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

October 27, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-27 (PDF)

L112 - Tue 27 Oct 2015 / Mar 27 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 27 October 2015 Mardi 27 octobre 2015

Orders of the Day

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Education funding

Flu immunization

Teachers’ collective bargaining

GO Transit

Citizens’ awards

Taxation

Youth employment

Great Lakes protection

Human trafficking

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour renforcer la protection des consommateurs et la surveillance du réseau d’électricité

Time allocation

Members’ Statements

Mothers and Others March

Ian Bos

Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd.

Multiple sclerosis

Steel industry

Manufacturing Month

Southampton Hospital

Multiple sclerosis

Evan Leversage

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Ministry of Correctional Services Amendment Act (Parole), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels (libérations conditionnelles)

Opportunity in the Sharing Economy Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les possibilités offertes par l’économie de partage

Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Plan d’action contre la violence et le harcèlement sexuels (en soutien aux survivants et en opposition à la violence et au harcèlement sexuels)

Precision Pipe Manufacturing Inc. Act, 2015

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (Permanent Partial Disability Supplements), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (supplément pour invalidité partielle à caractère permanent)

Conservation Land Fairness Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’équité en matière de terres protégées

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Lyme disease

Hydro rates

Diagnostic services

Water fluoridation

Hunting

Police

Lung health

Taxation

Privatisation des biens publics

Lung health

Orders of the Day

Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la réforme des vérifications de dossiers de police

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Adjournment Debate

Youth employment

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 22, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to enact the Representation Act, 2015, repeal the Representation Act, 2005 and amend the Election Act, the Election Finances Act and the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 115, Loi édictant la Loi de 2015 sur la représentation électorale, abrogeant la Loi de 2005 sur la représentation électorale et modifiant la Loi électorale, la

Loi sur le financement des élections et la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The lead was stood down, so I’ll be doing my lead this morning.

I am honoured to do my lead on this bill, Bill 115, which deals with electoral boundaries. First and foremost, I think it’s important to note that the bill is an important bill. It addresses the fact that there has been a significant increase in population. Many areas in our province, many ridings, have a population that’s far beyond what the provincial average for a riding was intended to be. As a result, I know there are some members in the House now that have some of the largest ridings not only in Ontario but, actually, in the country. Particularly in my region, the Peel region, we have a number of ridings which are amongst the largest in the country.

The recent federal election allowed for new boundaries which made the average population closer to the provincial average and, in addition, the federal average. We know that roughly 100,000 people is what is intended to be the average. In my riding, I represent close to 220,000. Other ridings in Brampton—Brampton West is one of the largest in the entire country at 240,000 people. These ridings are significantly large, and being so large, it makes it difficult to be able to reach out to all these individuals.

More importantly, for a representational democracy, there are people that are not having a proportional voice in the Legislature. That is an important point. If we respect the idea that in a representational democracy individuals are able to vote for someone to represent them, to be their voice in Parliament, and the population is not accurately or proportionately represented, people are losing their voice in Parliament. So it’s important that this change has been brought forward. In effect, in my riding, with 220,000 people, there should be two members representing those voices, to make sure their voices are proportionally heard here.

In addition, the budget that we have that allows us to communicate with our ridings, with the people that live in our ridings, to provide them with updates on what’s going on, to provide the services and to communicate with them, was designed to reach out to those approximate 100,000 people. In ridings where the population far, far exceeds that, our resources are tapped, and it makes it quite difficult to be able to reach out to everyone to provide the necessary updates and information.

So one of the issues that I’d like to bring up in this debate is that until this change takes place—this change that recognizes that certain ridings are far too large—the government should implement some measure to allow for members who have a large riding. I know that there is a member in the Ottawa region who also has this issue and raised this issue and championed it, so I am honoured that she raised that issue.

But it’s important that we have, perhaps in the interim, some funding allocated (1) to address the fact that there are ridings that are quite large and (2) to be able to provide those ridings with an increased budget to be able to communicate with and serve their riding appropriately until the changes take place. That’s an issue that I’d like to raise.

If we look at the breakdown in terms of where the riding boundaries have been changed, most significant changes are in the GTA. There are significant changes also in other urban centres across the province. In the GTA, we’ve increased the number of seats, particularly in the suburbs, and it’s important that we are representing our populations and providing them with representation through increased members.

While on one side, we’re doing a lot of good work now in terms of representation based on population, this debate allows for an opportunity to talk about other areas where we need to improve representation. While we are certainly moving towards better representation by population, though this bill doesn’t purport to do it, I think it’s important to start talking about what we can do as a Legislature to increase representation in other demographics, beyond just population.

There are a couple of areas that are important for us to address. One area is the fact that we are failing in this province, in this country and certainly in the entire world when it comes to proportional representation of women not only in positions of power in politics but in positions of power broadly speaking.

Let’s talk about politics specifically. It’s a tremendous honour that we have been moving in the direction where there has been increased representation by women, but it’s something that we’re certainly failing at, and it’s certainly a major problem. It does not do justice to our democracy when we are so far behind in representation when it comes to women in politics. I think we need to start implementing strategies around how we increase that and what the government can do to increase that.

There are a couple of strategies that have been discussed before, and one of those strategies—we can break those strategies down into two loose topics or subdivisions. One is supporting organizations that are already doing a lot of work in this area: non-government organizations which are encouraging women to get into politics.

I want to give credit to the member from Parkdale–High Park, who implemented a program, Girls in Government—an excellent program. One of the most important things to get into politics, or to get into any field, is that if you are exposed to that field, you’re more likely to consider it as an option. The first thing that this program that the member from Parkdale–High Park initiated does is that it provides an opportunity for young women in high school to be exposed to politics, to be exposed to the Legislative Assembly in Ontario or to go to the House of Commons in Ottawa just to see what politics is all about.

The second thing that this program does, which is absolutely essential, is that it provides an opportunity for young women to meet other women who are politicians so they can kind of see, “Hey, that’s something I could perhaps do in my life, that’s something that I can relate to, that’s something that perhaps would be a career I might consider.” I think it’s absolutely important that people, especially young people, are exposed to various careers, meet those people face to face and are able to ask them questions and interact with them.

It’s only through that interaction, that experience, that as a young person one can visualize themself in that position. I think that’s incredibly important, and it’s a great program.

I have to give credit to the Ontario Legislature for taking this initiative, which was absolutely needed, to have a particular wall of the House that’s dedicated to the women who have been involved in politics in this assembly, whether it’s on the political side or the bureaucratic side. I think that was a phenomenal initiative. I think more can be done, but it’s important to give credit where credit is due.

That initiative basically displayed the women who have been involved or are currently involved, past and present—ranging from the Auditor General now, who is a woman, which is an amazing achievement, having that representation by such a skilled and qualified Auditor General. It provides that amazing representation so that women can say, “I can achieve the highest position, essentially, in terms of an auditor in the province of Ontario.” That’s a phenomenal example of representation.

Having the privacy commissioner—the previous one was a woman—represented on that wall is a great thing, and now seeing a Premier and the leader of our party being women is a phenomenal example of representation, showing young women, or other women in general, that you can be involved in politics and achieve the highest level in politics. That’s a great step forward. So that’s the non-government and some of the government side, making sure that the place we call the assembly for all people in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, is not only accessible, but that when you walk into the building it represents the people of the province. That was a good initiative.

But what more can the government do to make it easier and more accessible and encourage more women to get involved in politics? To do that I think there needs to be a discussion around some of the barriers to political life and what the government can do around ensuring that those barriers are addressed. One of the issues—we have a colleague who has experienced that first-hand—is that it’s very difficult to be in a new family, to have children, and to be in politics. I know many people have struggled with that.

The government and the Legislature can do more to make sure there are accommodations in place so that it’s not something that prohibits people or creates a barrier to becoming a politician or being involved in politics. So we need to discuss what we could do in this assembly to make sure that there aren’t these barriers or, if there are, ways we can address them by providing services, maybe in the assembly, that could address some of these concerns.

I think it’s important that we create an inclusive environment. If we want to encourage—and it’s absolutely something that I want to do and I’m sure many people in this House do—more women to be involved, we have to make sure that we have the services available to make sure that women are supported. I think that’s incumbent on us as legislators to encourage more equal representation. That’s a large area that we need to address in terms of improving our representation: improving it by increasing the proportion of women who are in politics.

To put it bluntly, it’s a travesty that we are so low, but there is some hope in the fact that we are increasing, and the numbers are certainly moving in a positive direction.

Another very positive example that we’ve set as New Democrats is that our party right now is the highest in terms of representation that we’ve ever achieved; we’re at over 50% representation, and that’s phenomenal. That’s a model that I think other parties can strive towards. I’m really honoured that we have that. I think it also provides us with a great way of showing to others that this is possible. This is a good example that we’ve set, and I think it will encourage others down the road. It’s something that I’m very honoured to be a part of.

Beyond to increasing representation in terms of gender or increasing representation of women, there are other areas that we need to address to make sure our politics are more representational or, more accurately, that we have representatives who represent our population more accurately. The other area is racialized people or visible minorities. That’s an area that we are still struggling with as a province, as a country, and certainly in our municipalities it’s a large problem.

Let’s start with federal. There have been some significant improvements. Most recently, in this past election a great number of racialized candidates have been elected, and I think that’s a great sign and a great achievement. In federal politics, we certainly have a long way to go. There’s a lot more that needs to be done.

Provincially, we are also lacking. Ontario is one of the most diverse provinces in the country, probably one of the most diverse places in the world. Given that diversity, we don’t see that as accurately reflected in our representation as we’d like to see. So it’s something we need to work on. Again, this is something that the government—the strategy could be two-fold.

There are existing associations and organizations that talk about how to increase representation by encouraging parties to adopt requirements around diversified candidates, making sure that there are racialized candidates, that marginalized members of the community are supported in terms of nominations and are able to become candidates.

There are organizations that we can support, that are non-governmental, that are doing the great work of, again, exposing various communities to politics, teaching various communities about avenues to get involved and encouraging them to get involved. I think the government has a great role in ensuring that the barriers that do exist are addressed. We can look at various strategies around that. I’ll get to some of those strategies, because I think they talk about participation broadly and improving our electoral system broadly. I’ll get to those a little later on. That’s another area that we need to really work on.

If you look at this assembly, right now, in terms of the opposition side, I think I’m the only racialized individual in the entire opposition, both Conservatives and New Democrats combined. I think that’s a telltale example of where we need to improve, the fact that that’s the current state of affairs. On the government side, there has been some improvement, but it certainly still doesn’t accurately reflect the proportion of racialized individuals in our province, so we need to certainly address that.

We’ve talked about the need for increasing representation when it comes to women and increasing representation when it comes to racialized people. We also need to look at increasing representation of young people. Young people are not represented in politics as much as they should be. I think the 2011 federal election provided an opportunity in Quebec, particularly, where there were a large number of young people that were elected. It was a very positive thing to have a mixed assembly that way, or a mixed House of Commons, where you have people from all walks of life and people from all age groups, Mr. Speaker.

I think that’s absolutely important. It’s important because it provides a very vibrant form of democracy. When your representatives are diverse—when they are made up of a wide range of experiences, occupations and demographics—it creates a more vibrant representation, and it would support a vibrant debate, the introduction of new ideas, the ability to accurately bring forward the voices of people from all parts of our country or all parts of our communities. I think that’s absolutely important. In Ontario, I think more can be done with encouraging young people to be involved in politics.

I’ll talk about apathy in terms of voting a little later on in my discussion, but I think that’s an area that we really need to work on: How can we encourage more youth to be involved?

While this bill talks about electoral boundary reform, more accurately representing the population of Ontario, increasing the number of seats and making sure that people have their voices heard, when we’re talking about representation and making sure that the populations are represented, it also starts opening up the door around involvement in these electoral processes, in voting and what we can do to ensure that more people participate. Mr. Speaker.

So the whole purpose of changing the boundaries is to make sure that our populations are represented. To ensure that our populations are represented, naturally what flows from that is that people need to vote. They need to get out and vote to make sure that they’re being represented, that their voices are being heard. But if you look at previous provincial, federal and municipal voter turnout, it’s dismal. In terms of the G7 or G8 nations, our voter turnout is far lower than in many other countries. It’s something that is very troubling. We can’t have a very vibrant democracy if people aren’t turning up to vote.

There are strategies around that; there have been discussions around ways of increasing that vote. Many of them have proven to provide results that work, but there are also some drawbacks. I’ll discuss some of those options.

I spent some time in Australia last summer—or last winter; it was their summer. In Australia, they have a mandatory voting regime. On one side, a mandatory voting regime certainly has increased the voter turnout. They have some of the best voter turnout in the world. But the problem, again, around mandatory voting is the way that they implement that in Australia: There’s a fine. Now, the fine will disproportionately impact people that are already marginalized. People who are lower income would be impacted more by that fine; people who are transient, who are homeless, people who don’t have the resources.

Those folks are going to be disproportionately impacted, so there are some issues around that way of promoting voting.

If you look on the positive side, there is phenomenal voter turnout and more participation in democracy, and that’s something that’s excellent. So maybe not the Australian model, but it’s something to look at in terms of how we can ensure that we have more turnout.

One of the things I think we need to do, and it’s something that is absolutely important, is making it easier to vote. While we’re talking about making our electoral boundaries more reflective of our population, we also need to make sure that our elections are more accessible and our people have the ability to vote, that it’s not a barrier. People want to, but say, “The timings are difficult” or “I can’t get off of work” or “It’s just too far to go.” That should never be the reason. That should never be the reason why our voter turnout is so low: that people just simply can’t get to the polling station in time.

The idea that polling stations close before people arrive bothers me and troubles me, because the hallmark or the foundation of a democracy is the ability to vote. If there are any barriers in voting, it just seems to me that we need to do whatever we can to erase those barriers.

There have been various discussions around how we can increase voter turnout. One of the strategies that’s been implemented recently was around increasing advance polls, the amount of days that we have advance polls. I think that was a great strategy; it worked, and more people showed up. But there are other things we can do to make sure voting is easier and more accessible. I think we need to make sure that we look at that and have a discussion around what we can do around that.

There have been various ideas floated. Some folks are saying, “In this time and age, why aren’t we at the point where we can vote electronically?” Obviously, there are going to be a host of issues around that and paramount in that are concerns around security and ensuring the identity of the individual who votes. But I’m sure at this point we can come up with some strategies that are more effective and make sure that we are able to get more people out to vote.

The other thing we can do, and this is something that may seem counterintuitive—one is to actually make the voting process easier so that people can get out to the polling stations: making the hours longer, making more polling stations and longer advance voting days. But the other area that has made people less likely to be involved in politics is the overall concept of politics becoming cynical. People have become cynical about politics because of what’s been going on. I think that’s something we need to address.

There has slowly been an erosion, and there has been a loss of trust and a loss of faith in politics. Even the idea of a politician being a profession or an occupation that sometimes receives a lot of jokes or is the brunt of a joke—I’m always up for a good joke, but the problem is that as politics and politicians lose their status in society or, more importantly, the public loses faith in this institution, it will result in, and it has resulted in, less people being involved or willing to vote.

What people say is, “What’s the point of voting? Nothing’s going to happen anyway.” It’s interesting, because if you look at the way our system is moving, one of the things that has happened is that we’ve seen, particularly with this government, that promises are made and those promises are blatantly broken. When you break promises or when you over-promise and under-deliver, what happens is that the public then becomes cynical: “We’ve been promised all of these innovations, we’ve been promised all of these investments, and none of them came through. What’s the point in voting?”

What’s funny—or what’s very ironic, probably not funny—is that the people who create that cynicism, the people who break their promises, the people who encourage people to not care about politics, are then re-elected because of that cynicism. Because fewer and fewer people are participating in politics, the status quo remains.

Whoever is an incumbent or whoever is already in power remains in power because, by being cynical and not following through on commitments, you create a population that’s cynical, and who then, in turn, have a lower voter turnout and who keep on electing the same people who created that cynicism in the first place. So it’s kind of this vicious cycle. To break that cycle, we as legislators need to make sure that we follow through on our commitments. We need to ensure that people are not cynical about politicians or politics. We have a lot to do to restore that faith in politics.

We have a lot that we can contribute to making sure that people don’t lose their faith in the political system. If we increase that faith in this political system, in that belief or that trust that the system can work to the benefit of people, we’ll see more voter turnout. I think that’s something that we need to address. Things like the various scandals that this government has been a part of: Those scandals make people cynical, and when people are cynical, they don’t come out to vote.

So while we’re talking about electoral boundary reform, when we have a government that is consistently being investigated by the police for criminal allegations, it really impacts the ability of people to vote. If you look at the most recent allegation, the bribery allegation, an allegation of bribery by an affiliate of the political party that’s representing our province will absolutely impact people in terms of their becoming more cynical and being less likely to vote. It is something we really need to work on.

Right now in Sudbury this government is facing—now charges have been laid against an organizer for bribing an individual not to run in politics. What could be more cynical? That’s exactly what people look to and say, “Why bother with politics? These guys are all up to corrupt activities, and they’re not out to represent the interests of the public.” They’re feeding right into that, and that’s exactly what people become cynical about. Whether it’s the recent bribery scandal in Sudbury or whether it’s the gas plants scandal—

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, a point of order: I would like the member of the NDP to stick to the bill that is before us. I’m always very surprised to hear his comments. I’m not going to go any further, but I’d like him to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please. I appreciate the comments from the Attorney General.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Essex, come to order, please.

I have been listening very attentively to the points that the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton has been making, and in my opinion he is making points relative to the bill that is being discussed, and so I will encourage him to continue along, please.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think it’s absolutely important that we look at what we can do to increase voter participation. The whole purpose of this bill is to make sure that we have accurate or proportional representation based on population and that our boundaries are more accurately reflecting the realities of the people of our province. The entire purpose of that is to make sure that we have a functioning democracy, a democracy that actually speaks to the people that it purports to represent.

One of the ways to make sure that happens is by making sure that the number of people are represented by an appropriate number of members. To make that happen, we need people to vote. That’s tied in; that’s integral. If we’re not talking about voting, if we can’t talk about voting when we’re talking about electoral boundaries, there is really no point in talking about electoral boundaries. They are tied together. The electoral boundaries are in place because there is going to be an election, there is going to be voting. To make sure that people participate in elections, we have to make sure that people aren’t cynical.

People are cynical about politics because of the actions, many of the actions, of this government: the government scandal when it comes to the gas plants, the way in which they weren’t open, transparent and accountable about the decisions they made. They didn’t deliver those reasons to the public. The response to the questions raised: People questioned the cost of this scandal, and the government came out with one estimate, then came up with another estimate and continually changed their answers, again and again. It’s going to make people cynical.

Then the Auditor General had to come in and provide a more accurate number, and then said, contrary to what the government had been saying before, that it’s actually close to a billion dollars, the cost of the scandal.

But decisions are made by governments, and sometimes projects have to be cancelled. What’s even worse, to fuel the cynicism, is the manner in which the government tried to hide the facts by deleting e-mails, by deleting information. That’s an even bigger scandal. The gas plants scandal is actually a twofold scandal: One is the actual—

Interjection.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Actually, it was a cover-up of a cover-up.

One is the actual end of the gas plants, ending those gas plants. The second part of the scandal is the fact that there was information deleted. And the way that information was deleted, the way that the government hid information from the public and wasn’t providing the information in an upfront—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I just care to remind the member that we are, in fact—

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Finally.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I will take care of this, Attorney General, thank you very much.

I just want to remind the member that the bill at hand—I’m going to ask that you stay to the discussion with regard to the bill at hand and not wander into other issues that may be or may not be relevant at this point in time.

I’ll allow you to continue, please.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Sure, thank you.

In general, without perhaps getting into the details, the government needs to ensure that there is faith, belief or trust in the political system for people to want to vote, and to make sure that we have boundaries that accurately reflect them.

We talked about provincial; we talked about federal; now, we have to look at municipal as well. The government is looking at boundaries that would accurately represent the federal changes, with some exceptions in the north, which are appropriate. Maintaining the current boundaries that we have was a good decision, and I support that.

With respect to the other boundaries, boundaries that would overlap with our federal boundaries would ensure that we are able to work in coordination with our federal counterparts. It would make our jobs easier and, I think, more efficient, which is more important than it being easier, if we make our jobs more efficient.

The government also has a responsibility in this province to look at municipalities. In terms of the representational issues that I was talking about before, it’s in the municipalities that we see some of the biggest problems around representation. We don’t have enough women represented—absolutely. We don’t have enough racialized people represented. In terms of demographics of age, we don’t have enough diversity of age represented.

In our biggest city, which is probably the most diverse city certainly in Ontario, and in Canada as well, and probably amongst the most diverse cities in the world—for a city as diverse as Toronto, the fact that we don’t have the diversity represented in the council is something that’s a big problem. While this bill is going to change electoral boundaries for the province, it does raise the issue or the question around what we can do to make sure that we have better representation, not only by population, but also by other factors like race and gender, and what we can do to ensure that happens.

There have been discussions around changes to the municipal voting regime. Some of those changes have been around looking at ranked ballots. There have been discussions around looking at proportionality.

The ranked ballot system, particularly when it comes to municipalities, might be a way to ensure that we have better representation. There has been a lot of discussion around it. There have been some great activists who have done significant work on it, and what they have found is that where ranked ballots are implemented—or a ranked-ballot-like system—you find that there’s a greater number of racialized individuals that are supported or voted in, you find that there’s a greater number of women that are voted in, and it creates a more diverse result. That’s absolutely important.

That’s one mechanism that has been raised. I think this government—now, when we’re opening up the discussion around elections and electoral boundaries, this is a great opportunity for us to look at ways to improve not only our province’s representation, but also that of our municipalities.

In terms of the boundaries, we’ve looked at different ways: whether the ward system is going to provide the best way to make sure we have diverse candidates coming forward, or another system that perhaps could encourage more people being voted in. The ranked ballot system is another idea that’s come up, but there are other ways to ensure that they happen.

The government has a lot of resources at their disposal to ensure that we support initiatives that would increase voter turnout and that would also increase diversity. There have been a number of community members who have created initiatives around increasing votes. Last year I was able attend a great conference that was put together by members of the African-Canadian community. The theme of the conference—which was the second annual conference of the African Canadian Summit—was #BlackVotesMatter.

It’s important to one particular community that has faced a lot of difficulties and has certainly faced great barriers in terms of being accurately represented and proportionally represented. So the theme of the summit was #BlackVotesMatter.

One of the initiatives that was talked about was ensuring that communities that historically have low voter turnout were able to come out and vote. One of the strategies was to let people in those communities know about the election, let them know about the issues that were going on, and also to show that communities that vote are able to make sure their voices are heard and their concerns are addressed—making that connection.

The work at that summit and some of those organizations was phenomenal. They were demonstrating that their strategies were working. They were increasing participation, they were increasing civic engagement, and I think those are the types of organizations that need more support. I think the government can certainly provide that type of support and funding to groups that look at how we can increase the turnout and how we can increase participation.

If we turn back to some of the electoral boundary reforms, one of the things that I wanted to note is that there was a lot of work that went into these boundary discussions. I participated in some of these discussions, and I think it’s important that we look at the process as well. To come up with these boundaries, one of the most important ways to do that is to speak to the people in those communities and make sure the boundaries are reflective of the realities on the ground. There were certainly some great points about it and there are certainly some things that we can improve moving forward.

Whenever we have the opportunity to redraw boundaries, there are a couple of factors that should be in mind. Some of those factors were implemented, but I think we can improve upon them. One of the things that we’ve noticed in this set of electoral boundary reforms, and a principle that was brought up in the consultation process, is that we want to make sure, as much as possible, that wherever possible, if a member can represent one municipality versus representing multiple municipalities, it’s a more efficient, more effective way of representation.

I know there are folks who have to represent multiple municipalities. My colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin brags about representing probably upwards of 20 municipalities in his riding, with the geographical size of it. I can’t compete with that. I understand that’s very difficult and it’s, I’m sure, very taxing on him, but he’s more than capable.

In my riding I was representing Brampton and Mississauga. There are others members I know in the Peel region who had to represent Brampton and Mississauga. We were faced with some difficulties, from things not as deep or not as politically relevant, but on a community-based level. Being able to attend two Canada Days was very difficult. If Brampton residents wanted to see their political representation there on a Canada Day event, and that Canada Day event was also being held in Mississauga, it created a lot of difficulties.

Now that the changes have been implemented that would ensure each member represents one municipality each, either Brampton or Mississauga, I think that was a great change. That was done through a lot of consultation. That was a positive sign; that was something we all raised. We thought it was important to make sure that our representatives, wherever possible, could represent one municipality only. It makes it easier in dealing with city councillors, dealing with the mayor of that region and the school board trustees.

An area, though, that could have been improved upon in terms of process was the discussion around the federal boundaries impacting the provincial boundaries and involving the provincial representatives. Because the discussion was around changes that initially were for the federal government, the focus was more so on federal representatives.

I think that when we see that, historically, changes that happen federally will also happen provincially, we need to make sure that up front in the process it’s very open that this is a process that very well might be adopted by the province and to ensure that there is provincial input right from the beginning, that there is a lens through which this decision is made that both provincial and federal representatives will be—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would just ask the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke if you could perhaps move over just a little bit. The reason for that is that I like to maintain eye contact with the speakers and you’re right in the way. In fairness to him, he’s not trying to dodge around you. Thank you for your indulgence and for obliging.

Back to the speaker from Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much.

That’s an important factor to consider. I note that it wasn’t very clear initially and it wasn’t presented with that analysis in mind, that whatever changes will be made federally will certainly be adopted provincially, so let’s discuss it with both in mind right off the bat. I think that’s something that we can improve upon in terms of the process moving forward.

Beyond the process itself, there is a certain independence we need to maintain around the process. These decisions might have impact on political parties, might have impact on which ridings are more favourable or not favourable, so we need to ensure that the process has this in place.

This is something we need to turn our minds to, to ensure that these decisions around electoral boundaries reflect, first and foremost, the communities historically—which communities, how they live, how they work—and on-the-ground realities—which parts of the city, which parts of the riding naturally will be aligned geographically in terms of interactions and in terms of their concerns—so that the ridings accurately reflect the realities on the ground. These are some of the things that we need to ensure, and then to ensure the process remains independent.

This process was independent and we need to make sure that it remains so, that it’s not something that is political in nature, that it’s just factual and evidence-based in nature.

On that issue of evidence-based decision-making, one of the concerns that we had when we were in this process was that we didn’t have the data to raise some of the concerns that were coming up about what are the realities of this particular riding. Other ridings I’m sure face the same issue. When you don’t have data about the demographics, about the languages spoken, about the details of the residents, it makes it difficult to make these types of decisions. So I think we really need to look at what we can do to increase our access to some data.

With the census now being significantly reduced, we need to look at other ways of making sure we have that accurate data so that people can make decisions around the riding and the riding profile so that electoral boundaries reflect the actual realities on the ground. That’s something we need to discuss or consider: what we can do to obtain the accurate data to make those decisions in moving forward. That’s an area of concern.

Overall, the increase in representation in this House is a positive thing. Having more members will certainly bring more voices and more debate to the Legislature and to the assembly. But one of the areas that I’m concerned about is that while the boundaries have been changed, during the process we raised certain concerns around how, within a couple of years, there’s going to be a significant influx of new residents, particularly in our riding. The way the process was designed was that they could not take into consideration population growth. They were only allowed to consider population as it stood at the moment of the consultation.

I know members for Brampton will talk about this as well: The problem is that in Brampton, particularly east of the 410—which would involve my riding as well as Brampton–Springdale, which will now become Brampton North, as well as Brampton Centre, which is part of my riding, Bramalea–Gore–Malton—there’s going to be a significant influx. Estimates are that around 50,000 people are to come into those areas. Some projections are even higher than that.

So while the boundaries are now set and are close to the provincial averages, with this influx of new residents, the population will already well exceed that provincial average, and it has only been a year since these changes have been made. By the next election, in my riding, I know I’m going to well exceed the provincial average again because of the influx of new residents.

During the process, we raised these concerns, saying that based on the population growth, we’re actually going to be beyond that boundary again. But in fairness to the individuals who were involved in the process, they said, “Our hands are tied. Based on the way the process has been laid out, we can’t actually accommodate for population growth.” Perhaps we need to look at a more robust or more flexible system for electoral boundary changes when there’s going to be, in the next couple of years, again, a need for boundary reform.

We need to look at what we can do to ensure that we are constantly updating our boundaries in a way that ensures that each member is representing the appropriate number of constituents and residents and, more importantly, that the residents of each community have their voice heard in Parliament, that they have a voice in terms of their population being represented accurately in Parliament. That’s something we have to look at.

While the boundaries, as they’re currently drawn—I think it’s important to note that this is a good step forward and something that’s necessary. The federal government moved on this,and naturally we needed to address this issue as well, so I’m happy to see the government doing this. This is not a controversial issue, so this is something, certainly, we support and will be supporting once it comes to the vote.

The government has moved quite quickly on this issue, so I think it’s important to give praise where praise is due. The government has moved in an efficient and timely manner with respect to the electoral boundary bill, Bill 115, bringing it forward in a timely manner. We’re discussing this bill right after a federal election; it’s very timely. That was an appropriate thing to do.

The changes, again, are appropriate. The increase in the number of members was the right thing to do, as well as ensuring that the boundaries reflect the communities and reflect the realities.

On a moving-forward basis, though the process itself and the mechanism by which we actually come to these boundaries is a federal matter and we’re adopting that federal matter, we might want to look at what we can do to amend our legislation so that we have our own, perhaps, independent assessment as well so that we can look at those boundaries from a provincial perspective.

One way is to look at it at the same time, which I indicated earlier, but there might be some benefit in having, perhaps, a parallel analysis of the ridings so that we can compare and contrast our notes of the federal Legislature and the framework around coming up with these boundaries and having a provincial framework around it as well.

We have seen that, for the most part, we do adopt the federal boundaries, with the exception of the north. I think there may be times, moving forward, that there might be additional exceptions that are required and may be necessary. So it’s important that we have an independent perspective. I think it also speaks to the federalist nature of our country that the provinces are entitled to a strong say in terms of their own sovereignty and their own decision-making process. So I think it is an important fact that should be protected and should be considered by this Legislature.

In my last 10 minutes, I’m going to just wrap up with a

summary of what I’m proposing that we do. One is that while the boundaries are going to better represent our population, now that we’re talking about better representation of population, we need to also look at better representation based on factors beyond just population. I want to reiterate, first and foremost, one of the major areas of representation that doesn’t exist, and that this bill, obviously, doesn’t address: representation by women in our assemblies. It’s absolutely important that this government take the necessary steps to increase that participation and increase that representation.

While I’m talking about it on a political level, I think it’s also important to note that this is something that’s a problem in all areas and all spheres of influence. We need to do more to ensure that women are represented more proportionately in all areas of power.

The government has taken some steps. There have been some steps around board membership being more diverse, including more women and more racialized individuals. That’s an important step. I think that those recommendations could be stronger. We could ensure that there is greater representation in all spheres of influence, whether it’s our school boards, whether it’s our boards of directors for corporations or for non-profits. This is an area that we need to address. Whether it’s on the political or on the bureaucratic side, I think we need to make sure that we have that representation.

With respect to diversity of candidates for a better representation of racialized individuals, that’s an area where we’ve not done enough work. We need to see a greater role of the government in encouraging and supporting these initiatives. There are various groups that are encouraging it. The government needs to support those groups that are independent. The government needs to do more on its own part to expand strategies around encouraging more racialized people.

Back on women, I forgot to mention, with respect to the wall in the Legislature, that it is only one wall and it’s in one corner of the building. I think there needs to be more, so that when you walk into the Legislative Assembly, it more accurately reflects our population, keeping in mind the importance of tracking and honoring tradition and history.

There needs to be more, though, so that when you walk into the building, in all parts of the building, there are as many people of this province represented in the halls, through the imagery, through the pictures—while that one wall that commemorates women in politics and women in the assembly is a good step, it’s still not enough. I think it’s just too localized to one part of the building. So that needs to be improved.

With respect to youth, I had indicated we need to do more to encourage that. There’s one program that I think is quite effective: when we invite youth to come and participate in mock debates here in the Parliament. I have been present for some of those debates, and I think it is a phenomenal strategy. You have young people that sit in these chairs. You have a Speaker that’s elected from them. They get to experience what it’s like to be here. I think that has a phenomenal impact on young people, and it certainly exposes many people to the idea of being involved in politics. I think it’s a great strategy, and I think there could be an expansion of that.

This House should be used more often by the people that we serve, that we represent, and particularly the young people. I think it’s so inspiring when you see young people sit here, and they stand up, being referred to as members. When you see their faces light up, you can tell that this is having a big impact. Simply just being in this chamber—there’s a certain inspirational element to the way that this building looks and this chamber looks. I think it’s important to make sure it’s open and accessible.

In my experience as a lawyer, we often used the courts for mock trials. Those students who were able to engage in those mock trials went on to feel more encouraged and more excited about becoming involved in the legal system, and many of them went on to apply to law school. Similarly, making sure this building is more accessible and open to the youth will encourage more participation.

Finally, I talked about the importance of voting in general. These electoral boundaries are only as relevant as the people who come out to vote. If we change our boundaries and we make them more representative of the population, but people aren’t coming out to vote, then we’re not doing our job. We’re only doing half the job. Half the job is making sure the boundaries are accurate, but we need to do the second part of the job, which is to make sure people come out and vote.

What we can do around voting, the strategy we can do to encourage more people to vote, what we can do around making sure it’s easier to vote, that there are no barriers, that people aren’t not voting because it was just impossible to, or it was too hard, or they simply couldn’t find the time—we need to make sure that isn’t an issue and that we do a lot of work around that.

I can still think of an example in this past election when there were a number of folks who were challenged in terms of mobility. They didn’t know there were processes available to make sure they could vote remotely; they could vote by mail. They weren’t aware of those mechanisms. I think we need to do more to make sure people know about that.

They came a week before the election, or a couple of days before the election, saying, “Hey, listen, we have some folks in our house who want to vote but aren’t able to get to the polling station.” The fact that they didn’t know there were ways to do it but that they needed to come earlier is something that is troubling. As a government, we should have made sure that people were aware that they can vote by mail or other ways when they are not able to actually physically come to the polling station. We can do more around that, to make sure more people vote.

I touched on this briefly, and I won’t get into detail, but in general, as a broad concept, we as legislators can do a lot more to ensure that we re-instill belief and trust in the political process, so that people are more likely to vote. We need to ensure that the government doesn’t engage in cynical activities, or activities that create cynicism in our public, because that will reduce voter turnout. That again is going to contravene the whole purpose of Bill 115.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the time. It was a pleasure to share my thoughts and concerns around this bill. I’m certain that we will support this bill. I think it’s an important change, and we’re in support of it. But it raises a broader discussion around things we can do to strengthen our democracy at a fundamental level.

The hallmark of our system is our democracy. Whatever we can do to strengthen this democracy, to instill more trust in it, will just make for a brighter future for us in this province and in the entire country.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure.

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It’s a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 115.

As we all know, this is a very important piece of legislation. The overall intent of this legislation is to strengthen democracy and offer fair representation to Ontarians, no matter where they live in the province of Ontario. They may be living in the northern region, southern region, eastern region or western region, or in the urban ridings or the rural ridings.

The intent is also to increase the number of electoral districts to 122 in the province of Ontario. I believe that if this bill is passed, this will definitely provide a fair representation to all Ontarians in the Ontario Legislature by the 2018 election.

As we know, parts of southern Ontario are growing quickly. Peel region, where my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South is found, is expected to grow by 600,000 people in decades to come. Ridings in fast-growing areas are very diverse, with many ethnic and cultural communities and with varied socio-economic features.

My colleagues would agree that those areas are very vibrant and active places, with many people who need and deserve fair representation in the government. That is why I’m pleased to find that Bill 115 will add 15 new ridings in southern Ontario. This reflects the principle of representation by population.

It’s a fair bill and it promotes democracy. I will support this bill and I urge all members to support it as well.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I hope it’s not the only time I get to speak to this bill. I want to thank the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton; he talked about a lot of things in his address here this morning, not all of them about the act, but he wanted to cover a lot of things with regard to electoral reform. I’m going to speak just about the act.

I hope I get the chance, when I say “the act”—I hope I’m getting the act and not the axe. I’m afraid, with what has been going on in this House with regard to time allocation, that we’re going to hit 6.5 hours—we’ve already hit it—and once these questions and comments are done, I’m afraid that the ruling from the Liberal politburo is going to be, “Shut ’er down.”

My riding is not affected by this because of some of its geographical realities. I’m bordered by the province of Quebec and the Ottawa River on one side; I’m bordered by the city of Ottawa on one side; and on another side I go into Algonquin Park. It’s almost impossible to do something with the boundaries of my riding without going into some other riding that is not subject to the same kind of reform as well.

I do understand the need for electoral reform as our boundaries change. When the population of a province grows, and in a greater way in some areas of the province than others—in fact, some might even shrink at times—it requires to rejig the boundaries from time to time. The federal government made those changes federally, and for the most part we believe the right thing to do is for our boundaries to mirror the federal boundaries.

I am one of the fortunate ones in that I don’t have to get ready to campaign in a riding that isn’t mine today. My riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, as I said, is unchanged, so I have the luxury of only having to deal with the same electorate in 2018 that I dealt with in 2014 and whom I deal with on a daily basis as a constituency representative.

I hope I get the chance to speak to this again and that the guillotine doesn’t fall on this bill.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m proud to rise today on behalf of the constituents of London–Fanshawe, whom I am honoured to represent.

The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton always brings education to bills when he talks about the bills that we debate in this House. One thing he mentioned and pointed out was about more representation of women, and I couldn’t agree with him more. More representation for women in politics is really important. We represent 50% of the population.

One nice thing about the New Democrats is that we have 11 women out of 20 in our caucus, so we are meeting that quota, so to speak. We’re fulfilling those obligations that we talk about, having more women in politics.

I was reading the Toronto Star yesterday—I actually picked up the paper itself, not online—and there was an

article in there about how aboriginal communities organized in this election. They started organizing months before the election happened. They were organizing because, of course, they wanted a change in government, and it was really important that they got their voices heard. There were a lot of issues that were important to the aboriginal community, one of them being missing aboriginal women.

One of the things they pointed out was that the polling stations—four polling stations, I think it was—were so busy that they actually ran out of ballots. That was very encouraging to see, that people are more engaged, especially in this federal election. I think that because of the contentious issue, they wanted the government to be changed. It’s too bad they weren’t voting for something they wanted, instead of strategically voting for something they didn’t want. That’s something we’ve got to change, too. Strategic voting has no place in democracy. People need to vote for things they actually believe in and want to see changed, as opposed to voting for things they don’t want.

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

Mr. Joe Dickson: I rise to speak in reference to Bill 115, the Electoral Boundaries Act. I certainly compliment the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, who spoke on election boundaries.

The major criteria here, of course, is Ontario’s provincial boundaries in light of our population growth. There was some dynamic growth throughout the province, and we want to ensure that Ontarians are represented equally and fairly, respectively. That means adding 15 new ridings, as some of our members have mentioned. However, we definitely want to maintain the existing 11 provincial ridings in northern Ontario, where there’s a distinct advantage provincially, so there is more representation for provincial seats here in the Legislature as compared to federally.

I know that sometimes when we’re talking about items, we tend to wander off a little bit. Sometimes you might want to talk about a gas item or a plant. That occurs, and generally the Speaker—as you have done, sir—just brings them right back in line. I always believe if you address an issue, you should speak to both sides of it. I think when you talk about something like that, you should really remember that all three parties favour it and say that publicly. You should also acknowledge the fact that the municipalities in question spoke very positively about it, and they were the proponents of it.

When it comes to, increasingly, women’s issues and the women’s population, I agree with all those things that you were saying, and I congratulate you. But I do tell you that in Ajax, four of the seven members of city council are women, and I tell you, it’s a great council. They do it quite well, and the women are at the forefront of council as to some of the changes you mentioned.

I think that because my time is running out and everyone is anxious for a breather, Mr. Speaker, I’ll just sit down for a moment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for his final comments.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you to all the members who joined in the debate, and thank you for your questions and comments. I appreciate them all.

This is an important time just to sort of highlight that at the heart of this bill is the idea and principle around strengthening our democracy. Whatever we can do to ensure that we strengthen democracy is obviously absolutely important. The hallmark of our society is our ability to have a free and democratic society, and one of those most important components is around our elections and our voting.

Again, whatever we can do to ensure our population is accurately represented is fundamental for us as legislators. The increase in membership, based on the increased growth in population in our province, is absolutely important. We support the changes that are being suggested in this bill, and the boundaries that will reflect the federal, with the exception of the seats to the north.

I think it’s also important to note that while we have faced certain difficulties in this province economically, our population growth is a great sign of hope that there is great potential in this province and that we can do a lot of phenomenal things. We need to tap into that population growth and make sure that each member is able to contribute in a meaningful way. We can do a lot to ensure that happens.

When it comes to our democracy, though, we need to make sure that our populations are represented, not only by making sure that there is accurate representation for a population but also in other demographics.

I thank all the members who have shared the concerns that I raised today. Other members, obviously, have raised this many times before. I look forward to working on not only electoral boundary reform but electoral reform, broadly speaking, so that we can encourage broader representation in all demographics.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank all members engaged in debate this morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since we are within our timelines, this House will stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to welcome the Co-op Housing Federation to Queen’s Park. I know that others will be introducing more representatives, but I wanted to recognize that in the west members’ gallery, we have Sophie Taylor from Peel-Halton Co-op Housing Federation; Judith Collins, Co-op Housing Federation of Toronto; Donna Stewart, Nelson Co-operative Homes; and Aaron Denhartog from the Co-op Housing Federation. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park, and I hope all members will attend their event tonight at 5 p.m. in room 228.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce Lynette Sims and Karen Scott from the MS Society, as well as Paul Raymond and Suzanne Nurse from Epilepsy Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park today the page captain, Michael Douglas; his parent, Jayne Douglas; his grandparents, Carol and Bruce Douglas; and his grandmother, Elizabeth Stuart. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to recognize the MOM March that’s here today: Mothers and Others March Against Eating Disorders. It’s sponsored by the National Institute of Eating Disorders. I’d like to introduce Lynne Koss, Sandy Provost and Arielle Mayer. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome some of the co-op housing representatives here today: Brian Eng, the director of CHF Canada; Simone Swail, program manager, government relations, CHF Canada, Ontario region; Denise McGahan, program manager, member services, CHF Canada, southwestern Ontario; and Emily de Keyser, manager for the Bridletowne Circle Housing Co-op. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to welcome Wendy and Len Preskow, Marlene Sachs and Alex Franceschini from the National Initiative for Eating Disorders. They do an amazing job raising awareness and in education. I hope everyone attends their event outside the Legislature after question period.

I’d also like to introduce two members of the Epilepsy Ontario association who are here from Durham region today. Please join me in welcoming executive director Dianne McKenzie, and Chelsea Kerstens. They’re sitting in the east lobby.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Alice Funke from Pundits’ Guide as my guest in the members’ gallery today.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to welcome Epilepsy Ontario to Queen’s Park this morning. Executive director Paul Raymond and representatives from community epilepsy agencies across Ontario are here for their annual Epilepsy Action Day and will be holding a reception later this evening. Please welcome them.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce David Hwang, who is a community leader in the Korean community. Welcome.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce the MS Society of Canada, here today with us in the gallery. I invite all members of the House to room 230 for their reception right after question period.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to introduce my OLIP intern, Eric Zinn, who is sitting with us in the members’ gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to introduce and welcome Roger Clowater from my riding and his police foundations class from the National Academy of Business and Health. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: Today is Epilepsy Action Day. I would like to introduce Dianne McKenzie, executive director, and Chelsea Kerstens, Epilepsy Durham region. Welcome to Queen’s Park today for Epilepsy Action Day.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I’m not sure if I heard this person being introduced yet in the House, but I did want to welcome Harvey Cooper, managing director at the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. Welcome, Harvey.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington on a point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order; thank you, Speaker. In yesterday’s question period, there were some erroneous statements made, and I’d like to make sure that the Attorney General has an opportunity to correct her record today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That is not a point of order. The member also knows only members themselves can correct their own record.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not a good indicator of how we’re going to start.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the associate minister.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear commemorative ribbons in recognition of epilepsy awareness day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is seeking unanimous consent to wear ribbons for epilepsy awareness day. Do we agree? Agreed.

I’m assured that all sides have appropriate ribbons in each of their galleries.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Acting Premier: A National Post columnist wrote about the Liberals’ secret $2.5-million payout to unions. He described it with a word that, he said, “infers a blatant disregard for honesty, ethics or principle.” He went on to say that the Liberals “did ... their best to hide the transaction, suggesting that, at some level, they still sense it’s offensive, wrong and abusive of the public trust.”

Will the Acting Premier explain why her leader tried so hard to keep these payments secret? What was she trying to hide?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this issue. The member opposite is talking about a process that has been successful. Kids are in the classrooms; kids have stayed in the classrooms—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m willing to go down the same road I did yesterday. I would also encourage no members to use whistling as a way to make pronouncements.

Please finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The reality is that students have stayed in the classroom throughout this very difficult negotiation. The agreements that we have reached have been within the net-zero framework, which is an extraordinary accomplishment for our labour and our public school boards, and our government. This has been a successful process. I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: There is a disturbing pattern emerging here. Liberals thought they were having a secret conversation with Andrew Olivier when they allegedly offered him a bribe, and then they got caught. When the private conversation became public, a top Liberal fundraiser was charged with corruption. The Liberals thought their payments to unions were secret; now that secret is out. This government must stop insulting the intelligence of Ontarians.

When will the Acting Premier admit that her government took classroom dollars and used them to buy union support?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will caution the member on the language. It’s not there, but it’s close, so I’ll just caution him to refrain from making accusations.

Supplementary, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry—answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s important for the member opposite to understand that this was done without any cuts to the classroom. We have protected our success in our education system. This new process did require additional resources. We have fundamentally changed how negotiations between—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The new process did require additional resources. We did provide resources to our educational partners. The result is that we’ve been at the table and we’ve kept our kids in the classroom. This is all about making sure that kids are where they should be, and that is in the classroom. We’ve had success, Speaker. We look forward to more success, but having this relationship that has kept our kids in the class—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: That getting caught on this payment is a definition of success is bewildering. The government’s latest scandal is laid out dollar for dollar in today’s Globe and Mail. This government didn’t need receipts because they weren’t covering negotiating costs; they were covering advertising costs.

Now we know why, in 2013 and again this month, the Liberal government voted down the PC Party’s bill to restrict third-party election advertising: because they wanted to make sure those millions of dollars that are being taken from the classroom are being used to benefit the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, just for a moment, please. It’s very difficult to ask one side to get quiet for the other side, when the other side is engaging. If everyone were to just listen to the question and the answer, we would be better off.

Please continue.

Mr. Patrick Brown: To be very direct: When will this government apologize to parents and students for these secret payments that they know, that everyone in Ontario knows, are blatantly wrong?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the minister has said that—because we’ve had the new process in place now; we’re through that transition phase—these payments will not continue in the future. They will not happen again.

What I can tell you is that it’s pretty ironic that the party opposite is finally talking about education. Just remember, anyone who remembers back to the days when they were in office, where teachers were vilified, where kids were dropping out at alarming rates, where kids were not meeting international standards: Our children in our schools are doing so much better now than when you were in charge of the education system—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the Chair, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re proud of our record. Our graduation rates are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Two comments: First of all, I’d like to hear. Second of all, to the Chair, please.

One wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our children are doing so much better now, so much that people come from around the world to—

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

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: I struggle to understand how taking money from the classroom for union payments benefits the classroom. When the gas plant scandal broke, the government said it was only $40 million. When these secret documents became public, that number exploded to a billion dollars. When this latest scandal broke last week, a million dollars became $2.5 million on Friday, and now it’s grown to over $7 million. That’s $7 million that the Liberal Party used from taxpayers that has been taken from classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, how can the Acting Premier tell Ontario that there is no money to keep schools open, when they’ve used $7 million from classrooms to promote their own political agenda?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The cost of this successful negotiation with the unions was offset by savings within the net-zero contract, so for you to say that this is coming out of the classroom is simply wrong.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order. The member for Leeds–Grenville, come to order. And I heard somebody over here, but I’ll zero in on you.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: If you want to compare their record to our record when it comes to education: When we were elected in 2003, only 68% of kids were graduating high school in five years. Today, it’s 84%. We’ve gone from a 68% graduation rate to an 84% graduation rate. You can snicker about that if you want, but that is life-changing for those kids.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the Chair, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When we were elected, Speaker, only 54% of kids were achieving the provincial standard in grades 3 and 6; now, it’s 72%. Let’s just think about that: From 54% to 72% of kids are meeting the standards—

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s like making the 100-yard dash 50 yards. You lowered the standards. That’s bull—

Interjection: I know you’re full of it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m full of it? What did you say?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew: second time.

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: No matter how you spin it, this money is being taken from the classroom. These union payments are from the classroom.

What is the most shocking is that ETFO said they had never even asked for the money. The unions weren’t expecting this payment. But the Premier has said this is business as usual in Liberal Ontario.

What’s not business as usual is for this government to get caught red-handed. What’s not business as usual is for this government to have to explain to parents why they took money out of the classroom and used it for election advertising.

When will this government apologize to the people of Ontario for funnelling classroom dollars for their own political purposes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: That is an absolutely absurd accusation. Let’s go back to the data. How are kids doing in Ontario now compared to how they were doing when you were in charge of our education system?

Let me repeat: The high school graduation rate has gone from 68% to 84%—an extraordinary accomplishment. On test scores, 72% of students now are meeting the provincial standard in grades 3 and 6 combined, up 18 percentage points from the 54% who were achieving that when you were in charge of the education system.

We have increased our expenditures. Kids across this province now have full-day kindergarten for four- and five-year-olds. We’ve invested in kids—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Dufferin–Caledon: second time.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —while you’ve been saying we’re spending too much money. I’ll tell you, there’s no better investment we will ever make than investing in the success of our kids, and you should recognize that.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: It’s getting pretty weak when you’re stretching back into the past. You’ve run out of people to blame. You’re stretching back into the past, when I was in high school. It’s almost shameful.

The public is outraged that education dollars are being abused. Teachers are paying out of their own pockets for classroom supplies. Right now, parents are fundraising for school trips. They’re being told the cupboard is bare. It’s bare, but you know what’s happening? It’s bare, and you’re taking money from the classroom—$7 million.

My question for the Acting Premier is, how can this Ontario Liberal government think it’s appropriate for even one second to take $7 million out of the classroom to advance their own private political agenda?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Once again, these funds do not come out of the classroom.

I just want you to think about one thing. Now, I know you were not a candidate in the last provincial election, but ask any of your caucus mates about your promise to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m prepared to continue standing and taking your time from you if you decide to continue to shout people down.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Every single one of your caucus mates ran on the promise of firing 100,000 people. Just imagine what that would have done to the education system. Now, it’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, to the Chair. That’s the specific reason why we do speak to the Chair.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I see the party opposite pretending they didn’t make that promise, but they made that promise. In fact, the member from Barrie stood beside the then Leader of the Opposition when he made that promise to fire 100,000 people.

How would that have affected our education system? What would that have done to the educational assistants, the teachers, the students in our classrooms? It was an irresponsible promise to make, but everybody—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier has been using a lack of federal partner and federal money as one of the justifications for selling off Hydro One. The incoming federal government has promised billions of dollars for Ontario infrastructure, much more than the Premier could hope to make from selling Ontario’s most important public asset, Speaker. The Premier will be meeting with the Prime Minister designate this afternoon. Will the sell-off of Hydro One be on the Premier’s agenda?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We were very clear in our election campaign that we did run on a plan to invest in infrastructure, in badly needed infrastructure. We did have a federal government for the past decade that was not prepared to partner with us. We are delighted that we do have a new government in Ottawa and that that government is making investing in infrastructure a priority.

But we have no plans to press pause the way the leader of the third party would like us to do. We have a significant infrastructure deficit. We must make those investments for our prosperity and for our quality of life. We are committed to investing $130 billion over the next 10 years in infrastructure because that’s what the people of this province need, and we will do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s not just what I want the Liberals to do in this situation. It’s what the people of Ontario want the Liberals to do in this situation. With the federal government promising billions and billions of dollars in new spending for infrastructure in Ontario, the Premier could actually do what many, many Ontarians have been asking her to do: Slow down the sell-off and ask the federal government for enough funds so that she doesn’t have to sell off Hydro One at all.

Now, will the Premier be raising with the Prime Minister designate the urgent need for Canada’s largest province to receive enough infrastructure money so that she can actually do the right thing by the people of this province and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we remain absolutely committed to our mandate, which is to invest in the infrastructure in this province. It’s the right thing to do for our economy and it’s the right thing to do for the people who live in this province. I would say that the leader of the third party, who would be talking to the same municipal leaders we talk to, has heard loud and clear from municipalities that those investments in infrastructure are badly needed. So this is about creating jobs. It’s about economic growth in the short run and in the long term.

But we did have a problem with the previous government and we made no secret of that problem we had. We are delighted to have a Prime Minister and a government that will make investments in infrastructure, but we are not going to slow down on our commitment to build the infrastructure in this province that people need.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, families, businesses and over 174 municipalities have all told the Premier to stand up and do the right thing for them. Ontarians have been unequivocal: Stop the sell-off of Hydro One. Federal infrastructure money could easily let the Premier off the hook for this bad and unnecessary sell-off. The Premier has a chance to actually rise above her stubbornness and do the right thing: stand up for Ontarians and not sell off Hydro One.

This afternoon, will the Premier be actually thinking about the people of Ontario and what they want and ask the Prime Minister designate of this country to provide sufficient funds so that the sell-off of Hydro One does not have to happen here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said, we welcome the new federal government’s commitment to building infrastructure. That is a very important issue that they dealt with in the last campaign. The people of this province and this country gave a new government a mandate to invest in infrastructure. We look forward to the partnership that we now will have as we make investment decisions on very important infrastructure across this province.

So we are going to carry on. We are not going to slow down. We will not press the pause button. I know the leader of the third party likes to think that there are cheap and easy solutions to every problem. We remain committed to making the investments necessary. It will create jobs now and in the future. It will get people home to their families more quickly. It will allow trucks to transport materials. This is the right thing to do. We have a lot of catching up to do. We’re at 10 years of no investment from the federal government. We’re moving forward.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier, Speaker. The sell-off of Hydro One has always been a bad deal for Ontarians. Media reports indicate that the sell-off of Hydro One may bring in $2 billion less than the government had originally estimated. That means that the one-time sell-off could bring in significantly less than the $400 million, on average per year over the next 10 years, that the Premier was counting on. That’s not very much money when you consider that Hydro One is a money-making asset that raises significant revenues for this province annually.

Can the Acting Premier tell the people of Ontario how much revenue the Liberals stand to lose from the privatizing of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m sure the leader of the third party will be very happy to know that we are on track to generating the $9 billion through the IPO. That’s important because that money must be spent on the infrastructure that this province needs. So we do remain on track.

We’re determined to get the best possible value for our assets so we can invest billions of dollars in infrastructure through the Trillium Trust. We are getting the best value. We’re proceeding in a careful, staged manner with multiple tranches that will allow us to stay on track and achieve our target. This is the first step in a process. The final share price has not been established but we are, as I say, on track to receive the $9 billion in proceeds.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of Ontario actually stand to lose as much as $300 million in cash dividends from the sell-off of Hydro One, plus another $50 million in lost tax revenue each and every year, from now to eternity. If the one-time sell-off comes up $2 billion short, as it appears that it will, this Premier is giving away Ontario’s most important asset for pretty much nothing.

The Premier could choose better options and additional revenues to fund infrastructure because she could be asking the Prime Minister designate to pitch in the way he has already said that he was going to do.

My question is, why exactly is it that the Liberal government is giving away a cherished, profitable asset instead of finding better ways to fund the necessary infrastructure for our province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are going to continue to own the company after we’re done this.

I have to say, it’s astonishing for me to hear the leader of the third party call $9 billion almost nothing; $9 billion builds a lot of infrastructure. We are committed to investing in infrastructure.

I also want to remind the leader of the third party that there is a cost, a very significant cost, to not investing in infrastructure. Anyone who travels around this province knows there is a real cost to not investing. We are on track. We’re benefiting from a $2.2-billion deferred tax asset, a special dividend of $1 billion. We are on track and we’re going to proceed with this plan. We know the leader of third party doesn’t like this idea—

Mr. Paul Miller: We don’t want to hear 407 out of you guys any more.

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

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: How this Deputy Premier can get up in her place and suggest to the people of Ontario that this government is getting $9 billion to fund infrastructure is absolutely irresponsible. It is irresponsible.

We all know in this chamber that the Premier actually does have better options than selling off Hydro One. At every turn, this Liberal Premier has parroted Mike Harris’s strategy of wrong-headed privatization, and Ontarians will once again pay the price. This strategy has already quadrupled electricity rates in Ontario for businesses and families.

The Premier will not even consider asking the most profitable corporations in Ontario to pay a little bit more for the infrastructure needs. The government could raise corporate taxes. They could go to the actual Prime Minister designate and ask him to pitch in. Why is she choosing to take the Mike Harris approach?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Just to be clear, as I said earlier, we are still on track to receive $9 billion in proceeds from our broadening the ownership of Hydro One. Five billion dollars will pay down the debt; $4 billion will go into infrastructure. Our infrastructure plan is significant; it is important; it is valuable.

I know, as I’ve said, that the member opposite doesn’t want to proceed with this building of infrastructure, but we’re going to proceed anyway. We have learned from Mike Harris what not to do. We carefully examined the 407 sale—talk about a fire sale; talk about giving away an asset for far less than it was worth. We analysed that deal, and we learned from those mistakes. We have a completely different structure.

The leader of the third party should understand that what we are doing is broadening the ownership, but we will still maintain—

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

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Treasury Board president, also the Acting Premier. She’s also the minister of poverty reduction.

Since yesterday, the tally of union payouts has increased from $2.5 million. It has tripled to $7 million. This is all unreceipted. It flies in the face of everything she tells this assembly when she’s wearing her Treasury Board hat. Yet, in Ontario schools, breakfast programs are being cancelled. This morning I learned that in my own constituency the Osgoode Emergency Food Cupboard, which serves rural students and families, is bare.

This is the consequence of your so-called net zero. Seven million dollars would have gone a long way for those needy children across the province.

If she’s not prepared to rein in the education minister for ignoring Treasury Board targets to eliminate the deficit, and if she’s not prepared to rein in the education minister in order to meet the accountability laws she has put in place, I would ask that the President of the Treasury Board stand in her place and tell the Minister of Education to get that money back into the education system, away from the unions.

Interjections.

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

Before I turn to the Deputy Premier, I’m going to remind all members that when you speak to the Chair, it helps. That’s the convention. I’m going to insist we do that. Speak in the third person to the Chair, please.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to sort out the facts here, Speaker. We agreed to a deal which is net zero with respect to compensation. We have always said that when we concluded negotiations at all the tables, we would be quite willing to discuss the details of those agreements. In fact, the $2.5 million that was transferred to the unions was part of three of those different net-zero agreements. We have always said that we would discuss those. There’s no secret; it’s part of those agreements which we were committed to doing.

The $2.5 million which was transferred to the unions to support the cost of collective bargaining has always been part of the net-zero calculation. When negotiations are complete, we’re quite happy to explain that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The squawking by the government has to stop. Okay?

We’ve got $7 million in unreceipted payouts to unions who spent $6.5 million in attack adds against the Progressive Conservative Party in the last election.

If that doesn’t embarrass the government, and not meeting their deficit reduction targets doesn’t embarrass the government, if not following their own accountability—

Interjections.

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

It goes for both sides.

Please finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: A million dollars will get 4,000 needy students a breakfast program for one week. That is what the consequence is of your net zero. The union payouts are a misappropriation of tax dollars, plain and simple.

As Vice-Chair of the public accounts committee, I’m going to table a motion tomorrow asking for the Auditor General to investigate the $7 million in misappropriated taxpayer dollars.

I’m going to ask the President of the Treasury Board too, not only to support that motion, but—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I can simply repeat that I’m not sure whether or not she has an understanding of “net zero.” Net zero means that, in fact, the agreement didn’t cost the government anything. The $2.5 million in question is part of the net-zero calculation.

I have to dispense with this entire notion that anywhere in the collective agreements that we have negotiated—there are no cuts to the classrooms. The number of teachers that are being hired is the same based on class-size ratio; the number of teachers who were hired, based on additional teachers, are still in place and are still funded. There are no cuts to the classroom.

Education funding

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is for the Acting Premier. This government’s record on education is appalling. Not too long ago, the Acting Premier said there is no greater investment than the success of our kids. Well, Speaker, in the Acting Premier’s own community of London, early childhood educators, maintenance staff, librarians and custodians have all received pink slips because of this government’s proud record of cutting funding. To make matters worse, the Minister of Education is now uttering threats at education workers because she couldn’t do her job.

Our kids are paying the price for this minister’s failure. It’s time for her to go. Will the Acting Premier admit that her Minister of Education has failed our kids and can’t get the job done?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, we’ve increased spending in education by $8.1 billion. You call that a cut; I call that an increase of 56%, and we’re getting good value for that money. Our kids are doing so much better in school now than they were when we took office back in 2003.

We’ve got higher graduation rates, significantly. Tens of thousands of kids have graduated under our watch who would have dropped out under their watch. When it comes to test scores, 72% of kids are achieving the provincial standard, up 18 percentage points from 54%—just over half—before we took office.

We have invested heavily in education. We’re proud to make those investments in education, because our kids are worth it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Again to the Acting Premier: Students and families are paying the price for this government’s misplaced priorities. We are told there have been no cuts to the classroom. Maybe the minister should check whatever version of facts she’s using today. Page 230 of the budget clearly lays out a $250-million cut in-year; $22.5 million in cuts to special education, impacting our most vulnerable kids; and in Toronto, 215 teachers fired and 100 ESL instructors fired, all because of cuts.

The minister has lost all credibility and has created chaos in our schools. The only person in this province who should be getting a pink slip is the Minister of Education. Will the Acting Premier issue the Minister of Education a pink slip for creating chaos in our schools?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: What I think we all understand—except perhaps the member opposite—is that school funding is based on the number of students. When you have the enrolment going down in-year, yes, we make in-year adjustments because there are fewer students. But despite the reduction in the number of students, the funding for special education has continued to rise.

Flu immunization

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Ma question porte sur le sujet du vaccin annuel contre la grippe.

Speaker, doctors will know that the annual flu season can actually be quite debilitating and of course has a range of effects, from absenteeism to fevered illness to hospitalization and, unfortunately, in the case of several hundred people annually, death.

Avoidance measures like cough and sneeze etiquette and frequent handwashing, of course, are to be employed to avoid the spread through viral droplets. Patients will often ask, “Why does the injection change?” The injection changes annually because the viruses involved change annually.

So I ask the minister, when will this important offer from the government of Ontario—flu shot immunization—be available for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke North for this very timely question.

I’m pleased to say that yesterday morning I launched, at a pharmacy, in fact, this fall’s flu immunization program. So starting this week, starting immediately, the free flu vaccine is available for all Ontarians at doctors’ offices, nurse-led clinics, public health units, community clinics and of course our pharmacies.

For the first time, this year we’re going to offer a new vaccine, a quadrivalent vaccine, against the flu that protects our children and youth from ages two to 17 years. It protects them against four different strains of flu instead of the usual three. So this quadrivalent vaccine is now available to that age group.

When you get vaccinated against the flu, you build up your immunity, making yourself stronger and more resistant. I encourage all Ontarians, including our health care workers, importantly, to get vaccinated against the flu, and do it early.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I particularly enjoyed the minister’s response describing that very powerful vaccine as “Qaadri-valent.”

Having said that, Minister, as you will know, part of the principle of medicine is immunization, because prevention is always better than cure. We, as physicians, know that unfortunately flu-type illnesses can affect the extremes of age: our older populations as well as our younger populations—those under five.

Of course, it can be a bit of a negotiation when you’re trying to inflict or offer or inject young children. But I understand now, Minister, that the government of Ontario is actually going to be envisioning and offering other injectable or other immunization options, which I think is a welcomed development in the practice of medicine in Ontario, and I would respectfully invite the minister to inform this House about that.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thanks again to the member from Etobicoke North.

This year, for the first time in this province, the flu vaccine will be available to kids for free in the form of a nasal spray. This is incredibly important for those of us who are parents who understand the challenge that we sometimes face in vaccinating our kids, particularly on an annual basis, and them wanting to avoid every needle that they can.

So for children and youth between the ages of two and 17, the same “Qaadri-valent” vaccine is available, but in the form of a nasal spray. As mentioned earlier, there are more ways than ever to get vaccinated: through your local pharmacy, through your primary care provider, public health units and community and workplace clinics. There’s really not an excuse not to get vaccinated, and Ontarians should get vaccinated early.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, good morning. My question is for the Minister of Finance. The story concocted by the government to explain the millions paid out to the teachers’ unions for hotels and pizzas is starting to show cracks.

Last month’s public accounts detail Ministry of Education payments to hotel chains, so it’s clear they do business directly with the hotels. Here’s a sampling: Holiday Inn, $54,778; Westin, $56,826; Best Western, $87,413; Marriott, $254,665; and Sheraton, $301,313.

To the Minister of Finance: If the government regularly pays for these hotels directly, why would they need to make payments to teachers’ unions?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You won’t know when I will strike.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Yes, thank you—

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I was actually going to give them the answer and explain that, in fact, with the exception of one hotel, those hotels didn’t actually have collective bargaining going on at them. What they did have was professional development for principals. They had consultations going on about the GSN, in some cases. There were regional meetings for educators, and there were probably some training sessions at one of them for one of your own members’ private members’ bills. There was a variety of education events. Only one of those hotels has negotiations going on at it in one location, and that would be the government’s hotel rooms. Yes, we do have hotel rooms ourselves.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: If I wanted a non-answer to my question, I would have directed it to the Minister of Education.

The people of Ontario want answers regarding their finances, so again to the finance minister: We now know that $750,000 worth of local hotels were booked by the Ministry of Education last year. Public accounts also details payments of nearly $600,000 for catering. It’s clear the Ministry of Education paid for the hotels and food suppliers directly. Interestingly enough, none of them were for pizza chains.

The minister made payments to the teachers’ unions with no receipts, and then made payments for the hotels and food suppliers directly. Where did the money really go?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Where the money really went was to the hotel chain and the caterers for meetings that had absolutely nothing to do with collective bargaining in the vast majority of things which he mentioned.

That actually, however, does prove the point that those are for the most part one-off, one-day or two-day meetings, and if one-day or two-day meetings cost that much when you’re replicating them in regions all over the province, think how much it costs if you actually are doing collective bargaining and you’re at the hotel for a whole year.

GO Transit

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Acting Premier. This week, the Premier will be visiting my beautiful riding of Niagara Falls for the entire Ontario Economic Summit. The people of Niagara and all our elected officials, including Al Caslin, the regional chair, all the mayors, as well as the regional and city councils will all tell her that they support daily, two-way GO rail service to Niagara. This project will create thousands of good-paying jobs in the region and bring nearly $200 million in economic benefits to Niagara.

The last federal government committed to supporting GO service to Niagara Falls, and now Justin Trudeau has promised billions for the GO rail system. The Premier is meeting with him today. Will the Premier ask Mr. Trudeau for the funding so that she can come to Niagara and announce a plan for daily, two-way GO rail service all the way to beautiful Niagara Falls?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member opposite for the question today. Of course, I’ve had the pleasure, as have many on this side of the House, including the Premier, as he mentioned, to meet with representatives from Niagara region over the last number of months. Of course, I believe that member would know that our member from St. Catharines is a champion for his region and for his community, and he has repeatedly talked about the need for us to move forward on this very important file.

Of course, I think this question goes to the very heart of why it’s so important that we have a Premier and a government in place here in Ontario that believes in the importance of making the tough decisions to build the province up. It’s interesting that that member and that caucus would be asking this kind of question on the exact same day when they stand up and question our decision to go forward with investing in crucial infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer the member’s question: 170 municipalities have voted and said no to selling hydro; 85% of Ontarians have said no to selling hydro. There is a better way.

In the last general election, the Premier called increased GO train service to Niagara Falls a “very high priority.” The Liberal member from St. Catharines, Mr. Bradley, your Liberal cabinet chair, said that he could see all-year GO rail service coming in 2015. But I haven’t seen any action. The word “Niagara” appears nowhere in Metrolinx’s most recent five-year plan.

Will the Premier keep her promise to the people of Niagara and immediately fund daily two-way GO rail service all the way to beautiful Niagara Falls?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for his follow-up question. Of course the Ministry of Transportation and Metrolinx will continue to work with the region of Niagara as we sort through some of the technical information that they provided to us, and that we look forward to providing back to them in terms of that ongoing dialogue.

But of course, that member must surely know what a ridiculous contradiction it is for him to stand in this House mere minutes after his leader stands up and questions our motivation and our Premier’s motivation with respect to making sure that tough decisions are made so we can invest in infrastructure. Mere minutes later, he stands up and says, “What my leader said is true for everybody except for my home region.” That kind of unfortunate direction from that member is exactly why they’re sitting where they are and exactly why their federal cousins are also sitting where they are.

Interjections.

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

New question?

Citizens’ awards

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Minister, I believe that we are the most diverse province in Canada, with people representing many different languages, cultures, interests and talents. I also believe, and I’m sure many would agree, that Ontarians are some of the kindest and most generous people in the world. I say that because every day I see people in my riding of Etobicoke Centre volunteering their time and participating in community projects to help make our community an even better place to live.

I think it’s important that our government celebrate and show pride and gratitude to these people whenever possible for their contributions to our communities. Could the minister please tell the House how the government recognizes these outstanding citizens?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Etobicoke Centre. He’s really a champion of our diversity in Ontario.

My ministry is the home of the Ontario Honours and Awards Secretariat, which works year round to recognize and thank Ontarians for a variety of wonderful things and reasons. Whether it be recognition of skills and talent, thanking dedicated Ontarians for lifelong service to the province or rewarding volunteers, we know how important it is to recognize outstanding citizens.

Ontario Honours and Awards delivers 17 recognition programs. Included in these programs are the Order of Ontario, the medal for good citizenship, the June Callwood award for volunteerism, the medal for young volunteers and more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Thank you to the minister for his response. These sound like excellent opportunities for Ontarians to nominate people in their communities who have provided an outstanding contribution.

As the minister mentioned, we have people who dedicate so much of their time to helping their communities and making the world a better place. There are so many areas in which Ontarians do that; there are so many areas in which Ontarians excel. For example, I think one of the areas is in academia, in post-secondary education, with multiple post-secondary institutions ranked in the top 100 in the world. We have a new Nobel prize and more. We have much to be proud of here in Ontario.

In addition, we have many creative leaders who call Ontario home. These creative minds are sure to have been encouraged and nurtured from a young age. It’s one of the reasons I think it’s so important to get youth involved in the creative process at a young age.

Would the minister please inform the House of any programs that help recognize achievement in the creative arts specifically?

Hon. Michael Chan: I’m more than happy to do that. Our government offers a number of recognition programs for the creative arts. Just yesterday, I was pleased to join the Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell and the Honourable James Bartleman to present six young talented aboriginal women with the James Bartleman Aboriginal Youth Creative Writing Award. The award celebrates aboriginal youth for their creative writing efforts and provides them with an opportunity to showcase their work to a broader audience.

Congratulations to Leera, Emily, Darienne, Rachel, Catherine and Justice on being selected as young writers. I hope this recognition will inspire them to keep writing and expressing themselves through their words.

Taxation

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today, we learned in the Toronto Sun that the government is going to amend the Municipal Act to allow all municipalities to charge their own municipal land transfer tax. There’s only one taxpayer, Speaker, and they are already stretched to the limit.

Affordable home ownership is becoming a growing challenge for many Ontario families. At a time when we should be encouraging home ownership, the government is prepared to hit homeowners with $10,000 in taxes on the average-priced Ontario home.

Will the Acting Premier, before it is too late, stop the imposition of any new municipal land transfer taxes?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s be clear: No decision has been made. We’re currently consulting with our municipal partners, something that the opposition, when they were in power, did not do. All they did was download and impose stress on those municipalities.

We recognize that we have to have a strong working relationship with them. Working together, we can ensure that services to their communities are maintained and are predictive. We’re currently reviewing the Municipal Act, and we’re consulting, and that’s all we’re doing at this point.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s not up to municipalities. It’s up to this Premier and her cabinet to make that power and give that power to municipalities.

The spread of a municipal land transfer tax would make Ontario the most uncompetitive tax jurisdiction in North America when it comes to buying a home.

The

article in the Toronto Sun also noted that during the 2014 election campaign, this government said it had no plans to extend municipal land transfer tax powers to other municipalities beyond Toronto.

From hydro rates to land transfer taxes, the government is pricing people out of owning a home. There is still time to stop this flawed policy. Again, I’m going to ask the question: Will you commit today to not giving any more municipalities the ability to charge a municipal land transfer tax?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The opposition member is asking us not to review the Municipal Act. The member opposite is saying that. What we’re doing is receiving input from municipalities, and absolutely no decisions have been made at this time.

As part of the review of the Municipal Act, we’ve been meeting with municipalities to discuss a variety of issues—issues that include sufficient accountability and transparency; whether municipalities have the powers and tools to deliver those services effectively; and what barriers municipalities face in achieving their financial sustainability. We would encourage municipalities and the public to engage with their councils, as we welcome their input as part of our review.

They want to put their heads in the sand. We recognize that we have to have open consultations. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’ll allow the people to speak their minds and let them be heard.

Youth employment

Mr. Michael Mantha: Mr. Speaker, good morning to you. My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The Jobs for Youth Program provides disadvantaged youth on Manitoulin Island who are aged 15 to 18 with the equivalent of eight weeks of full-time paid work with local employers.

In August, the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Services Board received word from your ministry that funding would be drastically cut. What, if anything, is your ministry doing to help unemployed and disadvantaged youth find work on Manitoulin Island and in northern communities?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member opposite for that question. My ministry and our government have been investing in the people of Ontario. We believe that the people of Ontario are the greatest assets of this country, of this nation. That’s why we have been investing quite heavily in training and education—as well as in research and innovation, actually, for that matter.

The youth employment strategy of Ontario: We have invested $300 million in the youth jobs strategy, and we will continue to invest in the training and education of our youth as we move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again to the minister: Manitoulin Island. The allocation for La Cloche is for seven youth, a reduction from 58, or an 88% cut.

The Manitoulin-Sudbury District Services Board and its 18 member municipalities sent a letter to the Premier, stating they “need to understand how the ministry can reduce the number of youth placements from 111 ... to 19.... This represents an 83% reduction in the number of high-risk youth obtaining summer jobs.”

Minister, the district services board asked at AMO for a meeting. They were denied. They’re asking again. Don’t leave these youth behind. When will you agree to meet with them?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I would like to meet with everyone, with every youth group, student group and so on and so forth. We are open for discussion. We are open to learn from our youth.

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced the Youth Job Connection program, which is a continuation of the youth jobs strategy. Since we came to office, we have invested quite heavily in the training and education of youth, and we will continue to invest.

Youth Job Connection served almost 25,000 students to find job placements in the past. We will continue to invest in youth education.

Great Lakes protection

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I was pleased that Bill 66, the Great Lakes Protection Act, made its way through the House, committee and now passing third reading on October 7. This is the third time a Great Lakes protection act had been brought forward to this Legislature. I want to thank all those who participated and brought their ideas and concerns for the Great Lakes to these conversations.

As a member whose riding is on Lake Ontario, I understand perhaps more particularly how passionate Ontarians are and how much they care about their Great Lakes. My question, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, is this: What would this bill mean for the health and protection of our Great Lakes, and how will it benefit all Ontarians?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member from Burlington for her very thoughtful question.

I think her own community is an example of it. As many of us know, we’ve had to replace the operating rooms in the hospital there twice, after construction, within 24 months. Mayor Goldring will tell us that the stormwater sewer systems in Burlington are being overwhelmed by regular events that exceed the hundred-year flood level.

Burlington is a relatively new community. We’re talking about a lot of new infrastructure. That affects water quality, and that affects the entire economy of communities like Burlington on the lakes.

The Great Lakes Protection Act is an extraordinarily powerful piece of legislation, because it creates valuable networks and supports in communities for local action on water quality, water protection and bringing all the players together locally.

In my supplementary, I’ll elaborate on some examples of how this is working so well already.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I’m thrilled to hear that the strengthened bill emphasizes restoring the Great Lakes’ good health and ensuring that they are drinkable, swimmable and fishable for generations to come.

It is important, however, that we create opportunities for the public to become involved in their protection and restoration. I understand that an important feature of this legislation is the creation of the Great Lakes council.

Speaker, can the minister please share with this House who the council will bring together and what its mandate will be?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Burlington and to my colleagues: It really is the connective tissue that brings all kinds of community efforts together.

Yesterday evening, I had the great pleasure of spending a good part of the evening with our source-water protection committees. All of the members in the House from the southern three quarters of the province have them. They were very aware of the act. They said to me that we have 20 of the 22 plans approved now, and we have the other two coming in the next few weeks. Next year will be our first year with source-water protection plans for all Ontarians.

They said we’ve got to work with indigenous people. We have to get alignment of municipal plans. We have to work with our conservation authorities, our mayors, our local businesses. We’ve got challenges on the Great Lakes, with low water levels causing damage to marine infrastructure and, in other years, it being destroyed by ice. All of this involves that. The guardians’ council, which is not an imposed regulatory body—it’s a volunteer body—allows for these connections to happen and for local plans to be implemented and for local collaboration, which is what we think is so important.

Human trafficking

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Attorney General. Last week, Scott Tod, deputy commissioner of the OPP, and repr