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

October 4, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Oct-04 (PDF)

L012 - Tue 4 Oct 2016 / Mar 4 oct 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 October 2016 Mardi 4 octobre 2016

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

Burden Reduction Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Fiscal accountability

Special-needs students

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Fiscal accountability

Labour dispute

Student assistance

Fish and wildlife management

Tabling of public accounts

Hydro rates

Assistance to farmers

Services for the developmentally disabled

Hydro rebates

Occupational health and safety

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Flu immunization

London Free Press

Peggy Delaney

Autism treatment

Firefighters

International trade

Don Green

New Liskeard Fall Fair

Carion Fenn Foundation

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Right to Care Act (Children 16 Years of Age and Older), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le droit aux soins en ce qui concerne les enfants de 16 ans et plus

Time to Care Act (Long-Term Care Homes Amendment, Minimum Standard of Daily Care), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le temps alloué aux soins (modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée et prévoyant une norme minimale en matière de soins quotidiens)

Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act (Relationship with Grandparents), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la Loi portant réforme du droit de l’enfance (relation avec les grands-parents)

Empowering Home Care Patients Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant plus de pouvoir aux personnes recevant des soins à domicile

Motions

Private members’ public business

Committee membership

Sign-language

interpretation

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Disability Employment Awareness Month / Mois national de la sensibilisation à l’emploi des personnes handicapées

Parental rights

National Disability Employment Awareness Month

Parental rights

National Disability Employment Awareness Month

Parental rights

Petitions

Hydro rates

Highway improvement

Ice machines

Hospital funding

Lyme disease

Alzheimer’s disease

Hospital funding

School closures

Disaster relief

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Landfill

Orders of the Day

Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la promotion du logement abordable

Adjournment Debate

Fish and wildlife management

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 3, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to election matters / Projet de loi 2, Loi visant à modifier diverses lois en ce qui a trait à des questions concernant les élections.

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

Hon. Bill Mauro: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill this morning. I think I’ve got five minutes or so to discuss this legislation, and I’m happy to have that opportunity.

I think it’s important that we note that throughout the process, our goal has to been to change the way politics is done in Ontario. That’s why the Premier directed caucus to stop hosting large-scale fundraisers where ministers interacted solely with stakeholders in their portfolio. That’s why we brought forward a bill that banned corporate and union donations entirely.

Many people will know, because there were a number of communities that hosted events, that over the summer months, after first reading—I think it’s important to point that out—we heard from opposition parties and from experts in the general public on how we could improve this particular bill. I don’t think we can overstate that it’s very unusual—and for members of the public who are following this debate on television to understand and realize the unique step that was taken when we allowed this bill to travel after first reading. Most people probably are not aware that that rarely happens.

The Premier saw such importance in this particular bill and wanted to provide as much opportunity as possible for people to provide their input and to provide for potential amendments that this bill did, in fact, travel after first reading over the course of the summer. I think that is very, very significant and I think it speaks to the seriousness with which we take this issue and our attempt to bring forward legislation that really reflects the will of the people of the province of Ontario.

As a result of that, we brought forward comprehensive amendments that included lowering contribution limits even further, creating a clear definition of third-party advertising and strengthening limits for government advertising before an election.

To address the issue of fundraising events, we proposed working with all political parties to develop a code of conduct. In order to strengthen democracy and its institutions, we want to continue to show leadership by going another step further. That’s why we will be bringing forward an amendment to ban fundraising events for all MPPs, candidates, party leaders, nomination contestants and leadership contestants. There were no amendments before the committee that went as far as we need to go on this issue, and that’s why we will be bringing those forward.

Rules on fundraising should apply equally to all parties. Banning fundraising events is a significant change that will affect both parties and riding associations. That’s why our amendment will also increase the per-vote allowance.

Speaker, with Bill 2 we are going to fundamentally change the way politics is done in Ontario. I want to talk a little bit about the process that we used to get here. We first introduced legislation in the spring that the Chief Electoral Officer called “the most significant redesign of Ontario election laws” in 40 years.

For changes as monumental as we are considering, we needed to take it to Ontarians, and we passed a motion that I referenced earlier, allowing the Standing Committee on General Government to sit for four weeks over the summer and hold hearings across the province. As I said, that was after first reading, which does not happen often. The committee heard from Ontarians in Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, London and Windsor. We want to thank Ontarians who came out and gave their feedback on this particular bill. Their ideas were incorporated into amendments designed to strengthen the legislation.

Now, as I said, we have a bill that will remove even the perception of undue influence on our political and electoral system. How are we doing this? Speaker, if passed, Bill 2 will lower the maximum contribution amount to $1,200 to a nomination contestant or constituency association, $1,200 to a candidate and $1,200 to a leadership contestant as well. That will lower the maximum contribution amount from $33,250 under the current system to just under $3,600, a 90% reduction.

Speaker, the Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, if passed, would fundamentally change the way we do politics, as I’ve mentioned. We’re going to ban corporate and union donations, we’re going to lower the limits that I have referenced already, and it would place restrictions on third-party advertising.

We allowed debate to continue when we reached 6.5 hours of debate on the bill so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill. This bill has seen nearly 10 hours of debate, and according to my count, we have heard nearly half of the members of this Legislature speak to the bill. Speaker, there’s been considerable debate on this bill and we have heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. Unfortunately, much of the debate has been repeating points already made by other members.

It’s time that the bill is put to a vote for second reading and hopefully be referred to committee, where important work takes place. In committee, members of all parties will hear from stakeholders that have an interest in this bill. Members of the public will be able to provide their important input on this bill. In committee, members will have an opportunity to move amendments to strengthen the bill, and this House can move on to debate other matters.

Speaker, there are other important pieces of legislation already introduced, which the government would like to debate and move through the legislative process: one, Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act; and two, Bill 7, Promoting Affordable Housing Act. As a result of that, we would like to spend time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we can’t until Bill 2 is referred to committee for further review. Speaker, as result, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Having listened to the minister and his motion to close debate on this thing, it is my opinion at this point in time that there has not been sufficient debate on this, so I will allow it to continue a bit longer.

I refer back to the minister. You’re finished? Okay.

Questions and comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, Speaker, I wasn’t scheduled to be speaking this morning but colleagues of mine were.

I want to talk about my friend from Leeds–Grenville, who gave up an awful lot of his summer to work on committee, after first reading of this bill in the prior session of this Legislature, and how absolutely shocked I am that a bill of this magnitude, which changes absolutely everything about how parties raise money and prepare for elections, something that is worlds apart from anything that we’ve ever had in this province—and this government, which talked about wanting to give this the fullest of the Legislature’s attention and allow the fullest participation in Ontario’s history on a bill of this nature, that their first tangible act, when they had a chance in the new session, was to move to close off debate on this bill—

Mr. Steve Clark: Choke off.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —to choke off debate, to choke off democracy, to gag every member of this House who is not one of theirs. How in the name of what is right and just and fair can they proceed in that manner? It is unconscionable that they would move closure on a bill of this nature. I have had very few members of this caucus speak on this piece of legislation that affects every single one of us, and not only every one of us, but every one of our potentially nominated candidates in this province, and we’re going to close off debate because the government doesn’t want to talk about it anymore?

I am almost without words. I’m almost speechless, and for me to say I’m almost speechless is saying something, but that’s where you’ve put me in the context of this bill. Shame on you people over there. Recant.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s indeed a pleasure to stand this morning and speak to the attempt by the Wynne government to bring closure to this very important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that we all haven’t had a real opportunity to speak to yet.

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs just tried some Liberal math when he said that more than half of the members of the Legislature have spoken to this bill, and he used that as evidence to try to shut down debate by invoking closure. But the fact of the matter is, Speaker, that the opposition members haven’t had adequate opportunity to speak. When he uses numbers, it’s because the Liberals, instead of speaking for 20 minutes or 10 minutes, break up the rotation into five-minute blocks.

So by sheer numbers—and they have the most people in the Legislature—they have numbers that speak but not for a great length of time. So the members of the opposition who would like an opportunity to have their 10 minutes to say what they feel is important about this bill or inadequate about this bill have not had that opportunity.

So, Speaker, thank you for saving democracy in this House this morning. Thank you for standing up for the democratic rights and principles of the opposition parties in the Ontario Parliament, because once again we’ve seen the Wynne government try to shut us down, try to shut us up, try to gag us from bringing forth the voices of the ridings that we represent across this great province. We have voices that want to be heard on this bill, and when they bring in closure, when they try to stifle debate and shut us down, those voices are kicked in the pants; those voices are disregarded. We are here to bring those voices forward.

I say once again, Speaker, thank you for standing up for democracy in this Parliament this morning.

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

Hon. Dipika Damerla: It’s a pleasure this morning to join this debate.

In response to what the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke had to say, that he was almost speechless, all I wanted to say was that I can’t imagine the member being speechless ever. I’m quite sure that he will always have an opinion, and that’s a good thing, because as MPPs, that’s what we were elected for.

I do want to say that I believe we have had sufficient debate on this bill. I think we all agree with the intent of the bill. We had extensive consultations over the summer. I want to thank all of the members from all the parties who worked through the summer on this very important bill.

The member from Windsor—

Mr. Steve Clark: Tecumseh.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: —Tecumseh said that he has an important voice to add to this debate, and to speak on behalf of his constituents. I absolutely agree that we all have to speak on behalf of our constituents, but the fact does remain that a time comes when we’ve all spoken enough and we’re not adding anything new to the debate.

We have to recognize that we are a voice for Ontarians but Ontarians have their own voice as well, and they had that chance over the summer. Over the summer Ontarians, including the good constituents of Windsor–Tecumseh, had the chance to speak directly to the committees that were travelling across Ontario.

In fairness, given the significant level of consultations we did directly with Ontarians to hear their views, as well as the reasonable amount of time MPPs have had to voice their opinions on this bill, I do believe that it’s now time to move ahead.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is with profound disappointment that I stand here today as the government wants to shut down debate on an issue that could actually impact the democratic institutions we hold dear here in the province of Ontario.

Let me tell you why. A fundamental part of how we arrive here at Queen’s Park as members of the assembly is by winning elections. In order to win elections or to compete in an election, you must raise money. The government, although they may not want to hear this, has to understand that people who invest in us as candidates don’t do so for cash-for-access. No, that’s what the government has been caught doing.

Rather, the people who live in Nepean–Carleton or anywhere else in this province who want to invest in myself or the member from Windsor–Tecumseh or the member from Mississauga–Streetsville want to give their $50 or $100 at a barbecue or a corn boil or a spaghetti supper.

I think it’s unfortunate that the government doesn’t want to listen to our concerns. In fact, I really wanted to talk today about growing up in Nova Scotia and going to political events with my father, and how that sparked within me, as a young 14-year-old girl, a path to public life. To look here today and not be able to contribute to this debate and add my views—is something that the government doesn’t quite seem to grasp as something fundamental to how we operate in Ontario.

This is the same government that evades accountability—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): We have a point of order. I recognize the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I believe we don’t have a quorum to continue the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Can we stop the clock? Thank you.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): We’ll resume questions and comments. I return to the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you, Speaker. I just want to point out that the government wasn’t actually here for the debate, yet they want to continue to shut it down. I believe, as a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, that I should have my 10 minutes or 20 minutes in a rotation to talk about this, I think, democratically fundamental piece of legislation that is important for each of us in this assembly to have our say on. Liberal MPPs have come to speak to me and have asked me to intervene with the government. But, no. Do you know something? They don’t have—

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Name names.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Bob Delaney.

Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, the reality here is that the government is not prepared to pass this legislation with the voices of the assembly; rather, they want to shut it down and they don’t want us to be part of this debate, and I am personally disgusted.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I can’t believe the minister had the opportunity to rebut some of the comments and chose not to.

Again, this morning, the government tried to close down debate on Bill 2. It’s an extremely important bill. As the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said, I spent the lion’s share of the summer at this committee. We heard from dozens of individuals, including our independent officers of the Legislature. I wanted to mention that, because it’s very important. This government seems to have a problem dealing with those non-partisan agents of the Legislature. We just saw yesterday, yet again, this government having a fight with our own Auditor General and deciding to table the estimates without an audit.

I’m the critic for tourism, culture and sport, and I’ve dealt a lot with the Ontario Trillium Foundation. We require a non-profit organization to get an audited financial statement to qualify for Trillium, and yet this government will table their estimates without the check-off from the Auditor General. It just shows you that they can’t be trusted with the public purse.

I wanted to tell you on the record, Speaker, that on this very important bill, I’m only the sixth member of our caucus that has had an opportunity to put comments on the record. There were 22 members who are still—many members who are here today in our caucus are willing and able to speak on this bill and I would ask that the government, again—

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: You know what? You can chirp all you want over there, but the fact of the matter is we’ve only had six members speak to this bill, and there were a number of recommendations that were tabled at committee this summer and were ignored by this government.

I just want to take this opportunity to remind government members, who are quite vocal over there, that it was only media reports that really put this issue on the forefront. I want to recognize one member of the media, Adrian Morrow of the Globe and Mail, who did a remarkable job uncovering this government’s cash-for-access schemes that they’ve been purporting for many, many years.

I want to quote from one of our deputants at our Kingston hearing, the honourable John Gerretsen, former Attorney General for the province. He’s someone who I think most people know that I’ve known for many years. He was the mayor of Kingston back in the 1980s when I was the mayor of Brockville. We spent a lot of time at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario meetings. He gave a very candid deputation in Kingston before the committee when the bill was in its previous incarnation, Bill 201. He was very honest. In fact, I credit him and Dwight Duncan for really exposing this government’s decisions on fundraising.

I want to read to you what John Gerretsen said. I want to use it as premise for my comments today. Here’s his quote from that day: “I can tell you, no matter what legislation you’re going to come up with, the financial spin doctors in each one of your parties—and I mean each one of your parties—are going to try to come up with ways as to how to circumvent that or how to find the loopholes. It’s just the reality of the situation.” I thought of this comment yesterday when his successor, the member for Kingston and the Islands, made some comments. I never thought of this. When Yasir Naqvi set up Lou Rinaldi to read this statement to derail Bill 201’s hearings, the fact that—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would just like to remind the member that when we are referring to other members, please refer to them by their ridings and not by their names. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Clark: Yes.

When the Attorney General set up the member for Northumberland–Quinte West to read that statement at committee, to totally derail it, it really showed how desperate this government is. The fact that they would table amendments that they still haven’t shown—there’s not one member in this Legislature who knows, when this bill gets to committee, what amendments the government is going to put forward, not one member on this side of the House. Maybe some of the members on that side of the House know what they’re tabling.

To say that MPPs can’t attend fundraisers and yet don’t table that—I attended a fundraiser in my riding last Thursday for the Rotary Club. Am I allowed to attend that fundraiser? Or are we only talking about political fundraisers?

The member for Kingston and the Islands really opened my eyes because I think this is what the government is talking about. She said, “It is important for our constituents to have access, and having fundraisers or having events where it is a cost-recovery basis I think is going to allow a lot more people to engage with us.” Here’s the kicker, Speaker. Here’s her next sentence: “If some choose, after the fact, to contribute financially, that’s great.”

Let me get this straight. The Minister of Energy quoted one of my fundraisers in the House the other day. I was a little shocked because it wasn’t actually a particularly good fundraiser. I think one of the tickets for his cash-for-access fundraiser far exceeds what I made on that. But the one thing he talked about was my two colleagues Senator Bob Runciman and MP Gord Brown. There’s an event in my riding, Afternoon in the Islands. It’s been going for 30 years. It’s basically a community event. We make a little bit of money. It’s a $150 fundraiser.

We probably give a tax receipt for maybe $60 because it’s a high-value fundraiser. Many of my constituents come, probably more constituents than anyone else. It’s not like the government’s, where a minister has all of his cash-for-access—brings all his stakeholders.

If I read Ms. Kiwala’s comments correctly, I should charge $90 for Afternoon in the Islands next year. And then if people want to give $60 afterwards, if they want to contribute that, that’s how the government’s going to continue. I really got my eyes opened by the member for Kingston and the Islands yesterday when she said, again—I want this on the record again: “It is important for our constituents to have access, and having fundraisers or having events where it is a cost-recovery basis I think is going to allow a lot more people to engage with us.

If some choose, after the fact, to contribute financially, that’s great.” You know what? If that member thinks that’s great, then that’s totally missing what her lieutenant there, the Attorney General, said when he set up the member for Northumberland–Quinte West to talk to committee.

If we can’t debate a bill for five weeks in the summer and hear from dozens of deputants, and actually have a government that’s willing to defend their amendments and put them in the original bill, then there’s something wrong. And I want to thank my colleague in committee the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. I respect the Speaker’s ruling but I do believe that to have a summer of committee, where we hear from so many people, and then you don’t even have the guts to table your own amendments to a bill—what does that say for a government that’s out of touch and out of control? I think, in 2018, they’re going to be out of office. That’s what I think.

In the little bit of time I have left I want to talk about two things that aren’t in the bill. Banning government advertising: I said many, many times during this committee meeting, when Bill 201 was debated—now Bill 2—that the government should look to other jurisdictions. They just had an election in Manitoba. They had a three-month ban on government advertising. I asked many deputants if they agreed; many of them did agree. This government, when they tabled amendments, didn’t listen to the opposition. They put a 60-day amendment. I hope that the government members will agree that the Manitoba rules were good rules, and they should be incorporated by this government.

But there’s one glaring omission in this bill. Again, I don’t understand what the problem is with this government and the Auditor General. I don’t understand why every other Legislature seems to have a respectful relationship with the Auditor General. This government had the opportunity at first reading—I want to remind people that the reason this bill went out at first reading was because the Premier said that she wanted to have a co-operative venture with the three parties, that she wanted to have a free discussion, that she wanted to have other ideas brought forward.

Outside the scope of that bill, we had the opportunity to give the Auditor General back her powers when it comes to government advertising, something that the lion’s share of deputants agreed on with us. This government shut it down. This government would not support giving the Auditor General back her powers.

I want to thank the New Democrats. I think the New Democrats and Conservatives worked very well in committee. I think we grasped what people wanted: They wanted cash-for-access to end. They wanted more power back to the independent officers.

I’m sick and tired of this government trying to shut down debate. Let debate continue with this bill. What are you hiding? What are you afraid of?

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. Again, thank you for standing up for democracy here this morning and fighting against the attempt to prorogue debate on this bill by bringing in closure.

As I mentioned the first time when they said more than half the members of the Legislature have spoken to this bill already, we heard from the member from Leeds–Grenville that only six out of 28 members of his caucus have had the opportunity to speak to this bill so far. I can relate to you that only six out of 20 members of the third party have had an opportunity to speak to this bill so far. So on this side of the House, even with your Liberal math, there has been a dozen.

Twelve of us have had the opportunity to speak at length on this bill, while you guys get up and share your five minutes, and all of a sudden, you do the math and it adds up to more than half the members of the Legislature, because you guys are sharing your time in five-minute blocks.

We don’t have that opportunity. We need our time to voice the opinions that we hear from the people we represent. I admire how you guys are good at redirection. I admire how you get away from cash-for-access and the quota system put on ministers for fundraising. All that goes out the window when you bring in individual MPPs holding fundraisers. That’s what people start talking about.

But that is not at issue. At issue is your conflict of interest, your quota system and your disregard for fundraising in Ontario. You’ve brought to it a new low—not a new high, a new low—and that’s why we have to stand up and call you out on it.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: There’s an awful lot of crocodile tears over there. You’d think that these parties had never fundraised in their life, and that simply just isn’t true.

Interjections.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Obviously what we have here, Speaker, is some improvements to the fundraising system in the province of Ontario. That’s what the public wants.

Now I’m led to believe that the PCs have had 60% of their caucus speak, not six members, like the member said. I think there’s maybe a dispute on the facts here. Either way, it’s time to move on. The public of Ontario wants these improvements made. The opposition should quit stalling them.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s interesting that the government now wants to cut off debate. They rushed this in. They got caught, and it’s as simple as that. They got caught with $10,000-a-seat fundraisers, $15,000-a-seat fundraisers, and now they’re trying to stop me from having mine. Last Thursday, I had one—$40 a plate for our fundraiser. Now I can’t attend that. I’m not sure, but I haven’t signed very many contracts when it comes to government.

We see time after time where they have gotten caught. Just two weeks ago, we heard the Premier stand up and say, “There will be no more ministers attending expensive fundraisers.” First of all, we found out there was. They had to update their website, because they got caught in that one. But then we found out her chief of staff was at a fundraiser, along with senior ministry people, with $10,000-a-seat plates. Did they just go because they wanted to see a movie or something?

You can’t trust this government. When you think that they’re sounding like they’re on the high and mighty about what they’re going to do to straighten things out— and then we find out they’re sending arguably the second most influential person in this province. This goes to show that they got caught with their donations; corporations were given large contracts for wind and solar—was it $1.3 million they got back?

Interjection: Yes.

Mr. Jim McDonell: What’s that? About a sixth of your debt was paid off from one sector after the last election? We don’t have those powers; we have to rely on the pancake breakfasts. Last week, we had a nice turkey supper—$40 to get in.

People are upset. I can’t repeat what some people in my riding are saying to do to this government, because people are mad. I guess they don’t want to hear us tell these stories, but people are mad.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s always a pleasure to rise and bring the voice of my constituents of Windsor West to this House, whether the Liberal side wants to hear it or not.

I find it interesting that when the Minister of Labour got up to speak, he talked about crocodile tears from this side of the House. I think that goes to show the total disregard and the arrogance—the disregard for our constituents and the arrogance of the Liberal government when they’re saying we’re crying crocodile tears because we want our constituents to be heard. If they really wanted to hear our constituents—and I appreciate that the committee travelled during the summer down to Windsor, but the fact of the matter is they did it in the middle of summer when often people are off on vacation.

That’s the only time that they have off. They’re off trying to have some quality time with their families. They did it in the middle of the day when a lot of independent business owners couldn’t attend, when a lot of people that work during the day cannot come out because, frankly, thanks to the Liberal government, they cannot afford to take time off to come out to a committee and speak.

Frankly, it was a farce. It was not really consultation. Every time somebody voiced their concerns about the bill that the government side had brought forward—the suggestions the government brought forward—they actually shut that person down and challenged them because they didn’t agree with them.

So I would say to the minister that perhaps next time you get up to speak about the people on this side of the House not wanting debate shut down, wanting our constituents’ concerns heard, that you have the respect that our constituents need and not say that we’re sitting over here boo-hooing because we want our constituents heard. Perhaps, Minister, that’s why you no longer have a Liberal cabinet minister in Windsor West.

I think that we do need to have more debate on this, whether they want to hear it or not. They’ve had their opportunity to spread out their time amongst as many members as they want, and that’s probably because their members really have nothing of substance to add to the debate because they’re not listening to their constituents. I can’t support shutting down debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Leeds–Grenville for final comments.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to thank all members for their comments. I know that the government House leader has some new members of their staff and they may have given the Minister of Labour talking points about how many of our members not just debated but also did questions and comments. I only spoke about members who made speeches for the debate, which were Mr. Hillier, Mr. Walker, Mr. Fedeli, Mr. Miller, Mr. Barrett and myself. That’s the facts.

I do want to acknowledge what the members for Windsor talked about. Both of them made some great comments. The member for Windsor West did talk about the fact that they were in the middle of the day. The thing that no one has acknowledged yet—this is new debate for you Liberals over there—is the fact that many of those meetings were cancelled because of lack of interest. One of our dates in Ottawa was cancelled; our day in Windsor was shortened to basically an hour. The meeting in Ottawa—there were meetings in Toronto and Hamilton that were cancelled as well. So she’s right; when you have hearings in the summer, that’s what you deal with.

I would hope that the government would have a lot of hearings on this, again, to get those comments, because I know a number of people were disappointed that their recommendations were not listened to. Again, my question is, why hasn’t the government tabled the amendments that they’ve talked about since that last session in Toronto? Why are they hiding those amendments that would deal with members and fundraising? I had to read Hansard and listen to the debate to get an insight into how the member for Kingston and the Islands feels this cost-recovery event should take place.

I’ve had people ask me if I Skype into fundraising. When we’re on the St. Lawrence and they’re on the banks of the St. Lawrence, do I drive by in a boat, weigh anchor and make a speech out in the harbour?

Some of these things, these concepts, are crazy. The government has to come clean. What are you hiding?

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I am also honoured to add my voice to the debate. I want to just, before I begin, give a particular shout-out to the media and journalists like Adrian Morrow for their strong investigative research and their ability to bring this story forward. It was very much the media that fuelled this issue.

It’s important for us to reflect on the context. The problem was twofold. One, there was strong evidence that the government was conducting cash-for-access, much like the member before me spoke about—that particular issue, that there was cash-for-access to ministers who made government decisions. That’s very important to make that distinction. It wasn’t cash-for-access to someone who wasn’t able to make a government decision, who wasn’t in a position of cabinet; it was a very specific issue that the journalists were able to focus on.

The problem is that we expect, Ontarians expect, that the government will make decisions that are in the best interests of the people, not decisions based on who attends the fundraiser. When there is a very clear perception that cash is being provided to have simple access to a minister and that specific stakeholders that deal with a particular ministry are being specifically targeted just for access, it starts raising this perception that the government is not conducting itself in a manner that is appropriate.

The second concern was conflict of interest. I was able to raise this concern and I was very thankful for the Integrity Commissioner’s response. The current laws don’t govern this concern that was raised, and it’s important to note that. We noted that the current laws, as the Integrity Commissioner pointed out, don’t cover this scenario. We needed to add some amendments to make sure they’re addressed. The government did not accept those amendments.

What was the problem? There was one specific scenario where it became very apparent that there was some—whether it was actual impropriety; certainly there was the perception of impropriety: the sale of Hydro One. That’s a particular scenario where we know very clearly—independent evidence suggests and a policy basis suggests—that the sale of Hydro One does not benefit the people of Ontario. No one believes that it benefits Ontario. As much as the Premier stands up and says, “Oh, this is to benefit the people by broadening ownership,” there’s nothing broader than every single person in the province of Ontario. So that argument doesn’t make sense.

The second argument that we need to sell off a revenue-generating asset in order to raise funds to build infrastructure was shot down as being illogical and unaffordable—in fact, the most expensive and wasteful way to raise money. We have not the opinion of the NDP or the Conservatives; we have the opinion of the Financial Accountability Officer, who makes it very clear that this is the worst way to raise money, and, in fact, it is going to put the province into a worse financial position.

You have a decision that’s going to put the province in a worse position. You have a decision that doesn’t benefit the people of Ontario. Who does it benefit? A small group of lawyers and bankers named the syndicate. This very same group throws a massive fundraiser for the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Finance, the two ministers responsible for the sale. That has a serious perception of being a conflict, and that serious perception of a conflict is what brought about the concern.

What’s not banned, Mr. Speaker? In 2015, the government took away the power, the oversight of the Auditor General to say, “Particular government ads are overly partisan and should not be played, should not move forward.” That’s allowed; the government can do that. The government can put forward any ad they want and have no oversight or scrutiny. Before, for an ad that was proposed by the government, the Auditor General would look at it and say, “Do you know what? This ad does not advance any sort of policy for the people. It’s clearly partisan in nature. It’s clearly just a self-congratulatory message.

That’s not an appropriate use of public dollars.” That was a strong oversight mechanism that this government got rid of. This bill, which purports to protect against perceptions of conflict of interest, which purports to protect against the very problems that were raised by the journalists, including cash-for-access, does not reintroduce that oversight. Again, the government can do any sort of ads they want without any scrutiny, without anyone saying that that ad is—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Partisan.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —partisan in nature.

It’s another example of how this bill is silencing the people of the province who might want to raise a particular issue but allowing the government to continue to use public dollars for partisan advertisements. That continues in this bill.

In addition, the government has signalled a complete lack of understanding of the real issue here. The heart of the issue is that people who are in cabinet, people who are ministers, who have direct influence over decisions the government makes are in a completely different position than those who are not. Backbenchers and opposition members are an absolutely different scenario.

When ministers or cabinet members can make decisions that affect the province, there must be a separate analysis with respect to how they can do that, how they can interact with the public in terms of fundraising and interact with private interest groups in terms of fundraising, and how that should not impact their decision-making. There is a colossal difference between a cabinet member and a minister and an opposition member or a backbencher. That’s where this government completely fails to understand the severity of the situation.

In fact, I have a great quote from Konrad Yakabuski—I know he’s no relation to our own member, the Conservative member—from an article, “How Low Can the Ontario Liberals Go? Just Watch Them.” It’s a Globe and Mail

article and a very powerful

summary. This is the reporter speaking: “The average MPP holding a $100-a-ticket potluck has little direct power and those who attend such events know it. They are there to support an individual and his or her agenda in an entirely legitimate manifestation of the democratic process. When the energy minister invites a few electricity-sector executives to a private dinner in exchange for thousands of dollars in donations, however, you know said executives don’t show up to talk about the weather.” The reporter clearly gets the difference.

There is a massive difference. The proposals by this government don’t address that. The proposals by this government don’t address the problem, which is cash-for-access. The government doesn’t address the perception of conflict of interest. The government rejected many amendments which would have addressed the conflict of interest.

In addition, the government rejected amendments that would address lobbying and change the way lobbying is done so that there can be some clear guidelines around that to address the real heart of the problem, which is the cash-for-access and the conflict-of-interest issues. Again, the government has not addressed those issues.

If we summarize it, the problem with all of this is, at the end of the day, people are becoming cynical, and have become cynical, about politics. When the government fuels the cynicism by completely avoiding the root problem, they’re actually assisting in creating a system where people are less and less likely to vote. What happens is that allows the status quo to remain, and the status quo is the cynicism that has fuelled the whole thing from the beginning. That’s why it’s so important for us to take this issue seriously and to address it in a meaningful way.

It is our duty to restore that trust in the public administration and to restore that trust in politicians, and this government is failing to do that.

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

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m pleased to rise today and speak about the elections financing act and to address some of the comments that the members opposite have made, including the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

The member opposite talked about addressing the issue of fundraising in a meaningful way. I want to point out that our elections financing act is historic in many ways because what this act tries to do and attempts to do is actually change the way politics is done in Ontario and change the way that we fundraise in Ontario.

I find it interesting that the members opposite are spending most of their time talking about time and time allocation, and not necessarily about this financing act. Why? Because I—frankly, one of the members opposite talked about cynicism. Well, I’m feeling a little bit cynical about what the reasons are behind this attempt to talk about time allocation and not about the fact that what we’re doing here is stopping the hosting of large-scale fundraisers, banning corporate and union donations entirely, and ensuring that fundraising events for all MPPs, candidates, party leaders, contestants and so on—bringing forward an amendment about that.

It really is going to change the way we fundraise. That’s what the people of Ontario have told us they wanted, and that’s actually what the opposition parties told us they wanted. And yet, when the time comes to discuss what’s on the table and move this important bill ahead and bring closure to it so we can act on it, we are being stalled—and I find that that is really where the questions are about who is committed to ensuring that we do the right thing in terms of fundraising in this province.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to rise today and give comment on the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton on the election financing statute law that’s before us today.

We certainly want to have a level playing field for political financing legislation. That’s not the point. The point is, the Liberal government—and I think, listening to some of their backbenchers and even some of their ministers, they’re really not getting the impact that this is having. This is actually changing democracy.

When they say that backbench MPPs and opposition MPPs can’t attend their own fundraisers, that’s taking away the right of democracy that we have in the province of Ontario—because those people willingly want to participate. Do you think that they’re coming to my local fundraiser, whether it be a breakfast or a spring dinner or a golf tournament, and thinking that I’m influencing government legislation?

You have overreached your authority as the Liberal government and as caucus members. As they say, your hand got caught in the cookie jar—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Can you address the Chair, please?

Ms. Laurie Scott: —because you had at least $10,000-a-plate dinners—I’m sure it was much more—

Interjection: Fifteen sometimes.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It was $15,000 sometimes—with cabinet ministers. That same company then made, in the case of the wind companies, a $1.3-million donation to the Liberal Party and then got millions of dollars’ worth of contracts. That’s what you got caught doing. You overreacted, and you’re denying the people within our ridings access to participate in democracy by saying you can’t have a little fundraiser where maybe you’d make $10 or $20.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, if you don’t know that that’s what you’re doing, that is what you’re doing; I’ll just tell you.

The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton did a great job. I just want to clarify that the

article he read from the Globe and Mail—Konrad Yakabuski is John Yakabuski’s brother. I just wanted to put that comment at the end for the member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Before I move to further questions and comments, I would just like to remind all members in the House that when we are debating or in questions and comments—I would ask that you, again, address the Speaker as opposed to individuals. Address me as a third party, all right?

Moving forward, we have further questions and comments. I recognize the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to stand in the House and listen to the debate brought forward by the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton because he tells a story. He describes in a very articulate way the premise of what the problem is.

Today he talked about the election act. One thing he highlighted which was very clear—and I was hoping the government would have listened to the explanation—was access to government officials. What he said was that cabinet ministers would have fundraisers of an exorbitant amount, and they are the decision-makers of legislation.

Cabinet ministers have fundraisers of exorbitant amounts, and they’re decision-makers: In that premise alone, there is an issue, and the issue is that we don’t have oversight now when it comes to that.

Conflict of interest is an important part of what we do here as legislators. To not have that in a bill is highly problematic. I don’t understand this government’s inability to self-reflect on this legislation and understand that that is a fundamental wrong that needs to be corrected.

If nothing else, we need the debate to drive it home to this Wynne government that they haven’t been listening to the people that they represent, and people are telling them—we, as conduits for our constituents, are here in this Legislature telling, debating with this government—they have to correct this legislation.

They didn’t listen to people in committee, as we heard. They shut them down and told them what was best. Speaker, the people know what’s best, and they’ve spoken.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you again, Speaker, for allowing me to join this debate.

This is very straightforward. If it’s passed, it’s going to: ban corporate and union donations; it’s going to lower the maximum contribution to $1,200 for nomination contestants—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: —or a constituency association, $1,200 for a candidate and $1,200 for a leadership contestant; it lowers the maximum contribution from $33,250 to just $3,600, about a 90% reduction; and it places restrictions on third-party advertising.

Either you agree with that or you don’t.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please.

I’d like to remind members in the Legislature this morning that it’s very important that I’m able to hear the speaker. When I have cross-conversations going on and when I ask them to come to order and they don’t, then I can start naming—well, not naming, but I’ll start referring to you by your riding. Please keep it down so that I’m able to hear the speaker.

We’ll continue with the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s time to move on, basically. I made my point, Speaker. We know what the bill will do. People have asked us to make changes to the election finances in the province of Ontario. That’s exactly what we’re doing. I don’t think it should be stalled anymore. It’s time to move on.

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

Applause.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you for the applause and thank you to all the members who spoke and shared in the debate.

I also want to correct my record. I apologize for mistakenly not attributing the phenomenal writer Konrad Yakabuski as being the Conservative member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke’s brother. So that correction is now made.

Mr. Steve Clark: Younger brother.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Younger brother. Interesting.

I think it’s important, again, to highlight in my response that there are two key issues here that the government needs to address in this legislation.

One is the cash-for-access component, to ensure that decision-makers, those who can control the direction of this province, those who control the purse strings—the decision-makers, the cabinet ministers—that cash-for-access principle should be completely dealt with. This government has not dealt with that. That is a serious problem.

The second one is the perception of conflict of interest. When fundraising results in decision-making, when there are stakeholders in a particular file that deal with a particular ministry, and their fundraising results in or has the perception of resulting in decisions that benefit that stakeholder group and not the people of Ontario, that’s a serious issue, and that’s the second issue that needs to be addressed.

Neither of these issues have been addressed by this legislation. Numerous amendments brought forward by the opposition to address these two particular issues were rejected.

Again, another key issue that needs to be addressed that this government has not addressed is, absolutely, it’s important to ban union and corporate donations, but we need to ban partisan government ads. This bill had the opportunity to do that, but it doesn’t do it. In fact, the Auditor General still cannot apply her scrutiny or her oversight to any advertisements to ensure that they’re not partisan. She can’t do that. The government withdrew that ability in 2015. That’s why it’s so important that we add in these amendments to make sure this government is held accountable.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour has so eloquently said, this debate has been going on for some time now. I think it has reached the hours now where it’s time to move on. It’s an important bill, and it’s a bill that needs to get to committee, and we need to do more work on it. As a result, I move that this question now be put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The Minister of Economic Development and Growth has moved that the question now be put. Having considered the amount of time that it has been debated, now over 10 hours and 25 minutes and 28 speakers, I’m satisfied there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question now be put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question now be put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it. A recorded vote being required, this vote will now be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Burden Reduction Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

Mr. Duguid moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to reduce the regulatory burden on business, to enact various new Acts and to make other amendments and repeals / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à alléger le fardeau réglementaire des entreprises, à édicter diverses lois et à modifier et abroger d’autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. I’m going to be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Davenport, whose speech, I’m sure, will probably be a heck of a lot more exciting than mine. This may not be the most exciting topic that we’ll ever discuss in this Legislature, but it’s an important one. It’s about reducing the costs of businesses and the time that businesses take by reducing administrative burden on our businesses across the province.

Mr. Speaker, I got up this morning, and I was a little anxious. I’ve got to tell you—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I got up this morning too.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m glad that the member opposite got up as well.

I was a little anxious, I have to admit, but it wasn’t because I was anxious that I would be speaking on this bill. I’m actually anxious about what’s going to happen tonight with the Blue Jays, and I think we all are. So my prediction, Mr. Speaker, let me say right off the top, is the Jays are going to win because they’ve been there before and they have the experience, but it’s going to be a tight game and I think we’ll all be very nervous throughout that. I wanted to say, right off the top, on behalf of all of us in the Legislature: Good luck, Jays. We hope you win tonight. Go, Jays, go.

That’s something I think—it may be the only thing today we’ll have unanimity on, but I think we have unanimity on that. In honour of the Jays—not in honour of my friends opposite, but in honour of the Jays—I wore my blue tie today as well. Not that I’m afraid to wear blue ties. The Deputy Premier is wearing blue as well, so we’re all in this together.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today not of the Blue Jays but of the Burden Reduction Act. If passed, this act would support Ontario ministries in updating legislation to remove unintended burdens on businesses and to create savings in businesses for both government and other stakeholders.

It reduces and streamlines unnecessary regulatory burden. I want to say right at the outset, because it’s important: When we’re reducing regulatory burden and when we’re reducing regulations, we are paying great attention to ensure that we’re not lowering standards for safety. The Minister of Labour pays close attention to these things. We’re not impacting safety in workplaces or employment standards. We’re not, in any way, demeaning or decreasing employment standards or consumer protections.

I sit beside a former minister of consumer protection, and we make sure, as we’re reducing regulatory burden, that we’re reducing what we call unnecessary regulatory burden. But when it comes to standards across the province, we have to make sure that we have strong standards in this province. We make sure they’re competitive. We make sure they’re as easy as possible for businesses to comply with, but we make sure that public protections are in place. I always like to say that at the outset just to make sure that nobody gets the wrong idea about what we’re trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking a number of individuals and organizations that have contributed to this bill. This is not a bill that was put together just in the backrooms here at Queen’s Park; this is a bill that comes through a ton of consultation with our business community that’s ongoing. The members opposite and all my colleagues will, from time to time, hear from businesses or organizations in the province—or even ministries and different organizations across our land—that there are things that we put in their way that really impede their ability to compete as well as they can and should. That’s the kind of thing that we tackle.

We’ve had an incredible amount of feedback and input from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, whose actual suggestion it was for us to do these kinds of bills on an annual basis. That’s what we’re going to do.

What this does is it provides a window for our government to bring forward opportunities to reduce regulatory burden. In the past, you might have a great idea. It might not be huge. It might impact a small part of a small sector, but it still matters to that small part of a small sector. It could be a small part of a small business sector. It still matters to them. But you can’t put forward a piece of legislation just for that one thing because it would grind the Legislature to a halt. That’s why, what we’ve done with this bill is, we create a window. We’ll be doing that on an annual basis.

It is a recommendation from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that we have this vehicle so that we can be streamlined in our approach to attacking regulatory burden and reducing regulatory burden. This gives us, in government—and it gives the opposition an opportunity to participate as well. I’m always open to suggestions from the opposition on ways we can reduce regulatory burden. I can’t think of anything more non-partisan than reducing regulatory burden—because it’s not like people vote for politicians or governments because of a regulatory Burden Reduction Act. It’s not a vote-getter.

But when you talk to the business community, it’s something very important to them. So I want to thank the CFIB for their leadership in working with us as we move forward.

I also want to thank Allan O’Dette and his team at the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, we work arm in arm with them as well. They’re always keen for us to make these changes and these moves. He has been very, very helpful.

I want to thank Jan De Silva from the Toronto Region Board of Trade. She has been crucial to our efforts to put this bill together in our overall Open for Business efforts.

I also want to thank Ian Howcroft from Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. He’s been very involved with our efforts, not just in this bill, but our Open for Business—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: What a contributor.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member opposite says that Ian Howcroft is a good contributor, and he is. He works very hard to ensure that the voice of our manufacturing sector is heard here at Queen’s Park. The good news is that it continues to be heard in our Open for Business efforts. Ian Howcroft has done a wonderful job making sure that happens.

I also want to thank Flavio Volpe. I may have time, Mr. Speaker—I probably won’t, because time is starting to run out—to speak a little bit more about some of the work that the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association has done. They were the first sector that we turned to for our Red Tape Challenge, which is a brand new, Open Government effort, modelled after an effort that worked very well in Great Britain, where a sector can participate and give us their feedback online on how to reduce regulatory burden in that particular sector.

Why that’s important is that, in the past, we’ve had some great success saving hundreds of millions of dollars for businesses by sitting at round tables with the business sector and tackling five or six items that were important to that particular sector, bringing it forward, committing to do it and getting it done. We’ve been able to reduce dozens of regulatory burdens through that process. It’s become a bit of a global best practice, so we’ll continue to do that work.

But what that doesn’t do is it doesn’t reach out to the front line of businesses. Your typical small business person isn’t sitting around those tables. We’ll have a representative from small businesses there. It doesn’t reach out to everyday Ontarians or workers and unions and front-line workers in some of these businesses, who have something to say about red tape and may well have some great ideas for us. What this does is it reaches out, beyond the confines of our usual round-table-type meetings with sectors and associations, to everyone in the province and gives them an opportunity to participate.

The first Red Tape Challenge with the auto parts community went extremely well. The next Red Tape Challenge now is with the agriculture sector—with the food processing sector, I believe it is. We’re looking forward to getting feedback from them as well.

I’m really pleased to move forward with this initiative. I also need to thank my Open for Business team in the ministry. We’ve completely revamped our ministry to be more proactive and more streamlined when it comes to attacking our Open for Business challenges and our efforts to reduce regulatory burden. In fact, we’ve remodeled our entire government in some ways to set up internal mechanisms that move those decisions to the top so that our secretary of cabinet, our business adviser, Ed Clark, and my deputy minister sit on a panel that helps drive from the top down.

Usually you’ll try to do things from the bottom up. In this case, though, in making change in government, it’s important to have it from the top down so that it will encourage ministries to continue to drive changes that reduce burden on business.

My Open for Business team has done a fantastic job. They’re a creative group of people. When people think of bureaucrats, they’re not your typical public servant bureaucrats. They’re really outward-facing, they’re really keen to be involved with the business community and they’re doing a magnificent job leading our province.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve probably got a minute left for now. I may well, if I’m back when this comes up for debate, be able to finish. If not, my able parliamentary assistant will when the debate comes back up. But let me finish by thanking my colleagues. Eleven ministries have had input into this bill. This isn’t a bill that my ministry has come up with. It’s really the 11 ministries that have worked with their sectors that have made these suggestions and put them forward, so I thank those folks in those ministries, my colleagues and their teams for the work they’ve done on this.

I thank the opposition in advance for the co-operation that they’ll probably bring to this because they understand the importance of reducing regulatory burden as well, Mr. Speaker—and I’m looking to you now and I’m assuming that my time is expiring, because I think next in line is question period for the day and that’s the most exciting part of the day for many of us in this Legislature. I’ll sit down for the moment and we’ll see what happens.

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is now 10:15 and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Jeff Leal: They’ll be arriving shortly to the members’ east gallery: I’d like to welcome Randy Hope, who is the chair of the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus, mayor of Chatham-Kent and former MPP for the Chatham area from 1990 to 1995; Peter Emon, who’s the chair of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus and, of course, the very distinguished warden of Renfrew county; and, from the OFA, because it’s OFA Day here at Queen’s Park, President Don McCabe and his colleagues Jessica and Sarah.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Brent Royce, who is a director of the OFA and is here visiting Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I have some visitors this morning: Candace Rennick, Stella Yeadon, Kevin Bates, Mrs. Joanne Waddell, JoAnne Dure, Preethy Sivakumar and Heather Duff. All of them are members of CUPE. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. We have members of the Ontario Disability Employment Network seated in your gallery: Joe Dale and Diana McCauley. We’re expecting others to arrive later: Danette Anthony and Peter Athanasopoulos.

We also have 53 grade 10 students from St. Mary Catholic Secondary School in my great riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. Welcome to all.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce Pat Jilesen, a director of the OFA, who will be joining us in the gallery today.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the NDP caucus, I would also like to welcome the directors of the OFA, here today for Agriculture Week.

Hon. Bill Mauro: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature from Thunder Bay my oldest son: Dustin Mauro is visiting here in the members’ gallery.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I would like to welcome today to Queen’s Park, from Union Gas, vice-president of business development Jim Redford, Tim Kennedy, Mike Packer and Mark Lawson, and from Enbridge, Cynthia Hansen, Malini Giridhar, Anne Creery and David Donovan.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park grade 4, 5 and 6 students from Shirley Street Public School, and their teacher Ben Porter, from my riding of Davenport. They’ll be visiting Queen’s Park later on this morning and I look forward to meeting them.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I, too, would like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Warden Peter Emon from Renfrew county, who is the chair of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus, as well as being the reeve of the town of Renfrew.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I would like to welcome Randy Hope, the mayor of Chatham-Kent, who is here as the warden of the Western Ontario Warden’s Caucus, as well as Don McCabe, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They just came in. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature this morning the family members of Pickering page captain Brendan O’Donnell. Welcome.

I’ll start over on my left—but then I’m going to go right to his mother and father and do that first: Caroline Voitovici and John O’Donnell; his brother Liam O’Donnell; his grandmother Colette O’Donnell; grandmother Maria Voitovici—just stand up as I mention your names—and grandfather Josef Voitovici. Welcome to all the Brendan O’Donnell family.

Applause.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you very much. At the same time, I do have a second delegation coming: a young lady by the name of Carion Fenn, who we will welcome to the Legislature as the president and founder of the Carion Fenn Foundation. I had the honour of speaking with her on rare diseases at an expo recently.

I do thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Absolutely.

The member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Mark Reusser from Waterloo region, who is also here with the OFA. Mark, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure this morning to introduce, from the great municipality of Chatham-Kent, our mayor, Mr. Randy Hope, and his economic development services director, Mr. Michael Burton.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I know he’s been introduced—

Interjection.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I think I’m up. Sorry to our House leader.

I’d like to welcome as well, from the great riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, the OFA president, Don McCabe, and the mayor of Chatham-Kent, Randy Hope.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think we’re going to try to set a record here, because we know what’s going to happen next.

The member from Simcoe–Grey in introductions.

Mr. Jim Wilson: My apologies to my colleague.

I saw him in the building; I don’t quite see him in the gallery yet, but Mr. Keith Currie from the great riding of Simcoe–Grey and a vice-president of the OFA is here.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome students from St. Joseph elementary school, from my beautiful riding of Richmond Hill, visiting the House today.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to recognize that a scribe from the Toronto Star has survived another birthday, Martin Regg Cohn, and he doesn’t look any worse for wear. He had a birthday yesterday.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s great. We’re now heckling the media.

Happy birthday, Regg.

I do have an introduction. I would like to introduce in the Speaker’s gallery a friend of mine and an OFA representative, Mr. Larry Davis from Brant. Thank you very much for being with us.

Finally, to try to see if we did hit the record—it is the custom of the Speaker to introduce former members, so the former member from Chatham–Kent in the 35th Parliament, Mr. Randy Hope. Welcome, former member.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Makes you want to come back, eh?

Thank you for the introductions. It’s now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Fiscal accountability

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. According to the Auditor General, this is the first time in the history of Ontario that the financial statements have been released without the Auditor General’s opinion—an unprecedented action in Ontario’s history and incredibly disrespectful to the Auditor General and the people of Ontario.

But were they released without the AG’s opinion? That’s the big question. Was it because she discovered the government has an $11-billion hole in their budget? That includes a $1.5-billion deficit this year. That’s a lot of money.

How will the government fill this hole? Is it going to be through new taxes, higher hydro rates, new fees, or will the Liberals just cut services?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me begin by saying go Jays, go Blue Jays.

Mr. Speaker, we were very clear yesterday that we have accepted the Auditor General’s numbers for this year. We released the documents, despite the divergence in accounting opinions specific to two pension funds between Treasury Board officials and the auditor, as part of our commitment to openness and transparency, because it was past the date when that information was to be in the public.

In the meantime, we will be consulting with experts on how our pension assets should be accounted for moving forward. Officials will be engaging the expert accounting community to support a full understanding of how that should—

Interjections.

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

I’m sure that we have found ourselves almost in the same spot as we had almost every day at the beginning of question period. I would ask that we try not to shout people down. I just don’t think that’s an appropriate thing to do and I’ll have to deal with that if I get a sense that that’s all that’s going to happen.

Supplementary, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: Every time it looks like the Liberals are hiding something, it becomes just a matter of time until they get caught. First, they tried to hide the cost of the gas plant scandal. We later found out that it cost over a billion dollars. Then the Financial Accountability Officer caught the Liberals when they were supposed to use the funds from the fire sale of Hydro One for transportation and then it goes to the deficit. Now the Auditor General caught them trying to hide an $11-billion hole in the budget.

I know our grade 6 students are failing in math, but I at least thought the government knew how to count. I expected better from this government. So my question is, directly to the Premier, why has the Auditor General given your government a failing grade on public accounts?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to report that using the numbers that were suggested by the Auditor General, what we really showed yesterday was that in fact we have beat our deficit target for the seventh year in a row.

Laughter.

Hon. Liz Sandals: They might consider that a laughing matter; I consider that very important because it shows that what is happening with the province’s books and with the province’s fiscal performance is that we are in fact managing our economy prudently and we are on target to reach our goal of balancing the budget in 2017-18. We showed that we had a projection originally of an $8.5-billion deficit; we now have a $5-billion deficit last year. We beat our projection.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: Sometimes I wonder what fantasy world this government is living in. When it comes to believing this government or the Auditor General, I’m with the Auditor General.

This is the Auditor General saying that there is an $11-billion hole in the budget and they are now an additional $1.5 billion away from balancing the budget. Why this government continues to ignore and disrespect the Auditor General is beyond me. On the flip side, you have the government saying that everything is fine, that their numbers add up. The Auditor General is saying very clearly that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I made mention of it so now I’m going to start to fulfill it. The Minister of Agriculture, come to order. The Minister of Transportation, come to order. If I do hear any other interjections, I’ll deal with those, too, especially when I’m trying to get attention.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Instead of ignoring the Auditor General, how is this government going to make up the $1.5 billion in their current budget? Additionally, how does this government reconcile the fact that they’re the first government in Ontario’s history to release public accounts without the Auditor General’s opinion? It’s beyond me.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Be seated, please. I’m going to ask that the members on the same side of the questioner not interject as well.

Premier—sorry, president.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Let’s go over this one more time calmly. When we tabled our budget in 2015, we projected that the 2015-16 year would result in a deficit of $8.5 billion. When we tabled our current-year budget last spring, 2016, we said the interim projection for a deficit would be $5.5 billion. What did we actually achieve, using the Auditor General’s numbers? We achieved a deficit of $5 billion. In other words, we beat the budget target, using the Auditor General’s numbers, by $3.5 billion—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga, come to order.

You do have a wrap-up sentence if you want.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Yes, thank you.

So to me, it is good news that (

a) we got the financial information out to the public and (

b) that we’ve beaten our deficit target for seven years in a row.

Special-needs students

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, I saw first-hand how great the faculty, the facilities and the students are at Yes I Can nursery. I understand why the Premier fought passionately for funding for this wonderful nursery nine years ago. And because of that, I can’t understand why this Liberal government has turned its back on Yes I Can. The government has made a decision to cancel its annual funding. It has asked Yes I Can nursery for a wind-down plan. Without provincial support, Yes I Can may have to close its doors and Ontario would lose 130 precious child care spaces.

Why is this Liberal government turning its back on Yes I Can? Do they not appreciate that this is their responsibility? Do not pass the buck. Do not say it’s some other level of government. This has always been funded by the province of Ontario for the last nine years. It has been in existence for 26 years, helping children. Don’t abandon them.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Far from walking away from this school, which does provide great service to kids—and I have been a champion of the program in north Toronto. It’s a great program. In fact, Yes I Can Nursery School receives $300,000 a year—provincial dollars—that flow to the city and flow to the nursery school. That money continues to flow.

The reality is that for some time, officials in the Ministries of Education and Children and Youth Services have been trying to get the nursery school to sit down with city officials and work to come up with a budget and a sustainability plan. Our provincial officials are perfectly willing to continue to sit with the nursery school, but there does have to be an open budgeting process and there has to be a conversation with the city officials. We’re willing to be part of that, but it has to happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The Premier continues to stress that Yes I Can continues to operate and there is some flow-through funding. That is not correct. The local Toronto city councillor in the area said yesterday at the press conference that there is no city mechanism for this autism funding. There is no flow-through funding that can be used. Your local Toronto city councillor is saying you’re wrong. This nursery is saying the Premier is wrong. There is only one level of government that is pulling funding, pulling $150,000 to take care of these children.

It’s not right; it’s wrong. You fought for these children nine years ago. Why are you abandoning them today? Why?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The way funding for child care and these programs works is that the money from the province flows to the municipality, and the municipality allocates those—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: To support low-income families.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Part of it is wage subsidy, part of it is for other programs, but that money flows through to the municipality. That’s why it’s imperative that Yes I Can sit down with city officials. As I say, provincial officials who have been part of the conversation are perfectly willing to sit down with them to come up with a sustainability plan. But there has to be an open budgeting process, there has to be a sustainability plan, and that has to be done in conjunction with the city officials.

I know Jaye Robinson, who is a city councillor, would understand that that’s the process that needs to happen.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: In the Premier’s response—open budgeting process—or speaking lines—they are taking $150,000 away. That’s why it’s closing. You’ve got the local city councillor saying there is no Toronto mechanism. You have a Liberal senator coming down from Ottawa, who is passionate—

Interjection: Jim Munson.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Jim Munson—on autism funding, saying this is the wrong thing for the government to do.

I just don’t understand why this government continues to go after these families. First they took families with children with autism to the courts, then they tried to cancel the IBI funding and now you have 130 kids, many of them—most of them—children with autism, and this Premier is abandoning them.

Government is walking away. There’s no municipal mechanism. There’s no federal mechanism. The funding is provincial and you are abandoning them. It’s the wrong thing to do. Stop this attack on children with autism.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Associate Minister of Education (Early Years and Child Care).

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I am pleased to rise today as the Associate Minister of Education to address this.

First of all, I want to make it clear that our government is committed to ensuring that every child has access to the supports that they need. This is so important when it comes to our children during their early years.

Our government is committed to giving our kids the best start in life. That’s why we are making historic investments. We’re creating another 100,000 licensed child care spaces for zero- to four-year-olds over the next five years. It’s a historic investment. We have more than doubled the child care funding to municipalities to over $1 billion a year. That is why we are also providing funding to the city of Toronto, who then funds a number of local child care programs, including the Yes I Can Nursery School, at $300,000 a year. We are committed to ensuring that a good program like this gets the support that it needs.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Premier about people I met across Ontario who are struggling to pay their hydro bills. They have student loans that they can barely afford. They’re paying for child care that’s only getting more and more expensive in this province. They’re having to stop saving for their kids’ education because their bills are simply too high.

The Premier said that she has an enormous amount of sympathy. People don’t need sympathy; they need action. Will this Premier stop the privatization of Hydro One and all local utility companies?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reason that I talked about sympathy is because we have taken action and we are taking action to deal with the problems that people are facing in their lives every single day.

The leader of the third party began by talking about tuition. That’s exactly why we believe tuition should be free for students from low-income families—150,000 students.

The leader of the third party talked about child care. That’s exactly why we think there needs to be more child care, particularly for the zero-to-four years, which is why 100,000 new spaces over five years is critical.

The fact that we are moving to take the provincial portion of the HST off electricity bills, to further reduce bills for people in rural communities and to work with small businesses so that they will have access to conservation initiatives so they can save money—all of that comes out of that sympathy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Whether this Premier chooses to admit it or not, life is becoming more and more unaffordable for the people of this province, all across Ontario. People are already struggling to pay for child care, pay off student loans that they’ve been paying for a decade, and on top of that, the hydro bill keeps climbing and climbing and climbing.

People don’t know what to do. They didn’t vote to turn Hydro One or their local utility into private for-profit companies, and they cannot afford for that to happen. Will this Premier stop the sell-off of our hydro system in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, underlying this question, as has been the case for many months now, is an ideological position that argues that we should not build new transit and we should not make investments in new infrastructure by leveraging assets that have been owned by the people of the province for many years—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that we shouldn’t make those investments, that we shouldn’t invest in new assets for the people of Ontario that are needed in 2016. So we categorically reject that notion. We believe that investing in roads and bridges and transit across the province is necessary. We’re demonstrating that those investments are creating economic growth, and we are going to continue to foster economic growth across the province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, even the Financial Accountability Officer says that the Premier has it wrong. You don’t sell off a revenue-generating asset to pay for infrastructure. It’s the wrong thing to do. That’s not ideology at all; that’s just the facts.

But what I really think the Premier needs to know is that all the families in Ontario that I’ve been talking to are telling us that they cannot afford their hydro bills. They’re not alone. The people I met in Kitchener and in Hamilton and in Niagara Falls, they’re not alone. It’s happening everywhere. They’re seeing their bills go up, and their paycheques are staying the same. They can’t afford private power generation. They can’t afford private power transmission. They can’t afford private local utilities.

The Premier is not an innocent bystander in this mess. She can take action, and she needs to take action. Will she stop the sell-off of our electricity system in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the leader of the third party continues to try to conflate these issues, I talked about the need for us to try to make investments in infrastructure, and that’s the asset discussion.

If she wants to have the conversation about the electricity price increases, we are very aware that the investments that have been made in order to upgrade the system, in order to have a clean, 90%-emissions-free grid in this province by shutting down the coal-fired plants, by jump-starting a renewable industry—there has been a cost associated with that and the investments that we’ve made.

So we have put in place programs to address those challenges. We’ve removed the debt retirement charge from people’s bills. We’ve put in place the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think the message has been sent.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program and the Northern Ontario Energy Credit. Most recently, we have announced that we’re going to be removing another 8%—the provincial portion of the HST—from people’s bills. We understand that we need to take action, and we are.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. If I was looking across the aisle at a Conservative Premier, and they said to me that they wanted to sell off Toronto Hydro and every other local utility, I’d be disappointed but I wouldn’t be surprised. People expect Conservatives to privatize. It’s in their DNA. That’s what they do.

But that’s not what the Liberal Party ran on. People were deeply let down when this Premier announced, out of the blue, that she was going to sell off Hydro One. Now everybody is worried that she’s actually planning to help privatize their local utilities.

Will this Premier rule out any further sell-offs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe that government exists to make decisions in the best interests of the people that it serves. I believe that if a government looks at a province and sees infrastructure that has not been invested in—that has been neglected by subsequent governments that have not paid attention to the economic growth of municipalities and have not made the investments necessary—then it is up to that government to make those investments and to find a practical way to do that.

That is what we have done. We have seen a problem, we have addressed that problem, and what we’re seeing now is that Ontario is one of the leaders in the country in economic growth. That’s government’s responsibility.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People work really hard to save energy, but at the end of the day, people need to turn on the power to cool their homes, to cook their meals, to do their laundry—you name it, Speaker. People need electricity.

When they see the Premier selling off Hydro One and encouraging the sell-off of local utilities like Toronto Hydro, they see a government helping people at the top make a hell of a lot of money while everyone else has to pay the price—I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I need to put it on the record, please. Withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw, Speaker.

They see a government helping people at the top make a heck of a lot of money, while everyone else has to pay the price. People cannot afford it.

Will this Premier stop her plan to sell off the hydro utilities in this province, as well as stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The other responsibility that government has is to make sure, as decisions are made, that if there are people who need support, we put those supports in place and help people to deal with their expenses on a day-to-day basis. As I have said a number of times, we have put a number of programs in place, including, most recently, announcing that we’re taking the provincial portion of the HST off people’s bills.

But our responsibility is broader than that. We have to look at other ways that people need support and other ways that they can participate in the economy. For example, making sure that every student in this province has access to post-secondary education no matter what their income: That is the responsibility of government. That’s why tuition will be free, starting in September 2017, for 150,000 students from low-income families. Those are the kind of decisions that, taken in a package, mean that we are paying attention to people’s needs every day.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I find it astounding that not once did this Premier say that it’s the government’s responsibility to listen to the wishes of the 80% of people in this province who don’t want to see their public assets sold off.

The Premier wants people to believe that she has nothing to do with the privatization of Toronto Hydro, but she’s already giving them—and the finance minister mentioned it yesterday—$100 million in tax giveaways to facilitate that. She’s planning more tax giveaways in the hopes that, by privatizing Toronto Hydro, that move will take the attention away from her own sell-off of Hydro One.

The problem is that there are people across Ontario who can’t afford to pay any more. Instead of making things better for them, the Premier’s trying to help herself and her party yet again.

Will this Premier admit that she’s got no mandate to privatize Hydro One or a single local utility, and stop all the privatization now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, you know, it makes me smile when the leader of the third party talks about helping us and our friends when she references the decision around Hydro One. It was a hard decision. It was a very difficult decision, because it was a practical decision based on a need that we saw as we looked to fulfill our commitment to invest in infrastructure in this province. It was not an easy decision; it’s one of those decisions that government has to take in order to be able to move forward.

We took that decision because we know that the neglect that infrastructure in this province has suffered over years—the lack of investment, the digging of holes, the filling in of those holes and the lack of maintenance across the north—had to stop. We had to find the resources to make those investments—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You do have a wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We made that decision, and the leader of the third party wants to conflate the issue of that decision and electricity prices. It’s just not the case.

Fiscal accountability

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. It appears Halloween came early yesterday when the government was so spooked by my question about the public accounts that they treated us to a hastily held technical briefing, a press conference and unaudited financial statements.

This is unprecedented. It has never happened in Ontario before. It showed an $11-billion hole in their budget, and they tried to hide it by admonishing and undermining the Auditor General, despite the auditor’s warning this past June of accounting changes, and then again in the 2015 auditor’s report, in

chapter 2, which I’ll have one of the pages deliver.

The government has been aware of this for quite some time, and Ontarians want to know how this government is going to pay for it. Are they going to cut services to kids with autism? Are there going to be even higher hydro bills, new taxes—or are they going to trick us with all of the above?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think, Speaker, that we should go back to the beginning of the story, which is that while there certainly has been an ongoing discussion between the public servants who do the accounts and the Auditor General—not, I would say, the politicians, for the record—the first notification we got that the Auditor General was rejecting the pension treatment which had currently been used for the last 14 years—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The chief government whip is warned. Particularly when giving an answer, let’s not interject, please.

Finish, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: For the past 14 years, since 2001-02, the auditors of Ontario have approved a particular accounting practice for pensions—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of—the member for Nepean—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please, I’d like all of us to try to be helpful.

The member from Nepean–Carleton, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We were faced with the situation that the auditor presented us on September 13 with written information that she was rejecting the treatment used for the past—

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

Supplementary, the member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you and good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Auditor General confirmed there’s an $11-billion hole in the government’s budget, but rather than co-operating with the Auditor General, the government went into full panic mode with a desperate news conference. Rather than addressing the financial waste and mismanagement, the government continues to break their legal obligations. They stonewall the province’s independent officers.

Speaker, there’s a pattern here. Now they have released unaudited financial statements—no verification from the Auditor General. People in Ontario want to know what this government is hiding and how it affects them. I ask the Premier, if the Auditor General refuses to verify their numbers, how can we ever trust anything they tell us?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): President of Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: What happened was that we had advice from our public servants, whom we certainly hold in high regard, that the books should be treated one way; we had advice from the Auditor General that the books should be treated another way. The way cabinet resolved this was to pass a regulation that the Auditor General’s treatment would be used in 2015.

I would point out that, using the treatment the Auditor General asked us to use, in fact what we have is a $5-billion deficit, which is $3.5 billion lower than what we originally projected in the budget.

We do not have some sort of panic, as the person over there seems to think. What we have is the desire to get this information to the public so the public can figure out what is going on.

But I want to assure you, we used the auditor’s numbers—

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

New question.

Labour dispute

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. The Premier promised to be better, that she would ensure vulnerable children are a priority, but that has simply not been the case. Since September 18, CUPE workers in Local 4914, representing child protection, administrative and support staff at Peel CAS, have been on strike. Replacement workers are being paid outrageous amounts. No wonder there is distrust in the system.

Will the Premier step up and ensure that Peel CAS workers can get back to doing the important work they do for vulnerable children?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Labour is going to want to comment in the supplementary, but let me just say that I believe negotiations have to be between the parties who are involved, that the best deals are found at the table. I hope both sides will come together and find a way through the negotiation. That’s the way the collective bargaining process works best.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: The buck stops with the Premier. Children’s aid workers should be protecting children instead of being forced to walk picket lines. Children need stability. The children’s aid system definitely needs stability.

Vulnerable children should be the priority of this government. Making sure that people who work with them are respected is a key part of that. When will the government start making this about children in care and making sure that the people who provide the services are respected?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: As a former president of a children’s aid society in this province, I well understand what the speaker is talking about when she asks about these types of issues. But we should be proud of the labour relations record we have in the province of Ontario. Collective agreements are reached in well over 90% of the disputes that take place. Collective agreements are reached without a resort to strike action. When we reach an impasse, Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: When we reach an impasse like we have in this regard, we have some of the best arbitrators. We’ve got some of the best mediators, the best conciliators in the country that make themselves available to ensure that the parties are able to come to an agreement at the table. The best agreements are reached at the bargaining table. I would urge the parties to get back to the table and strike a deal.

Student assistance

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. This spring, our government made the exciting announcement that we are going to be making OSAP more generous for all students, and actually making tuition free for low-income students.

Could the minister please give this House an update on what this government is doing to make free tuition a reality?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question from the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

When qualified students are prevented from attending post-secondary education because of cost, we all lose. We are all better off when all of us get the education that they can.

That’s why we’re working hard to implement the most ambitious reform of student assistance in North America. I’m very proud that we are making tuition free for students with family incomes under $50,000. We’re also supporting families—it’s progressive—with up to $160,000 family income. Those students will still receive aid: improved, up-front grants and 150,000 students in Ontario will be getting grants that are higher than their tuition—getting free tuition.

What we’re saying to students is, “You do the work, you get the marks, you get accepted. We’ll make sure that money does not stand in the way of higher education.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thank you to the minister for her answer. Generous financial assistance is so important to ensuring that under-represented students are able to reach their full potential. However, we know that some low-income students never even apply for post-secondary education, let alone OSAP, because they assume the cost is too high.

The sticker price of going to school can present a very real hurdle for low-income students who may have a hard time understanding what financial assistance they might be eligible for.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us what our government is doing to tell students about these changes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore is absolutely right. Yes, financial barriers can keep students from pursuing higher education, but the perception of high costs and the fear of taking on debt can be a roadblock in and of itself.

That’s why we’re working hard to spread the word about OSAP reform. We’re going to college and university fairs. We’re talking to guidance counsellors. We’re going around the province to make sure that young people understand what doors our new OSAP can open for them.

Recently, I had the opportunity to tour the Ontario Universities’ Fair at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre; 130,000 people attended that weekend. I visited the OSAP booth. I spoke to students. I spoke to parents. Staff manning that booth said it was the busiest they’ve ever been. People are excited about this. I’m also asking MPPs from all sides of the House to make sure students in their ridings know that the doors of opportunity are open in Ontario.

Fish and wildlife management

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. After five years, four ministers, and many FOIs and conversations with the Ombudsman, I finally received some information regarding the special purpose account.

As you know, Speaker, the money collected from hunters and anglers’ licences, royalties and fines is to be used solely to improve hunting and fishing in Ontario. However, I was shocked to see that the money collected from hunters and anglers was going to purchase houses and psychologists. Would the minister be able to explain to hunters and anglers of this province how buying homes and paying for psychologists improves angling and hunting in Ontario?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I thank the member opposite for the question today.

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the conservation officers who provide enforcement for our hunters and anglers and programs throughout Ontario. Thank you very much.

The member is talking about the special purpose account for our fish and wildlife programs. It costs about $100 million annually to pay for the fish and wildlife programs and services across Ontario. In 2015, the SPA, the special purpose account, gained $70 million. That goes to provide fish and wildlife management activities across Ontario. Some of those pieces talk about monitoring fish and wildlife populations, fish culture and stocking, fish and wildlife research management and planning, conservation officers and enforcement, draws and licensing activities, and hunter education to support that across—

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: The lack of transparency and details continues with this new minister. Each minister I’ve dealt with—four of them over the past five years—has tried to hide the truth about the expenditures in the special purpose account.

This summer the Aylmer district stakeholders received a response from the MNRF in regard to finding out details of the special purpose expenses in our area. The response they received from the ministry was that they do not track expenditures for the fish and wildlife special purpose account. However, the Financial Administration Act requires that receipts and disbursements be recorded for special purpose accounts. We know they have the infor mation for hunters and anglers.

Will the minister now release the details outlining how monies from the special purpose account were spent, and an explanation of how these monies have improved hunting and angling in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to ask him to withdraw, but the member was dangerously close to making an accusation that I cannot accept. So I would warn anyone after this point not to go down that road, please.

Supplementary.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Again, I thank the member opposite for the supplementary question.

Staff that is funded from the fish and wildlife special purpose account include but is not limited to biologists, scientists, conservation officers, fish culture staff, field staff and administration staff. Expenditures related to staff salaries and benefits are paid through the fish and wildlife SPA for those staff performing fish and wildlife management activities across Ontario. There are directives and guidelines in place that govern benefits and staff relocation entitlements when required. We have a process within the ministry to review, each year, program costs within the ministry and the fish and wildlife SPA.

It costs about, again, $100 million to pay for the fish and wildlife. But yet, that member, when asked to pay for an increase in budget, voted against that budget—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Tabling of public accounts

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. This government has refused to give information to the Financial Accountability Officer. They have attacked and they have undermined the Auditor General for this province repeatedly over the years. And now they have tabled the public accounts without the Auditor General’s opinion for the first time ever. There is a pattern here, Speaker. This government is making the kind of history that leaves people deeply disappointed.

Will the Premier admit that this was a mistake and work with the auditor to retable audited public accounts for the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would be absolutely delighted to table the public accounts, but I cannot do that until we have an audit opinion from the auditor. That is why yesterday we released the consolidated financial statements in our annual report, which is the same financial information. It is because we are awaiting an opinion from the auditor.

I would point out that we in fact passed the deadline for the tabling of the public accounts on the 27th, and I am not able to table the public accounts until we have an opinion from the auditor. When we get the opinion from the auditor, I will indeed table the public accounts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, they have an opinion. They just don’t like that opinion.

This Premier promised to have the most transparent and open government in Canada, but that’s not what people are seeing. The government is trying to avoid accountability very clearly. By tabling financials without an audit, the Liberal government is releasing numbers that suit them, not the people of this province. We believe that the government should be about serving the people, not the interests of the Liberal Party.

Will the Premier commit to retabling the public accounts, with the agreement of Ontario’s non-partisan Auditor General?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Just let me restate: I do not have a written opinion from the Auditor General. Once we have a written opinion from the Auditor General, I will be very happy to retable the accounts and they will say what the consolidated financial statements said, which we released yesterday, which is that the province has beaten its deficit target for the seventh year in a row. We had projected an $8.5-billion deficit. In fact, we achieved a $5-billion deficit, and that is in fact the number that the Auditor General requested that we use: $5 billion.

So by the auditor’s accounting, we achieved a $5-billion deficit, which is $3.5 billion better than what we had projected in last year’s budget.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister share with the House some of the great work this government has done to move forward to make Ontario accessible by 2025?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Davenport for this great question.

As we know, October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and I will make a fuller statement in the House this afternoon on that.

As well, we completed the first-ever review of the customer service standard and initiated the review of the transportation standard, which is currently under way. I’m happy to share more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the minister for sharing this information with the House. It is great to hear that this government sees the value and importance of making Ontario accessible for all.

I hear from my constituents all the time, both business owners and customers, about opportunities they have missed because of the barriers people with disabilities face. One of my constituents, Sharon, uses an electric scooter and visits my office regularly. She recently told me that when a business is accessible, not only do customers with disabilities serve to gain, but the business benefits as well.

While we know that organizations who make their services accessible gain a competitive advantage, unfortunately many organizations are unaware of this great opportunity. Can the minister explain how the government is engaging with businesses and business owners to understand the value and importance of becoming accessible?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member again for the question.

Hydro rates

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Premier. We’ve been listening to the Minister of Energy lauding your hydro rebate plan for rural Ontario, where farmers have been especially hit hard by increasing electricity bills. Farms run on energy, and energy rates are one of the most expensive input costs for our farmers. Yet the minister is telling farmers that off-peak is the ideal time to use electricity: “Just farm during off-peak hours, and you’ll save money, lots of money, a third of your bill.” My question for the Premier is: Can she explain just how her time-of-use prices would be of any use to a farmer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m delighted to respond to the member’s question, because it’s yet another example of the chameleon-like tendencies of the new PC Party. One minute they’re telling us that we should be trying to find ways to lower energy rates—we come in with a rebate program that provides 8% across the board for small business users, farmers and others, and in rural parts of the province much more than that, and all we get from the member opposite is critique and criticism.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve responded to some of the concerns of our farmers. I know our Minister of Agriculture listens very closely to the concerns our farmers raise. We’ve put in place a program that will provide significant discounts on energy costs for our farmers and for residents right across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: I’m going to go back to the Premier again. I think the Premier is coming to realize that her Liberal protection plan for Ontario farmers is moot. Cheaper rates would be a serious game-changer for farmers. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has told you that affordable energy could free up more than $1 billion a year of new disposable income for rural Ontarians to invest in and build our rural economy. But maybe the Premier and her minister know better. So I ask her, how does she imagine getting Ontario’s 360,000 dairy cows to give milk during off-peak hours?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m going to refer to the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the supplementary this morning. In fact, it’s interesting enough—I always read the commentary from the—

Mr. John Yakabuski: New program: Conversations with cows.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now I’ll stand. The member from Renfrew, come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I read the very articulate—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: —commentary from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We have the president in our gallery today. It’s interesting when our colleague the Minister of Energy announced the program, there was a very positive commentary from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. In fact, by reducing the threshold level of the ICI, there will be more farm businesses in the province of Ontario that could take advantage of that program.

Assistance to farmers

Mr. John Vanthof: Farmers are the foundation of our huge agricultural sector. Some 750,000 jobs depend on farmers. The risk management program was designed by farmers to ensure them against the boom-and-bust cycles in agriculture. The Liberal government capped the program—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To whom, please? I didn’t hear who.

Mr. John Vanthof: The Liberal government—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, who are you asking?

Mr. John Vanthof: Oh, I said, to the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry; I didn’t hear.

Mr. John Vanthof: Sorry.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: The Liberal government capped the program in the boom, but since 2012, farm gate prices for corn, wheat, beef and pork have plummeted by half.

Premier, will you lift the cap on the Risk Management Program to help protect farmers from the oncoming bust?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I do appreciate the question from the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, who’s been an agriculture leader in northeastern Ontario.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it was a predecessor of mine, Carol Mitchell, who canvassed broadly to all commodity groups that are not covered by supply management in the province of Ontario. It was this government that brought in a Risk Management Program—the only province in Canada that has such a program.

We did so to help our farmers alleviate the challenges that they have—prices that are determined by the Chicago exchange—to level the playing field, to give them support. The $100-million program is the place to do it, and my recollection is, Mr. Speaker, that we got no support from the opposition benches when that was in our budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Premier: The fact of the matter is, that program was designed by farmers and the government to be bankable and predictable, but then the government capped it, so it’s no longer bankable and predictable.

The fact of the matter is, thousands of jobs rely on the stability of the farm community—because as farmers get economically squeezed, processors can’t rely on their products because they might not be there. The government expects farmers to be stewards of the land with all their environmental rules, yet they don’t come through with the programs that actually help farmers survive.

Once again, will this government remove the cap to maintain stability in the agriculture sector so we can retain the hundreds of thousands of jobs that that sector creates?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for his supplementary. The fact of the matter is, we brought this program in when Carol Mitchell, a predecessor of mine, was here. The reason we did so is because farmers in Ontario who are not covered by supply management wanted stability in their industry. We wanted to get away from ad hoc programs.

This government of course had extensive consultation with the non-supply-management group. We brought in a Risk Management Program for Ontario farmers that’s bankable and predictable to make sure we can address those concerns like those we had this past summer, when parts of Ontario had unprecedented drought. I was in the field meeting with those farmers to make sure that they knew that our Risk Management Program was in place to help them.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It’s about the families in crisis and many more on the brink. They don’t have the services they need to care for their adult children with developmental disabilities. Some families have no funding at all. Many are left sitting on wait-lists.

The Ombudsman’s report concluded that the government response to their plight was “unreasonable and wrong.” The minister knows how important this is, yet there was no mention of services for individuals with developmental disabilities in the throne speech. Why not, Speaker? And when will the government’s response improve to something better than what the Ombudsman defines as “unreasonable and wrong”?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member for the question, because it gives me the opportunity to say how much I respect the individuals with developmental disabilities in this province, their families, their caregivers and the challenges that they in fact face.

Certainly, the comments made by the Ombudsman I found to be entirely unacceptable. This is why we’re working so hard to ensure that no individual is left in unacceptable circumstances. This is why on this side of the House we’re working so very hard—many ministries are involved—to ensure that we have seamless service for these individuals. My colleagues the Minister of Children and Youth Services and the Minister of Education and I are particularly engaged in this file.

This, of course, is why we have shown our commitment to those with developmental disabili