re comfortably enjoying their retirement years, it’s because in past years they didn’t work for a company that afforded them the possibility of a reasonable or good pension plan, or a pension plan at all.

So over tough years they had to raise a family and had to pay the mortgage. They didn’t have a pension plan and they didn’t make enough to put money aside. In other words, today they are living solely on the Canada Pension Plan. And it’s not easy; I don’t have to tell you. Every day utilities go up and taxes go up. House taxes, insurance, water rates, gas, electricity—everything is going up except the pension plan. It does not keep up with the expenses faced by our seniors today.

So when we are saying today that we have to prepare for the next generation, so that they don’t fall into the same situation that we are facing today—I think you and I are just about retirement age, Mr. Speaker. We know how it is. We start to think about it and say, “Will I be able to continue to live with the same standard of living that I’m living with today when I reach the age of 65 and beyond?”—providing that we will stay healthy. If we are not healthy after that time, it’s going to be even worse.

So that the legislation is on the road now, looking for consultation, I think speaks to the fact of, “Let’s work on it.” Let’s see how we can indeed do something so that our seniors of tomorrow will be enjoying the kind of retirement that the seniors of today would like to enjoy.

My time is up and I will have to give it to the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Ottawa–Orléans.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m very proud to stand up today, along with my colleagues, on Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, not only as someone who is concerned about the ability of Ontarians to save for the future, but as well as a former business owner who has experience and knowledge of this field.

The PRPP is a voluntary, tax-assisted, individual retirement savings vehicle that is administered by licensed third-party administrators, with investments pooled to reduce costs and improve returns.

As many of you know, our government is committed to helping people build up retirement security. Creating the PRPP will allow Ontarians to retire with dignity. We know that Ontarians are not saving enough, and we want to help everyone create retirement savings so that people can enjoy retirement and not worry about their old age income.

The plan I ran on, which the people of the riding of Ottawa–Orléans supported, was a plan that got a resounding majority government elected. This plan was to help Ontarians save for retirement because the Canada Pension Plan is simply not enough anymore.

By establishing a pooling of retirement savings, we will give companies and individuals greater tools to help them save for the future.

While we hope that the federal government raises the CPP, we also have a mandate here in Ontario to care for Ontarians and their retirement savings. Our government will go about this through two vehicles: the ORPP and our pooled registered pension plan. We have consulted with businesses and stakeholders on the PRPP to ensure that we listened to their concerns, and have addressed all the impacts that Bill 57 will have on the business community.

Overwhelmingly, we have heard that the Canada Pension Plan is not enough. We know that we must have a CPP enhancement, but that simply isn’t happening on Parliament Hill. That is why this government is bringing in Bill 57.

Workplace pension plans aren’t as common as they used to be. There are many Ontarians who will work very hard and find out that they do not have enough to retire and enjoy those later years. Pooled pensions will be one of the tools to make up for the savings gap that has widened in the CPP and RRSPs. By creating a voluntary pension plan for employers and the self-employed, we can help more people save and more seniors retire with the money they need and deserve. We will help Ontarians prepare for their future retirement, something this government strongly believes in doing.

When it comes to knowing about seniors’ care, I certainly understand a lot, or a little bit more, given my previous life as the owner of a retirement residence and having worked for 15 years with seniors. From my past experience, I saw first-hand the experiences of seniors and spoke with many families who told me about their worries about their own retirement savings.

After decades of hard work, the last thing a senior wants to do is to re-enter the workforce and continue to worry about whether they will have enough for their old age. That time should be spent enjoying life with their family, with their grandchildren, and certainly not worrying about their retirement savings. That is why I urge all members of this House to support Bill 57: in order to help the people of this province have the greatest retirement future in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’m pleased to stand in the House today and speak to Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

We on the Progressive Conservative side are obviously opposed to the ORPP because it is being forced upon individuals and corporations. However, we are, in fact, in favour of the pooled registered pension plan, and one of the reasons why we’re in favour of it is that it’s not mandatory. It is not mandatory at all.

I would like to compliment our member from York–Simcoe, who introduced Bill 50 back in 2013. Of course, it died on the order paper at that point in time.

Again, the PCs have been at the forefront, advocating for such a pension plan. I’m very glad to see that the government is now realizing that, hey, maybe we do have a few good ideas over on this side of the House.

Again, when we take a look at pension plans and we take a look at options for employers and employees, all we have to do is refer to, for example, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce as well as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Unlike the government, many times, whereby they have not consulted adequately, these two organizations have consulted adequately and they have found that many employers, for example, are very much in favour of the PRPP, the pooled registered pension plan. They like it.

One of the other things that I also appreciate about this plan as opposed to the ORPP is that this particular act establishes rules respecting the entitlement of a surviving spouse when the holder of a PRPP dies. These funds are protected from creditors with a few exceptions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Pretty much everybody in Canada, except for the Harper Conservatives, seems to recognize that the best way to ensure the retirement security of Canadians is through the Canada Pension Plan, which is why there is such a push to enhance that plan. The reasons that the Canada Pension Plan is so effective are: because it is mandatory—all Canadians who are in the workplace must contribute; because the employer also contributes to the plan; and because it provides a guarantee of what kind of income Canadians can rely on when they retire.

Finally, the Canada Pension Plan is a very efficient model of retirement security. Administration costs are 1% or less, and so this is one of the reasons that the Canada Pension Plan is highly regarded as the best vehicle to ensure that Canadians can retire with dignity and security.

Unfortunately, the PRPPs that have been proposed by the Liberal government have none of these characteristics. They are voluntary, there is no employer contribution, there is no guarantee of what kind of benefit people will receive when they retire—it will all depend on the vagaries of the market—and, finally, it is very inefficient. There are high administration fees that go along with enrolment in these plans, just like RRSPs.

The question is, why do we need this plan? We already know that Ontarians are not utilizing the kind of contribution room they have available to them in RRSPs. PRPPs will benefit only those who can afford to contribute, which is a very small number of people in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bob Delaney: This particular act, Bill 57, is a measure that allows Ontario to implement a flawed federal proposal. This particular pooled registered pension plan is interesting; it’s yet another tool for the wealthy to be able to accumulate things, but it just doesn’t work for people in the early stages of their careers or in the middle stages of the careers. What we really need in this country is meaningful reform of the Canada Pension Plan.

The Canada Pension Plan is 50 years old. At the time the Canada Pension Plan came into being, the average age that a man lived was 68; the average age that a woman lived was about 74. Today, men and women are living an extra 15 years. So the reality is that what we really need is a program that’s mandatory for both the employer and the employee that allows them to accumulate their savings throughout their working lives. We need a pension plan that’s portable, that moves with the employee as he or she changes companies and changes careers. That’s not in this pooled registered pension plan.

Yes, it’s something we’ll do so that Ontarians can offer it, but it’s not the thing that we should have. What we should have is a meaningful reform of the Canada Pension Plan. That’s the part that Canadians need. That’s the tool that Canadians who were born in one province and work in another will need to move from province to province and to be portable.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Vote against it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Lanark.

Mr. Bob Delaney: This thing is very nice, but it’s yet another tool that people in the early stages of their careers can’t afford, people in the middle stages of their careers spend their time chasing house prices and don’t put money into, and people in the later stages of their careers say, “How come I never have anything? Because I didn’t put anything in.” So I’ll vote for it, but we really need an improved CPP.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jack MacLaren: The pooled registered pension plan is a very good idea. It was developed by our member from York–Simcoe and it’s a well-thought-out plan that everybody in our party agrees with.

We live in a democracy, and in this democracy freedom is the foundation of our government, of our democracy. This pooled registered pension plan provides the freedom to people, workers and employers, to choose to participate in this pension plan or not. And that is a wonderful thing, because not everybody’s needs or wants for retirement are the same, nor are their ways to invest in retirement or secure retirement the same.

Some people do have the ability to save for themselves without government, believe it or not, and do quite well. This pension plan would give an employer the freedom to choose to be in or out himself, as well as the employee. So it could happen that an employer who didn’t need a pension plan because he’s done well in other ways could have it for his employees, and either contribute or not with the employees.

I think that freedom

part is an essential part of what we need to respect here. The Ontario registered pension plan, which is the other one that comes from the Liberal government across the way, is mandatory. It requires a 1.9% charge to the employer as well as to the employee. It’s a payroll tax. There is no freedom; there is no option. If they raise $2 billion with this tax, it will cost us 18,000 jobs; that’s what we are told by a study. That is not what is going to make Ontario prosperous or get us back on our feet. We need the flexibility and the freedom of a pooled registered pension plan like this one.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister has two minutes.

Hon. Mario Sergio: I want to thank all the members who made a contribution to the debate on second reading of Bill 57. I hope that the constructive arguments will complement the work that the Associate Minister of Finance, Mitzie Hunter, is doing. She is travelling throughout Ontario doing consultations, as of last December 1, on this particular piece of legislation. Minister Hunter has been travelling Ontario presenting the proposal, and she is getting all kinds of information from various stakeholders throughout our province. And that’s the way it should be.

We want to make sure that we get all the information, that we get everyone involved with respect to the legislation. We hope that when it comes finally to us, it can be presented in a much better form.

Let me say, Speaker, last night I was at a town hall meeting in my area. Two particular questions arose from the people who were in the room. One was about health care for seniors, if you will, and the other one was, how can we live on this measly pension plan that we have today? Somebody else rose and said, “How much would we be getting if we had this particular plan today?” I said, “Probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of doubling the present Canada Pension Plan.” “Ah, that would have been much better than what we have today.”

Speaker, I think this is the intent of what we are trying to do today: to make life better, retirement better, for our seniors when they reach that particular age. It isn’t going to help you or me today, but it’s going to help the grandchildren, our children, and we hope that they will save some extra money so their life at retirement can be much better. This is the intent. I hope that we can support this, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I am happy to rise today to speak on Bill 57, pooled pension plans. My colleague from York–Simcoe introduced Bill 50 in 2013, so I am happy to see that the Liberal government has followed up on a program to support our stakeholders, our businesses, of this great province.

I heard a comment over here talking about Bill 57 and Bill 56, and why they came out at basically the same time. It really makes you wonder, was it Bill 56—the ORPP certainly has lot of contention in this province. A lot of our businesses—you could say all of our business associations have spoken against this. So Bill 57 is introduced—within sessional days of each other. You’ve just got to wonder, was it put out there for confusion or why all of a sudden? On one hand they’re talking about voluntary, on the other hand they talk about mandatory—

Interjection.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Of course, we have a comment from the member from Mississauga–Streetsville. I know we saw him saving last night at a hockey game. He talks about the trouble of saving and how a flawed plan—we wonder really why the Liberal government would be putting out a plan that they think is flawed. I guess it comes down to partisan lines where, sure, the Conservative government in Ottawa has allowed us to voluntarily put a network in place and most of the other provinces have jumped on the bandwagon. Finally, this government is coming through with something that allows people to save on their own. What’s wrong with saving on your own, putting your money where you want it?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Living within your means.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Yes, living within our means.

In 2012, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce submitted a letter to the then Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan, calling on the government to introduce and implement pooled registered pension plans. Also in 2012, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business also urged the government to move ahead on the PRPPs. The federal government passed legislation some time ago establishing the minimum standards that federal PRPPs would have to meet, as well as the administrators of such a plan. It was up to each province to follow up with their own PRPP-enabling legislation.

Quebec has launched its version, the Voluntary Retirement Savings Plan, as well as BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Once again, this Liberal government is playing catch-up.

I believe the key elements of this plan is that they’re pooled, registered and voluntary. I think it’s very important that we have within this country a pension plan that’s portable. I think that’s one thing that this plan certainly allows. Gone are the days when people worked 35 or 40 years for a company. Companies come and go a lot more, especially under this government where we see payroll taxes go through the roof. All we’re seeing, because of that, are companies moving south, and east and west, where costs are much more in line with the idea of being competitive.

Competitive goes along with voluntary. When people purchase products, people I know—especially when you’ve got a group of people living in rural areas, where farmers are a little bit close to their dollars—they look for a good deal. Fortunately, not that long ago you could find good deals in Ontario-made products. But now our employers are forced to pay exorbitant payroll taxes, something like the highest on the continent. Energy rates are the highest on the continent. If you look at property taxes, the province of Quebec is ahead of us, but the rest of the continent is less.

You can’t constantly expect our businesses—it’s like a candy dish. If you need more money, go to our businesses, because they’ll never leave. Well, they are leaving. We once had a great manufacturing base in Ontario. Actually, it was so good that it led our country. Now we’re sitting here with a manufacturing industry that’s just devastated, that’s gone, and this government is still trying to live as if they’re still there. But when the jobs left, the tax income left as well.

Back to this plan: The pooling allows for lower unit costs and easy access. Registering puts the money in your name. That is acknowledged as such under the law. The voluntary part allows businesses and employees to opt in and out, depending on the circumstances. When we talk about employees opting in but the businesses not—there are many people employed in this province, certainly many people we see in business, making well into the six-digit incomes. They may not have a pension plan, but they are expected to save on their own, and I think they’re very capable of doing so.

We look at some of the plans. Our RRSPs are very well participated in. Yes, there is room. But we also have other plans that are available, like the tax-free savings account. There are people who put money in there versus the RRSP because it makes more sense for them tax-wise. Because there’s room, that people have not accessed RRSPs—it may be because they’re using other plans or it may be that they decided to spend their money elsewhere and possibly purchase a car or a house. A house is considered a great savings plan. Our tax laws have been set up so that when you’re retiring, you downsize and you take that money from your residence. It allows you to put that into your retirement.

The voluntary part that allows businesses and employees to opt in and out is very different from what we see with Bill 56, the Ontario registered pension plan, where it’s mandatory for essentially all employers without a defined benefit pension plan to contribute.

I believe the federal government has it right when they say that the time is not right to introduce a major payroll tax on business. They have not ruled this out. They even talked about enhancing the CPP when the economy will support it, and that’s not now. We’ve seen some rough horizons.

Unfortunately, with Ontario being a third of the population of this country, when it’s not doing well, the country as a whole suffers. Whether our manufacturers and our employers can stand another payroll tax is very questionable. That’s what I think the government is saying. But of course, this Liberal government is very short on money, and I think that’s really the motivation behind this plan.

They’re having a tough time, and we need to allow these businesses to recover so that they can once again start to expand, hire more employees and provide additional benefits, such as an employee pension plan.

Businesses and associations have expressed great concern over the details of the ORPP, and so I think that we need to look at what some of these concerns are. It’s certainly not just my opinion but the sentiments of Ontario small businesses and associations, including hundreds of local chambers of commerce across the province that have created a coalition to deal with the proposed pension plan, the ORPP.

Between the red tape regulations and payroll taxes, the government seems to be on the lookout for ways to make running a business in this province more difficult.

We had the opportunity during break week last week to meet with two of the chambers in my riding. Both presented us with letters that they forwarded to this government with their strong opposition to Bill 56. They asked us to continue to take the message back that it is not good for business and not good for people with jobs. We’re looking at 600,000 people who are unemployed today, who will not benefit from this plan. They’re unemployed, so they don’t contribute.

Because of this plan, we’re looking at another 54,000 people who had the ability to save for their own retirement but, with this bill, will lose their jobs, so they won’t benefit from this.

And now we’re looking at a proposed carbon tax. I know their numbers show there are 5,000 jobs lost, but that’s not a realistic number. We’re probably looking at hundreds of thousands of jobs, as our neighbours and our competitors aren’t looking at the same type of carbon tax—once again, making our employers more uncompetitive.

Climate change is something where we need to look at a coordinated effort. I know that the closing of the coal plants was a novel plan, but when you look at the time and energy we spent on closing five plants—1,200 around the world were opened. I mean, that’s not a coordinated plan. That’s money and resources—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order: the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: As is the rules of the House, I’d like the member to speak to the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. I will give some leniency to the member from Stormont, but please try to come back to the bill within a reasonable amount of time, if you drift a little bit. Thanks.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. I guess I was just going on with the pension plan, Bill 56, that the government has got, and how we see that as just further draining money away from the people who are out there, making choices on how they spend their money.

I grew up in an area where people—I guess I look at our ancestors, who fought long and hard in many wars to be able to have your choice of where you spent your money. That’s why we’re supporting this bill, the pooled pension plans, because it is voluntary and it doesn’t put stress on people who can’t afford, for a period of time, not to be contributing to a pension plan.

When I first got out of university and started working, I had what was considered a fairly good job at the time. I think I started out with $13,000 a year in 1977, which was a better-than-average job at that time. I didn’t put money into a registered pension plan at that time. I couldn’t afford it. I was putting money into a registered home ownership plan that they had at that time. I tried to put money down, because I knew my next big investment would likely be a home, which it was.

And now this Bill 56 wouldn’t allow me to do that. It would take money out of my pocket and my employer’s pocket, which will probably end up being my pocket twice, and won’t allow me, when it defers my ability to buy a home—and that home is going to be part of my retirement plan.

Again, it’s voluntary. You feel good when you go out and you make some money and you can put it where you want. When the government is in your pocket all the time, it doesn’t make you feel very good. I think that’s one of the major instances of this.

We talked about the red tape regulations and payroll taxes. The government seems to be on the lookout for ways of running business out of this province. They’re looking at energy costs and other initiatives that have deeply affected the way that our businesses are able to operate, if at all. The manufacturing sector is a perfect example of this, as many businesses are packing up and finding more affordable places to do business, or introducing layoffs, such as Caterpillar, Heinz, Stelco, Kellogg’s, Kraft, John Deere, GM, Hershey’s, Siemens, Campbell Soup, Sears, BlackBerry, Ford, General Mills and Unilever, just to mention a few.

I think the member for Nipissing talked about 2,700 companies that have left since this government came in. That’s a trend that I would hope this government is starting to acknowledge and look at—and maybe go down to New York state and go down to Ohio and find out why they left. An exit plan is at least a plan. Find out why they’re leaving. They’re telling us and they’re telling their employees as they lay them off that they just can’t afford to do business in Ontario anymore. Those people would want to do business in Ontario because it’s a great place to live. Unfortunately, when you can’t meet the bottom line, you have no choice.

Recently, our finance critic from North Bay received a letter from a business that he was trying to help. I’ll quote part of the letter:

“Thanks for all your help. In the end we decided to pack up and move to the States.

“It was not an easy decision but in the end it was too hard” for our companies to do business.

“Hopefully you can turn things around.”

Those are some of the comments we—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Scarborough has just joined us and is really loud.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I go down to my local coffee shop on Saturday morning for local business, and sometimes I don’t walk in to a very happy person. Every time you turn around, there’s a new regulation, a new tax, a hydro bill. Of course, the comment: “You have to manage your hydro bill.” Well, he’s not able to turn off his fridges on a hot summer day. If he does, he loses everything. People in this province, unfortunately, like to shop during the warmest parts of the day, during daylight hours. You can’t change that. Those are costs that they can’t mitigate. They can’t close up their freezers and say, “Come in at 2 in the morning because it’s cheaper to operate.”

You look at what we’ve lost and you can attribute most of it back to this government and its reckless policies. When business is struggling, government should be trying to create incentives for business—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Ahem.

Continue.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. When business is struggling, the government should try to create incentives for businesses to stay in the province and thrive. Instead, the Liberals continue to make it difficult to do business in this province. We’re looking at the highest energy rates on the continent, the highest payroll taxes on the continent and the second-highest property taxes. Yes, maybe they have the lowest combined corporate taxes, but you have to make a profit before you pay corporate taxes. For the most part, that’s the trouble: They aren’t making a profit.

We talked about our pension plans, and they depend on buying shares in profitable companies. Of course, it’s lucky that we’re now allowed to buy more and more shares in foreign companies, because it’s harder and harder to find a profitable company, at least in Ontario, which has the majority of companies in this country.

The companies would be happy to pay corporate income taxes, but it would mean that they are paying all their bills, paying their fair share, and actually have something to show for it.

This reminds me of a funny story from back in the 1970s. Growing up in the 1960s on a farm, things weren’t always all that great. For the most part, farmers didn’t pay taxes. They would have liked to pay taxes, but they didn’t make enough money. They worked long, hard days. There was lots of work. In the wintertime, they cut wood to burn because they didn’t have money to buy oil.

In the 1960s, supply management came in, so there was a little more money. I remember about a year after that came in, we bought a larger tractor. It allowed you, of course, to do more things, and it allowed us to till the land—better crops, a little more money, and now farming is starting to be profitable.

So my uncle, the first year he had to pay income tax—it was a big joke around that somebody actually was rich enough that they had to pay tax. Ray was always kind of witty, so he walked in, and my dad, as he saw him coming up, was saying, “There’s the big shot paying the income tax this year.” He commented to Ray, and Ray looked at him and said, “For 60 years I’ve been wishing that someday I’d make enough money to pay tax, and today is the day, so I’m not complaining.”

We’ve come a long way from those days. We’ve grown to a standard of living that I think we’re generally happy with. We’re the envy of the world. This government seems to want to take that away from us. And they’re taking it away from us by—you know, the income is coming in, but it’s going out as taxes. It’s being wasted on things like gas plants. It’s being wasted on smart meters. People have to pay for that.

So when we’re looking at this pension plan, I wonder why they’re putting this one out, because the other one is obviously there because they need the money. You look through the government’s own literature on the ORPP; they’re going to utilize those funds for infrastructure.

Last week, when I sat on the committee for the pension plan, I think it was OPSEU who came in. Their pension plan trust came in, and they were talking about how well they’re doing and they were for this plan and they were a combined—not combined benefit but a combined contribution plan. They were saying they were averaging 9% on their return. That was just great. So I asked the question: “You look at this plan. It’s going to require you to convert over to this bill. How would you feel? Do you think the government is going to get you 9%?” Are they going to invest in infrastructure and pay 9% back to this plan?

Or are they going to likely be—since they’re looking at their own benefit, likely to pay more what they can get in the banks, or in the open market, which is, when they’re borrowing, somewhere like 2% or 3%.

That’s the trouble: You’ve got two masters here. You got a pension plan that’s going to collect money and the government saying they’re going after the best return possible, but we’re going to use that money for infrastructure, so we’re not interested in paying a good return. That should be a big red light to a lot of people in Bill 56, what they’re really doing. This is another way of getting some money to run this province, instead of being forthright in telling people where they are.

Next week, or in two weeks, we’re going to see a budget come down. I guess it’s going to include revenue flow from this Bill 56 because it’s money that they can get their hands on, as it will with—they’re looking at selling off Hydro One even though Hydro One owes more than it’s actually worth. Again, that will be a bill that we’ll have to pay through—the hydro rate fees will have to be raised to pay for this because obviously, if you take revenue away from them, they have to pay the debt. Unfortunately, that’s one of the things we’ve seen as we’ve seen billions and billions and billions of dollars wasted.

I encourage people to look at retirement. I worry about the plans that we have, whether people can afford it. I don’t see Bill 56 helping them because the money is going to go in and it’s going to be siphoned off. Hopefully, a government in the future, maybe a PC government, will be able to return the economy so we can pay those bills off in the future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’ll take a different tack than the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. This Bill 57, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, I see as benefiting insurance companies and bankers. I have nothing against bankers. I guess I’m like Stephen Leacock: “When I go into a bank I get rattled. The clerks rattle me; the wickets rattle me; the sight of the money rattles me....”

But more than anything, I get really, really, really rattled when I pick up a copy of the Globe and Mail and I see what the banks are paying out in pension money to the senior executives. The Bank of Nova Scotia: Richard Waugh—however you pronounce it—in 2013, retired with $2 million a year in a pension. Wouldn’t I like to have that? The Royal Bank: Gordon Nixon, $1.75 million in an annual pension. The Bank of Montreal: Bill Downe, $1 million, but—guess what?—in American funds. Somebody was thinking ahead on that one.

To the Liberals’ favourite banker, from the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Ed Clark: He retires on $2.5 million a year. Here’s a guy we all read about, we all hear about, making decisions that are going to affect each and every one of us in Ontario. He’s making $2.5 million a year in a pension. He’s telling you guys to bring in a pooled plan. His bank, all banks, all insurance companies, are going to make huge profits selling these things, making commissions, charging fees. The rest of us are paying for the bankers’ pensions. There’s something wrong with this picture.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’m not sure I’m going to top that, Speaker. I’m not even going to try.

A couple of minutes’ comments here from my friend from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry: It’s debates like this that really show the difference between that particular side of the House and this side of the House—a big difference. They’ll say to the public, “I have a pension or I don’t have a pension, but you’re on your own. Just look after yourself.”

Speaker, let me tell you, I’ve been self-employed all my life and I didn’t do very well. I consider myself probably a typical Canadian. I didn’t put any money aside because times were tough.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Because you’re a Liberal.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Times were tough, Speaker. I’m proud to be a Liberal; very proud.

I do have the Canada Pension Plan, and that’s because that’s something that was a structure in place. We contributed on a regular basis. I probably would have contributed to another pension plan if the opportunity was there. It wasn’t.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Are we going to have to pass the hat for you, Lou?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you. I appreciate it.

Here is an opportunity. Regardless of which way we go, we’re trying to help Canadians, Ontarians—Ontarians, in this case—live a better life when they retire. I’m going to be honest. When I lost the election in 2011, I had to look at things: Where do I go from here? I would have survived, but I had nothing secure.

I guess I would say to my friends on the other side: We’re all Canadians and we’re all Ontarians, and it’s nice to look after our fellow Ontarians. Unfortunately, you don’t look at it that way, and it’s a sad day.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s a pleasure to join the debate, listening to the member from Northumberland–Quinte West saying how he was self-employed all those years and never saved any money. Of course, that’s the typical Liberal way, to spend, spend, spend and never save anything. I can understand why they’re all into mandatory pensions.

It was interesting in this debate when I listened to the Liberal House leader, Mr. Naqvi, talking in glowing terms of this bill—and I’m supportive of this bill and our party is supportive of it—and saying that it was a necessary leg into the pension formula. Then the member immediately behind him, the member from Mississauga–Streetsville, said it was purposely faulty legislation and he just was totally denigrating of this bill. So I don’t know what’s happening over on the Liberal side of the benches, but they certainly are in a state of fumbling and confusion on this bill.

I would say this: If this Liberal government was indeed focused and interested in people having a good retirement and security in their retirement, maybe they should start looking at how much money they’re taking out of people’s pockets on a continuing basis: the carbon tax, the WSIB, the HST, the DRC, the eco fees, the increases in licence fees, and on and on and on. They’re reaping money out of hard-working people and putting them into a destitute position in this province. Then they come up and say, “We will allow you to pool your pensions.”

I’ll tell you what: There’s nothing left. You’ve taken it all from them in the first place.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to rise on behalf of the people I represent in London West, because this issue is critically important to my community. There was a Vital Signs report that was released earlier in the fall by London Community Foundation. It found a 300% increase in the poverty rate for seniors in my community between 2010 and 2011, which is the latest data that’s available from Statistics Canada. So poverty is growing in London among the senior community.

Who are these seniors who are living in poverty? Most of them are women. I think it’s time that we in this Legislature put a gender lens on this debate about PRPPs and who is benefiting and who is not benefiting from this legislation.

The Liberal government talks about gender-based analysis, talks about its commitment to a gender lens. If they were serious about applying a gender lens to the issue of women living in poverty in their senior years, they would not be advancing this idea of a PRPP. They would be looking to address some of the systemic issues that cause senior women to live in poverty when they retire.

Senior women are twice as likely to live in poverty as senior men, and this is particularly the case if they are single—and we know that women live longer than men, so they are quite likely to live out their years unattached, living in lone households. Almost one third of elderly women who are living on their own are living below the poverty line.

Women are much more likely than men to rely on income security programs like OAS and GIS. They’re not out there buying PRPPs or RRSPs, because of the history, the systemic barriers that they have experienced in their participation in the labour market.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry has two minutes.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you to the speakers from Windsor–Tecumseh, Northumberland–Quinte West, Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington and London West.

The member from Northumberland–Quinte West talked about being proud to be a Liberal. I know a lot of people last weekend came up and said, “I used to be a Liberal.” They said, “I just can’t figure out how anybody today, after what’s happened, would feel good saying they voted Liberal.” That says something to what this government has done over the last number of years.

The member from London West has a great point: We’re talking about a bill that does not help the 13% of the people who need help, because they don’t have jobs. They won’t get any benefit from this, because they don’t have the money to put in. You should be targeting the people who need help, instead of a scattergun approach that only takes money out of people’s pockets.

When you’re looking at Bill 56, it’s really all about, how can this government get its hands on our money without people really knowing they’re doing it?

I tell people that you’re talking about collecting pension money and then having the government use it for infrastructure, and what are they going to pay you for a return? Are they going to pay the 9% that OPSEU was very proud about getting? I don’t think so.

My company had a defined contribution plan, and I think our pension did quite well. It’s something; it’s not like in the public service. It’s half of what my wife’s teacher’s pension plan will be—less than half—but it’s still a pension plan that’s there and it’s good enough, when I’ve added the other options I had voluntarily, to do something with.

But this plan is going to take the money and then in 30 or 40 years, when we have to start paying out, it will be all of a sudden, “Oh, my God, look at the debt that is in the pension plan”—another debt.

Anyway, thank you, Speaker. I think it’s something we should be cautious about.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d ask all members to join with me in welcoming students from the PC campus associations of Trent University and Ryerson University today. Rebecca Hubble, Corey Le Blanc, Phil Menecola, Jaskaran Malhi, Alexander Walsh, Zachary Cocek, Evan Kennedy and Callum Haney are with us here.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my pleasure to welcome and acknowledge the president of CUPE Ontario, Fred Hahn, and his assistant, Wynne Hartviksen, here in the gallery for today’s question period. Welcome. Enjoy.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome the family of Colin Bryan, who is a page captain today: his mother, Nicole Cooper; grandmother, Nancy Cooper; brother, Jack Bryan; and sister, Claire Bryan. They’re with us this morning to watch the proceedings.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to welcome the past president of the Ontario Dental Association, Dr. Rick Caldwell. Rick, if you wouldn’t mind standing up. He was the first star last night in the Ontario Legiskaters game against the ODA, the starting goaltender in an 8-6 win for the dentists, but we will get you next year, Rick.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: With thanks to my colleague from London–Fanshawe, who provided me with the names of folks who are here with the Parkinson Society today: Jared Zaifman, John Parkhurst and Stan Marshall, who are here today. I met them.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted: We have at least three Londoners in the gallery today. Councillor Jared Zaifman, who has recently been elected to city council, is here with the Parkinson Society; Dr. Peter Fendrich, a friend and a dentist in London; and Dr. Jack McLister, another constituent of mine and the incoming president of the Ontario Dental Association.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce Dr. Dave Jones, who’s here from Thames Centre today. He was an excellent dentist. He’s here to tell us about how we can improve dentistry throughout Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor–Tecumseh, as long as he doesn’t step on my introductions.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker; thank you. I’d like to introduce a friend of mine from the town of Tecumseh. Dr. Charles Frank is here today. Charles is a member of the Ontario Dental Association’s executive.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It is a pleasure for me to introduce, from the Parkinson Society of Ontario, one of my constituents, Mr. Lloyd Cohen, and also Mr. Alan Muir. I had the great pleasure of meeting them this morning.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce, in the gallery, Jack and Stella Pulkinghorn, who are the recipients of an MPP luncheon at Queen’s Park. We’re happy to have them here. Jack and Stella, please stand.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I hope everyone will join me in welcoming Dr. Kerr Banduk, a dentist from Kitchener–Waterloo, who’s here today with the Ontario Dental Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m pleased to welcome a friend of mine—whom the Speaker will introduce by title very shortly—making his first visit to Queen’s Park: Mr. Mauricio Toussaint.

I see, over in the west members’ gallery, two dentist friends of mine: Dr. Pravir Patel and Dr. Lisa Bentley. Welcome.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I think a lot of you know that my granddaughter, Madison Rynard, is a page here. But joining us today is her dad, Derek Rynard; his partner, Kristian Dunkin; and a business partner, Julian Stourton, who is here from Switzerland and doing business in Toronto.

Miss Monique Taylor: I have a very special guest today. She’s a student in my riding at St. Thomas More. I’d like to welcome Danielle Kydd.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to wish a happy birthday to someone very special who’s with us in the chamber today: my niece Alexandra Oakes, who also happens to be the Minister of Northern Development and Mines’ legislative assistant. Again, I’d like to wish her a happy birthday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Me?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes. Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’m sorry, Speaker.

I’d like to introduce Dr. Blake Clemes. He’s with the Ontario Dental Association, and he’s from my riding of Perth–Wellington.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My intention is to get everybody in, so if we do this quickly, we’ll take care of everyone’s introductions.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome Dr. Visconti, a dentist from Timmins.

Hon. Bill Mauro: A very special guest for me is here today in the east members’ gallery: My son Dustin Mauro is here visiting from Thunder Bay.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s my pleasure to welcome Dr. David Stevenson here to the gallery today. Of course, David is a fine dentist in Carleton Place and plays on the—he beat us last night in that hockey game. But he’s a great dentist anyway.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m glad to hear that the announcement is that the dentists didn’t have to do any work after the hockey game.

M me France Gélinas: I have three guests today. I’d like to introduce Ryan Tripp. He is previously from my riding, in Levack, but he now lives in Muskoka. He is with the Parkinson Society of Ontario. He’s actually an ambassador for the World Parkinson Congress coming up.

Debbie Davis is the CEO of the Parkinson Society. As well, A.B. Rustin is a board member with the Parkinson Society. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome to the gallery today a wonderful dentist in my riding, Dr. Waji Khan. Welcome.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to introduce my co-op student from Thornlea high school, Alex Dover—Alex, give us a little wave—and two interns from CJPAC, Willem Hart from my riding, and his friend Andrew Vittas. Nice to see you.

Today I’m expecting some dentists as well. From my executive, I have Dr. Bruce Rubin, and then there’s his colleague Dr. Homa Jammehdiabadi, and Mr. Tom Magyarody.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m also pleased to welcome my own dentist, Dr. Steve Lipinski, and, as well, Dr. Larry Tenaschuk, who are here in the east members’ gallery.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, please join me in welcoming Dr. Lisa Bentley from the Ontario Dental Association.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to introduce Dr. David Brown, an orthodontist from Newmarket, in my riding, here today with the ODA.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to welcome to the Ontario Legislature a long-time friend of mine and a heck of a ball player, Dr. Art Worth from Chatham-Kent. He’s also a former president of the ODA.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to introduce Dr. Pravir Patel, who’s from my riding of Brampton–Springdale.

Ms. Soo Wong: I have a couple of guests I want to introduce. First, on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade: The page captain today is Jae Min Han. His parents are here today: Heather Kang and Matthew Han. They’re in the public gallery. I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park, as well as Dr. Raffy Chouljian, who is my constituent in Scarborough–Agincourt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: It’s my pleasure to welcome and acknowledge two dentists with the Ontario Dental Association, from Halton and Oakville. Here today, as you heard earlier, is Dr. Larry Tenaschuk, and also Dr. Kelvin Fung. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to welcome Dr. Roger Howard, who is in the members’ gallery. He’s a dentist from my riding of Ottawa South.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I also want to recognize my good friend Fred Hahn, who’s here in the gallery from CUPE Ontario. I’ve never seen Fred wear a tie before; I never knew he could pass for a banker, ever. And also, Wynne Hartviksen: Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome one of my local dentists, Dr. Sara Werb, to Queen’s Park. She’s a member of the Ontario Dental Association.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to welcome Dr. Ivan Hrabowsky from the city of St. Catharines—a long-time dentist and a proud member of the ODA.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We could actually do this instead of question period, if you want.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That wasn’t a unanimous consent.

We have with us today, in the Speaker’s gallery, the Consul General of Mexico in Toronto, Mr. Mauricio Toussaint. We welcome you to your posting. Thank you for being here with us.

Oral Questions

Home care

Ms. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Premier. Premier, approximately 350,000 people over the age of 65 are currently receiving home care services in Ontario, which of course keeps them out of hospital. Health care providers, stakeholders and, most importantly, patients and their families, however, have told you that our home care system is broken. As it stands, home care services in Ontario are inadequate and inconsistent at best, and with an aging population and your fiscal mismanagement, nobody believes that the system will be equipped to handle future need.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to comment on specifics, but I want to just say to the member opposite, as I have said many times in this House, that we are in a transition period. There’s no doubt about that. The way health care has been delivered in the past—in the face of an aging demographic and different demands from people in terms of the kind of care they want and where they want it, there have to be changes made.

One of the reasons that we put money in last year’s budget to increase the wages of personal support workers was exactly the reason the member opposite is talking about: We need a more stable sector. We need that part of the health care workforce to have more reliable income and to have enough hours and enough stability in their job to be able to do the job.

I will note that the member opposite never supported any of those initiatives, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Elliott: Premier, the fact of the matter is, our population is aging rapidly. Your lead expert, Gail Donner, the former dean of nursing at the University of Toronto, said in her recent report Bringing Care Home, “Everyone ... is frustrated with a system that fails to meet the needs of clients and families ... no one thinks the status quo is an option.”

This frustration is being felt by the 75-year-old who cannot get a personal support worker following a hip replacement. This frustration is felt by a daughter trying to get physiotherapy for her father who recently suffered a stroke. This frustration is being felt by the thousands of people who cannot get the home care services that they need because of your inaction and the web of bureaucracy that your government has created. Premier, why do you continue to fail these families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, again, let me just say that one of the reasons we put money into the budget last year to increase personal support worker salaries and one of the reasons we put $270 million more into the budget for home care is because we know that we’re in a transition and we need to make those changes. So we will continue to make changes.

I would note that the member opposite, who is in the middle of a leadership race, has said that she will cut a billion dollars out of the budget. That means public services would have to be cut. That means health care costs would have to go down, Mr. Speaker. I just think the member needs to recognize that she can’t have it both ways.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I would appreciate quiet when a question is put and quiet when an answer is put.

Wrap up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to say, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t, on the one hand, say there needs to be more change and more investment and, on the other hand, say you’re going to make a tax cut that will take a billion dollars out of the system.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe North will come to order, and the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Christine Elliott: Speaker, I would appreciate if the Premier would stop trying to put words in my mouth that I never said.

However, the Premier’s own expert panel has highlighted that the two biggest issues with our home care system are excessive bureaucracy and a lack of accountability for system outcomes. Premier, this is nothing new. You’ve heard this for years and years from experts, stakeholders and, most importantly, from patients and their families, yet you continue to ignore the obvious.

Premier, the PC caucus has so far given you two ideas that you could put into a responsible budget. Our third ask is quite simple: Will you follow the recommendations of the Donner report, which you have endorsed? Will you make the functional changes to our system that we need in order to improve patient care? Will you tie funding to the community care access centres so that we can have improved outcomes and patient results? Will you do that, Premier?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are doing all of those things. We are increasing our investments in home and community care: $270 million this year and approximately the same amount next year in addition and the third year as well. That’s precisely why we had Gail Donner and a team of experts come together. They presented their report to me at the end of January.

We have endorsed their recommendations. I have endorsed their recommendations on behalf of the government and indicated that it will guide our decisions moving forward. I’m working hard with the ministry right now as we speak to actually put the changes in place which will further strengthen the home and community care that we provide to all Ontarians, including our seniors.

But we’ve done many other things in the past several years. We’ve increased our investments in physiotherapy, where 200,000 more seniors are getting physiotherapy or exercise services. We’re increasing investments through a whole variety of areas to actually make sure that seniors—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Two weeks ago, Minister, I raised the issue of debt at the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp. The OEFC has $27 billion in outstanding debt largely paid for by Hydro One revenue—revenue that will be lost if you sell Hydro One.

But Minister, there’s a larger problem here than just a loss of revenue. The entire value of Hydro One is already mortgaged to the OEFC. All $16 billion of Hydro One’s value has already been claimed by the OEFC to pay down its debt. That’s why the law requires that all sale proceeds from any share of Hydro One must go to pay down the electricity debt.

Minister, how can you sell any part of Hydro One given that it is already fully mortgaged?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The reason that Ontarians are still paying for stranded debt is because of the mess that the PC government put us in. We have been open and transparent in getting—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been very open and transparent about getting it reduced. As a result we have been reducing the stranded debt—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m prepared to get my exercise.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Please finish.

Hon. Charles Sousa: As a result of the work that Ontarians have been doing in getting it reduced, and as we have said and as we have outlined every year in our fall economic statement and in our budget, we’ve detailed how that’s being done. We have committed by the end of this year to remove the residual stranded debt fees paid by residential users by the end of this year, and so we’ll continue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Minister of Energy or whatever minister wants to start telling the truth over there—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Carry on, please.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again, to the Minister of Energy: When you sell your house and it’s mortgaged to the bank, you can’t pocket the sale price and refuse to pay off the mortgage. If you did that, you’d be charged with fraud. Any profit from a sale of Hydro One has already been mortgaged. That profit is owed to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp.—Hydro One’s banker.

Minister, your government keeps talking about unlocking the value of government assets—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Like the 407.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Will you finally admit that all of the value in Hydro One, the biggest asset you plan on putting on the auction block, is completely mortgaged already to the OEFC? It’s already spoken for, Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the leftover of Ontario Hydro is OEFC. What did the PCs leave OEFC? Debt. That’s all that has been left over.

As a result, we have been taking steps to remove that debt from the ratepayer. In fact, the approach has been working. Last year, there was about $1.5 billion in further reduction of stranded debt. This is the 10th consecutive year that stranded debt has been reduced—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: And over the last number of years, it has gone down by $10.8 billion. But Mr. Speaker, the reason stranded debt had even gone up and the residual portion of stranded debt went up is because they themselves artificially froze the rates because they went up by 30%, which caused the residual stranded debt to go up even higher. We’re taking corrective action to make sure that it gets removed from the system.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: You need a real good briefing on the history of hydro in this province because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

There was $38 billion. The reason I broke up hydro is that it had $38 billion in debt, Minister, and we couldn’t continue to go that way. We got that debt down to a residual stranded debt of $7.8 billion.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: I don’t know how in the world you guys, over 12 years, brought it back up to $27 billion, but I’m bloody well going to find out one of these days. We’ve asked the auditor to look into that, and we’re going to find out. I suspect a lot of it is your high-priced windmills and your Green Energy Act, which is driving jobs out of the province and prices up.

So, Minister, will you finally tell—be honest with the people of Ontario: What are you going to do with the $27 billion in debt? Are you going to leave it for the ratepayers and taxpayers of the future to pay for? That will mean skyrocketing hydro rates again—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact and I am glad that the member opposite has admitted that he left such a substantial debt at the OEFC as a result of the mess that they put forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Sarnia–Lambton will come to order. I’m going to fast-track the names that I take.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Including anyone interjecting while I’m speaking.

Please finish.

Hon. Charles Sousa: During those days, when the economy was actually prospering, not only they did they try and mess up the hydro deal—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order—second time.

Hon. Charles Sousa: —they messed up the sale of the 407 and still left a deficit of $5.6 billion in our coffers, which we had to correct since going forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. In 2003, when the Premier first won her seat, her leader, Dalton McGuinty, took a progressive stand, calling the sale of Hydro One “a disaster for consumers.” More than a decade later, the Liberals have made a sharp turn to the right. Now they’re the ones planning to privatize Hydro One.

My question is: Who is the right-wing ideologue in the Liberal cabinet that is pushing to privatize Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just remind the leader of the third party first of all of the reason that we undertook a review of the assets. The sole reason that we wanted to do that is that we knew that investing in new assets, investing in new infrastructure—transit, roads, bridges—around the province is necessary in order for our economy to thrive.

I would say secondly that the leader of the third party took a look at what we said we were going to do and then ran on it, because part of her fiscal assumptions, part of her investment assumptions in her platform were exactly the assumptions that were in our budget and our platform.

I would say to the leader of the third party, we are now executing that review because we know that making the investments that we committed to is necessary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The decision to privatize Hydro One marks a hard right turn. The Premier has made a right turn that is so hard, she’s now got her back to Ontarians.

The Premier must know deep down that privatizing Hydro One is a short-sighted—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. It goes both ways.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: However, after more than 10 years of taking the progressive position that Hydro One should remain in public hands, the Liberals have decided it’s time for them to privatize even more of our hydro system than Mike Harris and Ernie Eves managed to.

Will the Premier tell Ontarians what’s behind her sharp right turn towards privatization?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I completely understand why the leader of the third party would want to get into an ideological debate right now, because it’s necessary for her to reposition herself as a progressive. She lost that brand completely when she decided not to support a budget that was going to invest in the people and the infrastructure of this province.

Having not governed ideologically, I have never suggested that ideology or polling is the way that I would govern. I made practical decisions, and we put those into our budget and we put those into our platform. At this point, what I will say to the leader of the third party is that we’re sticking to those decisions that we made. We’re sticking to those practical solutions to the problems that are confronting us as an economy and as a province right now.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier has insisted over and over again that she is leading the most progressive government since the dawn of humanity, yet she is turning harder right than Ernie Eves and Mike Harris. Even Ernie Eves backed off the plan to sell off Hydro One.

Can the Premier square that circle for us today? Can she explain how going further right than Ernie Eves and Mike Harris is possibly in any way progressive and what she claims to be a progressive direction that the Liberals are supposed to have taken?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the leader of the third party that she is a member of this Legislature, along with her caucus, who didn’t support a minimum wage hike, who didn’t support our pension plan, who in fact, as recently as the last couple of days, can’t actually decide whether she supports fighting climate change or not.

I would say to the leader of the third party, if you want to look at practical solutions, that’s great. But if you want to have a conversation about ideology, you’re going to be on the losing end of that every time.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. You know, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ontarians are getting déjà vu all over again. Their government has made a right-wing decision to sell Hydro One. They were never consulted about that decision and they were never asked whether they wanted higher hydro bills and the loss of a very strategic asset that belongs to them. Now, according to CUPE and some legal experts, the Premier’s plan might not even be legal. It is 2002 all over again.

How did the Premier lose her way?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to the leader of the third party that I understand why she’s trying to find her way, because the initiatives that we’ve taken on this side of the House to invest in infrastructure, to put in place a retirement pension plan, to move on climate change—I know that waffling on those and not having a position on those has been very painful for her.

What I will say to her is that we ran on the necessity to review the assets of this province, to ensure that we can invest in new assets. We are taking a practical approach to that. Ed Clark is bringing out the details shortly. He will be talking about how we can approach these things in a way that will preserve the interests of the people of Ontario, that will preserve ownership and will preserve the interests in terms of regulatory and price control.

The leader of the third party hasn’t seen those details. We’ll wait until the details are out, and then she can comment.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I think it’s important to talk to Ontarians for a minute. The Liberal government—the Premier—is planning to sell off your Hydro One. It’s going to mean that your electricity bills are going to go up.

It’s very possible, according to legal experts, that in fact her plan is not even legal here in the province of Ontario. Once we privatize Hydro One—let’s not forget—there are no do-overs; there are no mulligans. That is going to be a situation that we can never take back. Hydro One—your Hydro One—will be gone forever. It’s a bad deal for every single Ontarian.

Can the Premier tell the people of Ontario how it is that she is going to be ramming this bad deal down the throats of Ontarians without even once asking them what they think about this idea?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, the leader of the third party has absolutely no idea what we are going to do. She has no details, because those announcements have not been made. Ed Clark and his group of experts are going to be bringing forward a report, and we will, at that point, have that discussion.

But I will say to the member opposite—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m hearing a familiar voice that I can’t quite see, and I know that if I could find him, he would know that I would tell him to come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll say to the member opposite that she has put forward no plan to make the investments that we know are necessary in this province. She has come forward with no practical solutions to the infrastructure deficit that we’re facing. She has no plan for how we can build the roads and the bridges and the infrastructure and the transit that we need in this province if our economy is going to thrive—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier was first elected on a plan to keep Hydro One in public hands. She knows that selling Hydro One will mean a disaster for consumers. She knows this fundamentally. She knows that what she is doing might not even be legal. She knows that it’s a short-term decision that will have long-term aftershocks for people and businesses across Ontario, not only soon but for generations to come.

Worst of all, the Premier has never asked Ontarians, not once, what they think about this plan, and now she’s treating it like it’s a done deal.

Will the Premier shut down the right-wing ideologues who are driving this and do the right thing for Ontarians?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I do not believe—nor does anyone who has looked at the economy of Ontario, nor do people who are looking to invest in Ontario—unless we invest in infrastructure in this province, that we will be able to compete in the 21st century. We’re just not going to be able to. And so in our platform when we ran, we said that we are going to look at the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario and we are going to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Maybe I should stay standing all the time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are going to ask people with experience to look at those assets and to work with us, to optimize the value of those assets, so that we can invest in the infrastructure and the assets that are needed for the 21st century.

What we’re not going to do is sell off, the way the 407 was sold off, so that there would be no future return—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound is warned.

Your time is up. New question.

Energy policies

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, I have a question to the Premier: Premier, just 10 months ago, you told Ontarians very clearly that a carbon tax wasn’t in your plan. Then, just this week, you introduced a carbon pricing scheme that you yourself admitted was a tax on everything. Now Ontario’s independent petroleum marketers are sounding the alarm bell that the impact of your carbon tax will actually drive up prices at the pump much higher than you’ve claimed.

You clearly know the impact of your scheme, but you’ve told Ontarians they must wait another six months for the details.

Premier, why do you think that Ontarians don’t deserve to have the truth about your job-killing carbon tax today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I wish that more members of this Legislature had had the opportunity to be with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and I in Quebec over the last couple of days, because had they been there, they would have heard leaders from across this country, from every province—with the exception of Alberta and PEI, because they’re in elections—from all party stripes, saying that it is critical that we move now, Mr. Speaker. It is important that we move to do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And it’s critical not for political reasons, not for partisan reasons; it’s for the future of the planet, it’s for the future of our children and our grandchildren, to make sure that we have a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment going forward. That’s what this is about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Premier: Premier, you know it’s not about the environment. It’s really about the money.

No one believes you anymore, Premier. You say a carbon tax is not in your plan, then we find out it is. You’ve rolled out the bait and switch that the tax will be reinvested in transit, when other reports indicate that you’ve not determined whether it will actually flow into general revenues.

Premier, you can’t tell us where the money is going because you’re making it up as you go. You can’t tell us the cost because you have no idea of the cost—to motorists, to industry, to consumers. You just know that after driving us into debt, this is your ticket to raise revenue—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I need to hear it as much as I need to hear the answer.

Please finish.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’ll repeat that line just so you do get to hear it: You just know that after driving us into debt, this is your ticket to raise revenue on the backs of hard-working Ontarians.

Premier, will you do the right thing today and provide Ontarians with the details on how much the job-killing carbon tax is going to cost those hard-working Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Actually, we’re now into a six-month design process, so we’re looking for input from the members opposite, and we have lots of experience to go on. This will be a very democratic and fair process.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I’m perplexed that a member of the official opposition would be asking such a question, because this isn’t the first—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, I’ve been hearing things I’m not appreciating, so the member from Lanark will come to order.

The member for Kitchener–Conestoga: The question was asked. Listen to the answer.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: So not only is this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to tolerate responses.

Interjection: Sounds like a warning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.

Interjections.

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

This is precisely the reason why I get emails asking me why we can’t get control here.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s you, not me.

Any member has an opportunity to withdraw at any time.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Speaker, I withdraw.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully I can give my answer, because I think the member deserves an answer on this.

We’re a little perplexed, because this isn’t the first cap-and-trade system in Ontario; this is the third. We have cap and trade on NO x . We have cap and trade on SO x . And what party introduced those? It was brought over there. So there’s the cap-and-trade party, Mr. Speaker. Quebec, Alberta—it’s amazing. And they don’t read, because if—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sit.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Today, legal experts came to Queen’s Park and told Ontarians that the Liberal plan to privatize Hydro One probably isn’t legal. Public sector workers who believe in public ownership have made it clear they are going to fight the Liberals in court on this.

Can the Premier tell Ontarians whether she is planning to wage a long, expensive legal battle with public money, or is she going to change the laws of the land just so she can privatize Hydro One, leaving Ontarians with higher bills?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: On behalf of the people of Ontario, the government is Hydro One’s sole shareholder. As with a shareholder, the province has a right to broaden the ownership of Hydro One.

Following the lower court decision in 2002, the government passed legislation that amended the Electricity Act that clarified its position. The Electricity Act, 1998, was amended to repeal

section 48.1 and replace it with

section 49.(1), which authorizes the minister to “acquire, hold, dispose of and otherwise deal with securities or debt obligations of, or any ... interest in, Hydro One” or on its subsidiaries.

So finding ways to generate revenue to help Ontario invest in its long-term infrastructure needs is badly needed for highways, transit, projects like the Ring of Fire, and other things that we must replace. This is an opportunity to realize on the true potential of Hydro One, to reinvest those assets where necessary. We’re doing it legally and—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: I want to read something from the legal opinion released today: Experts say, “[T]here are ... grounds to challenge a decision by the Minister of Energy to sell securities, debt or any provincial interest in Hydro One as being an unreasonable or irrational exercise of the minister’s discretion under the” act.

According to these experts, selling 60% of Hydro One’s distribution assets would actually reduce the province’s income by $133 million per year.

The Premier’s plan is irrational. It’s bad for families and businesses. It’s bad for economic growth. It’s bad for energy conservation and a green economy. It will actually mean less money for investments in hospitals, schools and roads.

Will the Premier pull the plug on this unreasonable and irrational plan?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: This particular issue has been raised over the course of the last day or so, and in every single case, the so-called legal opinion has said “may” or “might be illegal.”

The critic on the other side talks about the plan that we have. Mr. Speaker, there is no plan that’s been put out there. We have a concept we’ve been working on. There is no particular plan. There are no details upon which any lawyer can make an opinion based on not having seen what we’re going to be doing.

We’re broadening the ownership in Hydro One. We’re limiting other shareholders to less than 10% if we go forward with any deal. The ratepayer will be protected; the taxpayers of Ontario will be protected. It will be done legally, properly, on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Automotive industry

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Toyota has been a great partner and contributor to Ontario’s economy since first opening here almost 30 years ago. Since that time, they have invested almost $7 billion, creating thousands of jobs. To remind the House, Cambridge is home to the only Lexus plant outside of Japan, a testament to the quality of Ontario’s auto manufacturing sector. Toyota has been a staple of my community in Cambridge for almost 30 years. Not only Cambridge’s largest employer, Toyota has given much back to my community.

Just as recently as 2012, Toyota announced that it was investing over $100 million to increase Lexus RX capacity at its Cambridge assembly plant.

Through you, Speaker, would the minister please update the House on the announcement that Toyota just made today?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for the question. This is indeed good news today for Cambridge, good news for Ontario’s auto sector. Once again, we have an auto sector partner that is going to be making some very significant investments here in Ontario. We’ve been assured with today’s announcement that, in fact, the worker footprint in Cambridge and Woodstock and in Ontario will remain totally intact.

We’ve also received assurances that, indeed, further investments are going to be made in those plants to ramp them up—this is the good news—so that they will, by 2019, be able to manufacture some higher-end vehicles in those plants. That is better value for manufacturing here in Ontario. What it speaks to is the fact that we have some of the best-quality workers and some of the best-quality plants here in Ontario. That’s why Ontario is being used—

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

Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to thank the minister for that update. Toyota’s Ontario plants have won 12 J.D. Power quality awards, including the 2014 platinum award for the highest quality among assembly plants worldwide. Toyota’s Cambridge facility has received more awards than any other assembly plant in the world. I am extremely proud of the work that’s being done in my community, and I know that the employees at Toyota take a lot of pride in their work.

As I understand it, Toyota is not the only Ontario auto manufacturer that has made recent announcements. Through you, Speaker, would the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure please inform the House of new developments in Ontario’s auto sector?

Hon.

Brad Duguid: While we recognize that the environment for auto investments remains very competitive, since November we’ve seen $4 billion of investment right across the province: from Alliston, where we saw an $857-million investment from Honda; to Linamar in Guelph, where we saw a half-billion-dollar investment by Linamar; to Markham, where they’re building the sexiest car in North America, the Ford GT, which is an incredibly innovative car that they’re now building in Markham; to a $2-billion investment in Windsor by Chrysler, which is great news; and, indeed, this announcement by Toyota that they’re going to continue to invest in Ontario and build even higher-end vehicles here in this province.

It’s great news for the auto sector.

We still have lots of work to do. We’re going to work tirelessly to keep building this sector in this province.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Premier. Millions of Ontarians with workplace pension plans are facing uncertainty. You have created this uncertainty. By ignoring the concerns of the deputations at committee, people are left with no answers. Ontarians don’t know who will be forced into your plan and who will be exempt. People need to know; businesses need to know. It is time that you treat Ontarians with the respect that they deserve and stop running from the details. Premier, the question: Who is in and who is out?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for this question. It is an extremely important question that we’re asking ourselves about the future of this province and how people are going to be able to afford their retirement.

I have visited 10 communities across this province, talking to people in round tables and in stakeholder forums. What people are telling us is that they are concerned about their retirement. Two thirds of workers in Ontario do not have a pension plan. When we look at the private sector, it’s at 28%.

I want to actually thank the efforts of the committee for their work in looking at the framework legislation in Bill 56, which sets out the government’s commitment to implementing the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan by January 2017. This is about the future of this province. This is about people affording their retirement in a 21st-century economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Ontarians need a mutually acceptable definition of “comparable,” a definition to provide certainty. They need to know how your legislation will affect their future. Your refusal to consider amendments to your proposal contributes to the uncertainty. Without concise, transparent details, Ontarians fear the consequences of this legislation.

Ontarians want to know what pension plans you consider good enough to be exempt from the Ontario registered pension plan. When are Ontarians going to have the confidence that their defined contribution workplace pension plans will be safe?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: In fact, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan is about providing more certainty for the retirement futures of the people of this province. This is about ensuring that when people retire, they have adequate income for life and that they can continue to spend and consume in their communities that rely so much on retirement and pension income.

The member opposite knows full well that we actually accepted an amendment from your party for Bill 56, so we are working on the details of this plan. The ministry officials are reviewing all of the submissions that have come in through our consultation process, which has gone right across this province, asking the people of Ontario.

You’re absolutely right: It is about assuring people that when they retire, they can retire with security and with dignity. That’s what the ORPP is all about.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Catherine Fife: To the Premier: Yesterday, the Liberal finance minister was asked about whether he’d release the full Clark report, but he wouldn’t give a simple answer, let alone a sophisticated answer, to this important question.

Will the Premier commit to making all of Ed Clark’s recommendations public?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: The Premier’s hard turn to the right and her plan to privatize hydro makes it clear that she doesn’t care about good—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please put your supplementary.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much.

Again to the Premier: The Premier’s hard turn to the right and her plan to privatize hydro makes it clear that she doesn’t care about good or fair policy or even what’s in the best interests of the people of this province. She only cares about putting politics first and the short-term interests of the Liberal Party.

It’s clear that the Liberals don’t want to take any responsibility for the privatization of Hydro One or public utilities.

We’re hearing that the Clark report might come out on Thursday. We hear that we might hear everything, but you can’t blame the people of this province for having doubts. In last year’s budget, they snuck in cuts to hospitals and education.

Will the Premier promise in this House that all of Ed Clark’s recommendations will be released for full public scrutiny in a single report tomorrow?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My answer is yes, again, that all of the recommendations will be made public.

But I just want to go back to the genesis of this whole conversation. What this is about is making sure that we have the capacity to invest in the infrastructure that is needed in this province. That’s the starting point for this discussion.

I know, and I think the member opposite knows—she lives in a part of this province that needs more transit. She knows that in her region, there needs to be more connectivity to Toronto. She knows that the businesses and the innovators in the Kitchener-Waterloo region want to be able to move back and forth from Toronto. She knows that in order for that to happen, there has to be more investment in public transit.

That’s what this is about. That’s the solution that we’re looking for. The report’s recommendations will be made public.

Poverty

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Mr. Speaker, poverty is an issue of concern for many in the province, including the residents in my riding of Halton. In fact, it’s estimated that one in 10 people are affected by poverty in my riding. Groups like Poverty Free Halton, Community Development Halton and the Halton Poverty Roundtable are working hard to address local poverty issues through a series of initiatives, including building social awareness and calling for increased engagement from the local business community. But more can always be done. That’s why I’m proud that our government launched Ontario’s second Poverty Reduction Strategy in September.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what is our government doing to ensure that we build on local solutions to reach people battling poverty?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the fantastic member from Halton for this question.

Reducing poverty has been an important priority for this government since our election in 2003. We are making a real difference in the lives of people, but we know that we are just beginning this journey. There is much more work ahead of us.

We also know that fighting poverty is not just a top-down initiative. I’ve always said that we need all hands on deck. We need all levels of government. We need community organizations. We need the business community and the non-profit sector. All of us need to work together to really make a difference.

I also know that poverty looks different in different parts of this great province. That’s why we’ve announced the launch of the Local Poverty Reduction Fund: $50 million over six years to support grassroots partners as they help lift people out of poverty. It will fund innovative programs that target groups disproportionately affected by poverty.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

My constituents in Halton will be happy to know that the government is partnering with different communities to combat poverty. Local organizations have taken innovative steps to educate residents and leverage community assets to maximize poverty reduction strategies. The Halton Sport Leadership Program, for example, is a program that empowers young people facing economic hardships and teaches the skills required to enter the job market. By working with organizations like these, we can help people become healthier and ready for employment.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: How can organizations apply for the Local Poverty Reduction Fund?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Last week, with the MPP from Northumberland–Quinte West, we launched the first part of a two-stage application process for the Local Poverty Reduction Fund. Right now, we’re inviting organizations to submit an expression of interest for a sustainable poverty reduction project that they’re interested in evaluating. In May, there will be a formal call for proposals to determine the first round of community organizations to access the fund.

A wide variety of groups are eligible to apply: not-for-profit organizations, registered charities and aboriginal communities. Fostering collaborative partnerships across Ontario and building a body of evidence to guide future decisions are invaluable in our collective poverty reduction efforts and a key component of the Poverty Reduction Strategy. I especially look forward to seeing what comes out of the great community of Halton, who are real leaders in this.

Alcohol legislation

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is to the Minister of Finance. Back on February 26, the House passed my bill, the Raise a Glass to Ontario Act, at second reading, with support from the government and the official opposition members. However, when the bill could have been given hearings at committee so that some of Ontario’s great small businesses like our craft breweries, our cideries and our wineries could be given a chance to comment on the reforms they want to see in the beverage alcohol sector, the government blocked it.

Minister, once the standing committee is done dealing with Bill 40, will you commit to giving hearings to the Raise a Glass to Ontario Act so that we can have a public discussion here in the Legislature where it belongs and not just in Ed Clark’s office?

Hon. Charles Sousa: To the House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I find that question really odd because I think the member opposite knows, and I’m sure his House leader will remind him, that these are issues that are discussed either in committee or among the House leaders. If his House leader wants to talk about this particular issue, I’m sure he knows where to find me as the government House leader, and we can have that conversation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Minister, I’m not asking to pass the bill; what I’m asking for is that any reform to the beverage alcohol sector actually receive separate debate from the massive government omnibus bill that is on its way. Hundreds of Ontario small businesses in the craft beer, wine and spirit sector depend on these reforms to show both how they can sell their product and remove red tape from the procedure, especially in areas like transportation and warehousing.

What I’m asking is: Will you commit to giving my bill committee hearings so that these businesses can actually speak their piece to MPPs in committee, or will you continue to keep this process secret and wait for the next edict to come down in Ed Clark’s report?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Clearly, Speaker, I think if anybody is not being kept in the loop, it’s the member opposite by his own House leader. Maybe they want to have a change.

Speaker, in all seriousness, we know that changes need to be made in the beer sector in the province of Ontario. The Minister of Finance has spoken to it many times. We also know that Mr. Clark is looking into that issue, and he will be releasing his report shortly. I encourage all members to wait for the results of the recommendations that will come out of Mr. Clark’s report. Of course, the Minister of Finance will be speaking to it as well next Thursday in his budget. That will allow for us to have sufficient conversation on this very important topic. We look forward to Mr. Clark’s report.

Environmental protection

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. The province of Ontario has vital interests on Toronto’s waterfront. Our stake in Waterfront Toronto is worth more than a billion dollars, and we’re investing millions in a new urban park at Ontario Place. The province also has an interest in protecting the ecological health of Lake Ontario.

Ports Toronto recently revealed plans for Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport that would allow large jets and a massive expansion of the airport infrastructure and operations. Torontonians are extremely concerned about the impact of these proposed plans on the city’s waterfront revitalization, Ontario Place and Lake Ontario.

These plans are proceeding based on a pseudo-“environmental” assessment that has no legal recognition under the federal or the provincial environmental assessment acts. Will the government protect provincial interests on Toronto’s waterfront and insist on a proper, legal environmental assessment?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m very pleased to get the question from the member opposite, and I appreciate her sincere concern.

The city of Toronto is the authority responsible for this and for zoning and for the waterfront. Having been a mayor, I have always been very happy when provincial governments did not try to second-guess my role or that of my city council, and we’re not about to do that. We’ll allow the proper environmental assessment process to go through. We’ll look to the city council for proper stewardship, because we trust that Mayor Tory and his council have this well in hand.

As a party to the Waterfront Toronto agreement, we will continue to support the waterfront plan that we signed with the other two orders of government, which this government is very important to.

We’re also happy and pleased with the over $500 million that we have invested, the investments we made in George Brown and in the waterfront parks that we’re making right now, that my colleagues are making. We will continue to make those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the Minister of the Environment: In fact, progressive councillors are looking to you for action, Mr. Minister.

Also, of course, he knows that airports fall under federal jurisdiction, but that does not justify silence from the provincial government, not when Ontario’s interests are threatened. That’s what we’re talking about, Mr. Speaker: Ontario’s interests. In fact, under

section 32 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the provincial government may substitute a provincial EA process to ensure that provincial interests are properly addressed.

Prominent Torontonians—Paul Bedford, David Crombie, Jack Diamond, Anne Golden and Ken Greenberg—as well as