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

April 12, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Apr-12 (PDF)

L159 - Tue 12 Apr 2016 / Mar 12 avr 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 12 April 2016 Mardi 12 avril 2016

Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des élections municipales

Introduction of Visitors

Frank Sheehan

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Fundraising

Autism treatment

Fundraising

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Aboriginal programs and services

Fundraising

Energy policies

Economic development

Child care

Women’s issues

Members’ Statements

Ross Batten

Paramedics competition

Royal St. George’s College student projects

Perth County Federation of Agriculture

Korey Jarvis

Kitchener Rangers

Special-needs students

Silver Creek Public School

Ahlul-Bayt Islamic Education Centre

Introduction of Bills

Girls’ Government Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée du gouvernement des filles

Ismaili Centre, Toronto, Aga Khan Museum and Aga Khan Park Act (Tax Relief), 2016

Lawren Harris Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de Lawren Harris

Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act (Social Assistance Research Commission), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires (Commission de recherche sur l’aide sociale)

Petitions

Hydro rates

Autism treatment

Lung health

Automotive dealers

Parental recognition

Home inspection industry

Hospital funding

Dental care

Employment standards

Health care funding

Services for the developmentally disabled

Sexual violence and harassment

Orders of the Day

Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act (Budget Measures), 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant la création d’emplois pour aujourd’hui et demain (mesures budgétaires)

Private members’ public business

Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le soutien aux sentiers de l’Ontario

Adjournment Debate

Government accountability

Physiotherapy services

Wind turbines

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des élections municipales

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 11, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and to make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 181, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? Minister of Natural Resources—Minister of Northern Development and Mines. My apologies.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I once was Minister of Natural Resources. It was a great portfolio and I enjoyed every second in it, but I am obviously delighted to be Minister of Northern Development and Mines right now.

I’m very pleased to continue debate on Bill 181. I’ll be sharing my time with the minister responsible for seniors affairs. We’re grateful to have an opportunity to carry on the debate that—

Applause.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Yes, indeed. Let’s applaud Minister Sergio.

We’re very pleased to be able to continue debate on Bill 181, an important piece of legislation, I think. Second reading debate was led off yesterday by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who has worked very, very hard to put together a piece of legislation that will be bringing forward changes to the Municipal Elections Act.

I think, in an overall sense, the goal is to ensure that the rules governing how municipal leaders are elected are clear and reflect, perhaps, how we can better run modern campaigns and elections. The ministry actually reviews the Municipal Elections Act following each municipal election. The goal is to ensure that the act does meet the changing needs of Ontario communities.

I recall part of Minister McMeekin’s comments yesterday, that over 3,400 submissions about how the act could be improved were received from the public, from municipal councils and from staff across the province as part of the consultation last year.

The purpose in us bringing forward this legislation now is that we want to do it well in advance of the next municipal elections, in 2018, to allow our municipal partners sufficient time to prepare for the next election cycle in their communities.

I don’t think I need to speak to anyone in the Legislature about the important services that are provided by our municipalities. Many people in the Legislature are former members of municipal councils, and certainly all of us work closely with the municipalities we represent to ensure that we are indeed reflecting their views. Certainly my goal as an MPP is to work with the municipal councils I represent: the city of Thunder Bay and many other municipalities in the riding of Thunder Bay–Superior North.

One thing that I think we have all come to truly recognize is that municipal governments are the governments that are closest to the people; they are the ones that are going to be hearing directly from their constituents. We, of course, operate on very much the same basis. Certainly we have a very close relationship with our constituents.

The bottom line is that our communities certainly need to be strong. They need to be vibrant places where people can live, work and raise families. That’s why I think it is important that we need to ensure that local elections are as efficient as possible. One of the ways I think we can do that—and that’s reflected in this legislation—is by increasing transparency and accountability, and allowing more choice in municipal elections. That is very much part of the government’s plan to build our province up.

One part of the legislation that is certainly of most interest to municipal leaders—and, I think, to people across the province—is ranked ballots. What we are working on to try to improve, at a time when voter turnout is going down in many communities—that has certainly been the case in municipal elections—is that we think it is timely to look at ideas that could potentially, and we believe will, reverse that trend.

What we are proposing is providing municipalities with an option. The option is to introduce ranked-ballot voting in their communities, if they so choose. I can certainly speak on behalf of those who have spoken to me about ranked ballots. The proponents of ranked ballots certainly believe that this method of voting can make election campaigns more civil; I think that is probably the case. Jurisdictions that are using ranked ballots have seen better engagement and better debate, and certainly the evidence is that they’re seeing higher turnouts. So that is one of the main aspects of it.

There’s also a piece of the legislation related to campaign finance. If this legislation is passed—and we’re obviously looking forward to a full debate—these changes will certainly help ensure that campaign finance rules are clear, are simple to follow, are easier to enforce and increase transparency and accountability in municipal elections.

What we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, is a framework to regulate third-party advertising to increase accountability for advertisers and ensure more fair and more transparent support, including setting contribution and spending limits. I believe that any discussion about modern elections must include whether we ban corporate and union donations, and these changes would give municipalities this option. Again, we want to make sure that our municipalities, our cities and our towns have the opportunity to undertake this conversation with their citizens, and that’s very much the goal of this legislation.

We are proposing, for example, that clerks refund nomination fees to candidates only if they file their financial statements by the deadline. This way, candidates would be more than encouraged to file on time. There’s an issue related to municipal elections, which we all speak about frequently, in terms of the actual campaign period. Right now, Ontario has the longest nomination period of any province. It probably is not a stretch to say that it contributes to campaign fatigue among candidates and voters.

If this legislation is passed, candidates would be able to register between May 1 and the fourth Friday in July instead of from January 1 to the second Friday in September in the year of the election. We think that is a way we could actually reduce the impact of campaign fatigue—change the way that things are set up now, in terms of the election period that is in place.

I’ll be passing it off to my colleague shortly, but I want to also make a few more comments about the voters list itself. We are also proposing improvements to the voters list. We need to make it easier for voters to add their name to the list or make changes to their information, as well as to make it easier for clerks to remove the names of deceased voters or deceased electors from the list.

This is very much a reflection of a very significant consultation that was undertaken by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As I referenced earlier, Minister McMeekin informed us that there had been over 3,400 submissions that came forward in relation to what changes may be put in place. We want to be able to give the municipalities the option to look at the ranked ballot system, one that has been a great discussion among many municipal leaders, and that is certainly the purpose of this legislation. I’m delighted to have had a chance to speak in support of this legislation and will at this point pass it off to my colleague the minister responsible for seniors.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now turn debate over to the minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. You look good in the chair.

It’s delightful to have a few minutes to speak on Bill 181, the so-called Municipal Elections Modernization Act. This is the second reading we are doing on this bill. It still has some time to go. Let me say first that I have to congratulate Minister McMeekin, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, for spending considerable time on this particular item. He has been consulting with various stakeholders, and I’m very pleased that it’s in the House.

I believe citizens at large have been asking for some changes, some improvements to the Municipal Act; in other words, how municipal elections are taking place in our province. I don’t have to tell you, Speaker, that we have hundreds of municipalities and cities, and some of the laws vary within some of the existing municipalities as well. I think the changes that have been proposed are welcome. I would like to say at the outset that I will support the recommendations the minister has made. We’ll see how far we can get on it, how quickly we can move it.

The proposal is to see that this recommendation will be delivered to the local municipalities to implement if they so wish. It’s only an option. They have the option to either implement this recommendation or change it and make further amendments. But I believe it’s important, as Minister McMeekin has recommended, that we direct local municipalities to look at changes in how local municipalities conduct elections.

I have to tell you, Speaker, that this is very important. I come from a municipal background, and we always say that we are closer to the people when we deal with day-to-day issues. Who can say no to the people when they say, “This has really impinged on the way I live my life.” If it’s a sidewalk issue, if it’s to make sure that when you open the tap that the water is running, that the lights are on, that the services are there—it’s so important. Speaker, I don’t have to tell you, I’m sure, that every member in the House receives calls from people not knowing what is municipal, provincial or federal.

I have to say that 60% of the calls I get are municipal issues. So this shows how important it is that our people understand what belongs to them locally, federally or provincially. When people come in to our office, we do listen. We’re trying to help them as well.

It’s so important that we send this direction to the local municipalities for possible changes, because there are areas that need serious improvement. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Northern Development and Mines addressing some of the issues and the proposed recommendations. One of them that we’ve been debating for a long time—and there are people who are really passionate about it—is ranked ballots. It’s not confusing, but until it’s there and it’s done, people won’t get used to it. It needs some explanation, yes, and it’s one of the ways of electing our local politicians.

Whether the cities or municipalities go along with this recommendation is another matter, but at least we are saying, “Let’s do it more democratically and more transparently. Let’s give the people more opportunities.” I don’t have to tell you, Speaker, that voters, especially at the municipal level, are not so affluent. We see 27%, 30%—very low turnouts in municipal campaigns.

We need to clean up several issues in every election, but especially municipal campaigns. This would perhaps help increase the turnout at the polls. Ranked ballots are one issue, campaign financing is another, increasing transparency and accountability is another, and banning corporate and union donations is another. Filing returns from candidates has been a big issue. It’s sometimes very difficult for local clerks to deal with, because candidates—it’s not that they’re caught in bureaucratic paperwork or whatever it may be, but I think we have to send a clear message that the clerks are responsible for doing that particular work. Then the clerks will have to report as well.

The campaign period has been something that I have always been—let’s say politely—not very happy about. Because when January 1 comes and the election is in October or November, it’s like the world stops and everybody is thinking about trying to get re-elected from January all the way to October or November. What happens in between? Why such a long period of time for someone to get organized and put up signs or whatever? In other words, work practically stops, and it shouldn’t. It doesn’t.

We always have staff and professional people in the various departments—public works, transportation or whatever—that they look after. But taxpayers feel, “Why do you need from January 1 to November to run the campaign?” This is an area that I believe municipalities will have to address, and I hope they will.

My time is up, unfortunately, but, as I said, I come from a municipal government; I spent some 18 years there. I hope that some of these recommendations will have some legs, that we go with second reading and let the municipalities decide how they can better improve municipal elections and municipal campaigns. I thank you for the time, Speaker.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure for me to provide a couple minutes of questions and comments on Bill 181.

I listened to the ministers’ speeches this morning. I don’t disagree with the way that they’re marketing this bill, and I’ll tell you why. When I ran for mayor, I waited till the last hour when nominations closed—and I suggest there are many members of this House who may have done the same—which made it about a month-long campaign period. The writ would have been a month, back in the day when I did that.

So when the government talks about the writ, the registration period—and I’m also going to talk about the lame duck period—I think it’s interesting to note that they have made the writ a lot longer under this bill, because the writ will now, in this bill, begin in July. The municipal election will be from July to the election date. I suggest that might be problematic for some people who are considering whether to run. I think it might do the reverse: It might deter people from running for office.

Yes, they have decreased the deadline down, from January 1 to May 1, but there’s one thing that they’ve missed, and many municipalities have talked about this. It’s the lame duck period. For example, when I was elected mayor, the election date was on November 8. We took office on December 1. It was just a little over three weeks. This now again, like the last election, pushes it out so that municipal staff would basically run the municipality for almost six weeks. For many, many, many councils, that’s problematic.

I would think that you would want the council to hit the ground running and you would want to have that short period where they could be oriented. There are issues around meetings and whether the meetings are open or not. New councils aren’t open until they get sworn in under those same provisions. So I think the government needs to take a second look at the writ period and also the lame duck period.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is always a pleasure to rise and share the thoughts of my constituents from Windsor West in the brief two minutes I have on Bill 181, Municipal Elections Modernization Act, and to make comments to what the minister responsible for seniors affairs has said.

I think one of the concerns that I have is that we have, I believe, a 65-page bill that was only tabled a few days ago. That hasn’t really given opposition members an opportunity to comb over it, see what the bill is all about and then go back to our municipalities and speak to our city councils, our mayors, talk to our constituents and see what they think. I know the government says they’ve consulted. I believe a year ago, they announced they were going to go out and consult. But it could be history repeating itself.

We look at a budget that they said they consulted on. They have wasted a lot of people’s time and efforts during consultations. They didn’t wait for the committee to come forward and report on those consultations that they did on the budget. They tabled the budget before the committee even reported. So we have some concerns on this side. I certainly have concerns about how much consultation actually took place. Were they really listening and really taking to heart what the municipalities were saying? Or did they already have this legislation drafted the way they want things to be done and just pretended they were consulting, pretended they were listening to the municipalities?

I have great concern over the legitimacy of this legislation. I look forward to having more time to read through it and to go back to my city council, my mayor and my constituents of Windsor West to ask what they think, because I just don’t trust the consultations that the government side does.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It’s a pleasure to spend a couple of minutes on the comments from Minister Sergio and Minister Gravelle. They talked about a lot of specifics that are in the bill. I want to focus a little bit, really, on the consultation piece.

Speaker, this is something that happens every four years. It’s not something that nobody is expecting to happen. Almost a year ago, we announced that the consultation process was going to begin. I know for a fact that there were over 3,400 submissions to the minister on what municipalities and people thought about potential revisions to the Municipal Elections Act. We talked to folks at AMO and Good Roads. I know that we met with municipal leaders, and this came up many, many times, Speaker, so it’s hard to comprehend that there was no discussion.

I know in my own riding—and in many others—I meet with local councils. This is one of the things I check off on the list when I talk to those folks about the issues of the day and the issues that affect municipalities.

There will be more consultations. It will go through second reading. It will go to committee. There will be lots of input.

To talk about the ranked ballot, municipalities have an option. They have an option if they want to have a referendum. They have to do some statutory things, which will be outlined in regulation, about open houses or public meetings about their vision, if they still want to choose it, if they want to go down that—I suspect probably not a lot of them are going to go the first time around. They’re going to wait and see.

Speaker, consultations have happened, and we’re going to do more after second reading. So I look forward to getting this bill passed.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join, in a brief way, the debate this morning on the changes to the Municipal Elections Act.

I agree with my colleague from Leeds–Grenville with regard to the writ period. I was a last-minute subscriber to a municipal election when I ran in 1997. In fact, that afternoon on the deadline—the deadline was in September; September 10, I think it was—I had three people visit my office at the store—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, they didn’t call me Yak there—saying “You’ve got to run. It’s time for you to go.” I made that decision and then was subsequently elected to the municipal council in Barry’s Bay.

But I really want to talk about the ranked balloting part of this piece of legislation. We’ve had the first-past-the-post system since Confederation. It may not be perfect, but it has worked quite adequately and quite well. But if you’re going to change the way that you elect representatives at any level, whether it’s federal, provincial or municipal, then I believe that in this legislation there should be the requirement for a municipal referendum so that the people have their say.

This is not something that a council should be able to adopt as the way that they’re going to change how people are elected in that community. Nobody’s asking for it. In fact, the city of Toronto has withdrawn their request for ranked balloting. So if there’s nobody requesting it, the people within a municipality should have the final say in our democracy as to whether you’re going to change how people get elected to the positions that they hold. I think that that is absolutely necessary.

In fact, I’ll give the government credit here: In 2007, on the issue of preferential voting or mixed member representation, the McGuinty government held a referendum so that the people across Ontario could have their say. Don’t make this change without allowing the people to have their say. We live in a democracy. The people get their say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the minister responsible for seniors for final comments.

Hon. Mario Sergio: For final comments, I definitely agree in some ways with my charming colleague the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. The reason the bill is here is to give municipalities that particular opportunity, that option. Of course, we all would like to have this wonderful thing called democracy work. If we give the direction to local municipalities and we give them the option to do it, by all means.

I don’t have to tell you, Speaker, that there are many, many problems during a municipal election, during a municipal campaign. One of the major ones—you may think it’s not serious—is voters lists. It’s huge; it’s a big issue. We are saying, “Let’s clean it up.” Campaigning is an issue. I can go north of Steeles in my area and all the boulevards are full of election signs. It looks like Christmas trees all over the place. But on the south side of Steeles, you’re not allowed. So I think there is a lot of cleaning up to do.

Now, I have to thank all the members who participated in the debate this morning. But let me say, Speaker, that something has to be done, and what better way to tell local municipalities to do it, if they so wish?

Now, this is only second reading. I hope that, indeed, we will involve other people and stakeholders in the community to have their say as well. I totally agree with the members who have spoken, that there are issues that need to be addressed. This is one of the reasons why we are debating the bill. We all have our own experience locally. There are a lot of areas where improvements must be made so that we can improve the accountability and transparency when a local municipal election takes place—in every election, but as I said, local elections are the closest ones. Let’s pay more attention to them.

I thank you, Speaker, and I thank all the members for their contributions.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand today to lend my voice to the debate on Bill 181.

Before I do so, I’d like to go back and update my record from March 24. That was during a debate that we had with regard to the private member’s initiative from the member from Ottawa–Orléans. Her private member’s bill received unanimous support to recognize the first two ladies who were ever elected into the Ontario Legislature, Agnes Macphail and Mrs. Luckock.

During the debate, I mentioned that I grew up with a municipal office in my home until I was a teenager. I remember everything very well, every nuance that’s involved in a person being a clerk-treasurer and ultimately administrator for a local municipality. I was very proud that day to share that my mother, Winona Thompson, was either the first or second woman ever to be named clerk to a municipal township in Huron county. I was hesitant; I said “first or second.” I shot mom an email very quickly, and she got back to me right after the debate.

I just wanted to make sure, because this is something that we need to celebrate. The first clerk ever named in the county of Huron, specifically for the township of West Wawanosh, was a dear family friend, Joan Armstrong. Mom was the second clerk that was named in Huron county, to the township of East Wawanosh.

It’s really nice to have a chance to celebrate this type of leadership and mentorship, because back home in Huron county the retired clerks have a club where they get together for lunch once a month. I’m sure they’ll be talking about this. They welcome people to their club on a regular basis. But there’s a lot of camaraderie and a lot of pride that goes along with working and serving the people of local municipalities. One thing, one thread that ties all of those people together, past and present, is the serving of the public and making sure democracy is upheld.

This is where I pull my link back into the debate for Bill 181, because democracy has to be upheld, and people really, truly need to have their say. In that regard, I’d like to reflect on a comment that I just heard this past Saturday night. It was a comment that came from the CAO of the township of Morris-Turnberry. She’s very concerned, Speaker, and I will share that concern in a second.

But when the member from Leeds–Grenville, during his two-minute hit on the government debate, referenced the concern over the extended lameduck period, I couldn’t help but transition that lame duck concept over to this government, because what I heard from the CAO of Morris-Turnberry is that they’re very concerned about this lame duck government because they’re holding municipalities hostage to their lack of follow-through.

Education rates, education levies have yet to be set by this government, and it’s holding up municipalities from finalizing their budgets. Honestly, if it’s not one thing, like further downloading or decreased upfunding, now they’re holding them hostage to their lack of performance. Speaker, this government needs to pull up its socks and do right by people who are striving and who pride themselves on working so well for their local municipal taxpayers.

But again we find another example: This government has yet to set the education levy for this year, and it’s holding municipalities back from setting their budgets. Time and time again, a lack of performance and lack of prioritization is causing people in Ontario to be frustrated and not able to fulfill their responsibilities.

We have to take time on our side as the loyal opposition to make sure municipal voices are heard, in order to ensure this bill accurately reflects what they need to run modern, successful, democratic and effective municipal elections.

I’d like to start by echoing what my colleague from Oxford, Ernie Hardeman, stated yesterday. There are some beneficial aspects to this bill. We, however, are concerned with key components that have the potential to ignore fundamental aspects of the democratic process.

For instance, the electoral process is an important and intrinsic part of any democratic society. As such, whenever changes are proposed to that process, our party firmly believes that serious and substantive consultation should be conducted. I have said that on numerous occasions about numerous issues that have been perpetuated by this government. Most important to consultation on this particular issue is the need to allow the public a forum in which they can voice their opinion on that matter.

I’ll touch a little bit more in detail later on that issue in my debate, because this Liberal government—which ran on a platform, ironically, of open and transparent governance—has been failing the people of Ontario in this respect. Bill 181 is just another long list, as I’ve alluded to.

There are three key issues we—and I, specifically, during my time—would like to address: the abolishment of the leave of absence exemption for volunteer firefighters who choose to run for municipal office; the continued practice by this Liberal government to leave the working-out of critical details to regulation—and seriously, any time a government chooses to put the meat on the bones behind closed doors, it should cause everyone reason for concern—and thirdly, the concerning lack of public consultation that this bill allows for.

We just heard from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke that people deserve to have their say, and I totally agree with that. I’d also like to get on record, for the people watching this debate at home, what exactly this government is trying to propose with regard to a ranked ballot system. I know our esteemed colleague from Oxford highlighted how the system worked yesterday, but it’s a complicated method of voting. If we’re going to have any sort of informed debate, we must ensure that everyone understands how that works. So I’m just going to go over that again this morning.

In a ranked balloting system, a candidate is required to get 50% of the vote plus one. When you receive your ballot on election day, the candidates will be listed on it in no particular order. As the voter, you then number them as 1 for your most preferred candidate, 2 for your second preferred candidate, 3 for your third and so on, down to your least preferred candidate.

After the polls close, the number of times each candidate was selected as first choice is tallied up. The candidate with the least number of first-place votes is eliminated. The eliminated candidate’s votes are then redistributed to the second-place choices on all of the ballots where the eliminated candidate was ranked first. This means that on a ballot where the first-choice candidate was eliminated, the second-choice candidate becomes the preferred candidate. The ballots are recounted and the process continues until a candidate receives the required number of votes to win.

Again, as a kid, I remember the great effort and pride that went into pulling together the voters list and making sure they were distributed throughout the community and throughout the township at the community hub, so to speak, so that everyone could ensure their name was indeed on the voters list. Because back in that day, people knew it was a privilege and an honour to vote, to cast their opinion as to who they wanted to see in their municipal leadership, their municipal council. I hope with all my heart that that privilege and that honour is sustained as we look to a voter turnout—be it municipally, provincially or federally—that seems to be dwindling throughout the years.

Looking at my riding of Huron–Bruce, I’m very proud that, in 2011, Huron–Bruce had the greatest voter turnout in the provincial election and, in 2014, it had the second-highest voter turnout in that particular provincial election. I just want to applaud the good folks from Huron–Bruce at this time for their efforts to get out and exercise their voice and vote, and I want to encourage them to continue to do so.

It gets a little grey when this government starts introducing the concept of a ranked ballot system. It very well could be confusing to some and turn them off, and we don’t want to do that. As was pointed out yesterday, we want to ensure that people embrace this new approach to electing a municipal council. While it appears that this government may have conducted some consultation to implement a ranked ballot system, it appears that there has been a lack of consultation on what system, specifically, would be preferred.

I’m not sure about the rest of the MPPs in the House today, but I know the realities, in my home municipality of South Bruce and across the riding—and, I would dare say, there’s probably a theme throughout Ontario—are that we can’t make it more difficult for individuals to throw their hat in the ring to run for municipal council. We can’t make it more difficult to encourage people to come out and vote.

In many instances in our wards, people are being acclaimed and, to me, that’s a little bit of a worry, because, given the direction this province is currently heading under this government, I would hope more and more people would want to be engaged, would want to embrace the opportunity to try and make a difference and to correct the path that we’re on. Again, we’re finding there’s a trend where acclamations are probably more the norm than not. We don’t want to confuse and make things more difficult.

We’ll talk about that, that the example—

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: You need to get out more, Lou.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: —yes, exactly—of how this particular bill addresses the interests of a volunteer firefighter to throw their hat into the ring is a perfect example of how they’re making it more difficult.

The Toronto Star had an

article written by David Rider back in May 2015. It’s interesting: The conclusion to all of that, after I read that article, is that there’s nothing impartial about dictating which electoral system is best for the people without consulting them.

I mentioned volunteer firefighters and I want to jump into that in a little bit more detail. A few months ago, one concern we had in the PC Party was the impact on first responders. Under this bill, the leave-of-absence exemption for volunteer firefighters will be removed. This means that if someone in this capacity wants to run for office, they would be unable to serve in their community for a minimum of 13 weeks.

Again, this just shows the absolute disconnect this government has with the realities of rural Ontario. Our fire departments, thankfully, in all the communities in my riding, are supported by a wonderful team of volunteer firefighters. They have their families to care for, they have their daily jobs that they go to, but, honestly, that team of volunteer firefighters is finite. If somebody would like to throw their hat in the ring for consideration for municipal council, to have them leave that volunteer fire department for 13 weeks will leave a hole in our volunteer teams. That’s a concern.

It’s something that was probably completely overlooked by this government when they rushed the legislation and their consultations in that regard.

I know that in the riding of Huron–Bruce, many of our fire stations, as I mentioned, are comprised of volunteers: The Central Huron Fire Department relies on 20 volunteer firefighters; the Blyth and District Fire Department consists of 22 volunteer firefighters; the Ripley-Huron Fire Department is staffed by 10 volunteers; the Lucknow and District Fire Department is served by 24 volunteers; the Walkerton Fire Department relies on 29 volunteer firefighters; and the Teeswater fire department is comprised of a great team of 22 individuals who are proud to call Teeswater home. But again, they’re on rotating teams.

Thinking that they might like to make a difference at a municipal level would remove them from that team and remove them from their camaraderie and their commitment to keeping our community safe.

I’m concerned. What are they going to do? They’re going to either keep people away from pursuing an interest in serving their communities at the municipal level as a potential councillor, or our volunteer firefighters and our fire departments will suffer and not have as many volunteers to call upon. It’s not right. This government, as I said, has proven themselves to be yet again disconnected from the realities of rural Ontario.

Now, let’s talk a little bit about regulation. In the PC Party, we also have concerns that many of the important details of this bill are left to regulation and not subject to parliamentary process and public scrutiny. It makes me think of Bill 172. A lot of the cap-and-trade scheme, if you will, that this government is introducing will be achieved through regulation. I can’t stress how many businesses, how many organizations, are very anxious and worried about what regulations will do to them and their businesses and their future, for that matter, as they define this scheme behind closed doors via regulation.

In fact, going back to Bill 181, whole sections of this proposed legislation could be overruled by regulation, despite having gone through the legislative process. Again, how democratic is that? Regulations defined behind closed doors, behind these closed government doors, will not be open to debate in the public forum of this wonderful chamber in the legislative House of Ontario. Instead, it will be decided upon behind closed doors, by bureaucrats who have been given their lead by the minister or cabinet.

One example that I specifically want to outline today is

section 41.1, subsection 6. It states, “If, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, it is necessary or desirable in order to further the purposes of this

section and this act, the regulation may vary the operation of any of the following provisions of this act or may provide that any of the following provisions do not apply with respect to a ranked ballot election....”

Following that, there are no less than 10 sections, subsections and clauses that could be changed or entirely struck out at the whim of a regulation. This should give everyone cause for worry. The legislative process, as you know, Speaker, is in place to ensure that there is accountable, transparent government. That’s what this government across the floor stood on. That’s what we heard about in the throne speech after we came back.

Sadly, there is absolutely no proof through the years and the last few months that this government is adhering to its own path of transparency and accountability. They have totally thrown that to the wind. Instead, they’re covering their backs, they’re circling their wagons and they’re closing their doors because they know they’ve failed Ontarians and the only way forward is to continue to do things behind closed doors.

The people of this province have a right to know the details of how they select their representatives municipally. That should not change, election year to election year, simply because three ministers are able to sit in a room together and contrive a new approach. Speaker, we’ve heard that people across Ontario and Canada are struggling to feel like their voice counts. If that process is allowed to continuously change at the leisure of those who control the system, the good intentions to increase voter turnout will ultimately fail. That was one of the worries that I shared at the onset of jumping into this debate today.

Public consultation is absolutely void in this government. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Green Energy Act—we just met with the Environmental Commissioner last week. The member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock had a representative of a local municipality in her riding come forward and say that they’re actually redacting and and disallowing the realities around noise with regard to the industrial wind turbines. They’re absolutely not allowing it. Then they have the nerve, in an ERT, to come forward with a position saying, “Well, there were no complaints.”

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes. After they redacted and did not allow any discussion further on noise complaints with regard to industrial wind turbines, they said there were no complaints. It’s shameful how this government is acting.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to be able to stand in this fine Legislature this morning and add my two cents and my two minutes to the thoughtful comments from my colleague from Huron–Bruce on Bill 181, focusing on municipal elections and proposed changes.

I would like to say to the member from Huron–Bruce that I appreciated her starting us off with reminding us to celebrate leadership and mentorship within our own ridings, as she had told us the story of the first and second clerks in her area and how they served the public and upheld democracy.

I think that’s where we should be starting our conversation from, a spirit of engagement, because if we’re going to talk about democracy, we do need to focus on engaging people and bringing them into the process and making sure that any barriers to engagement don’t exist, whether that’s for those who are seeking to run as candidates or for those who are wanting to vote. Anywhere that we can reduce those barriers, we need to.

To her point that people must have their say and acknowledging people’s feelings of frustration with the process, we do need a process that reflects the voices, the wants and needs of our municipalities, of the engaged public. We do need, and I forget how she worded it, a modern, effective, democratic—and there was a fourth point, maybe open or transparent, perhaps—process. That is what we want to have. That is the direction that we need to go.

Also, I think it’s important to keep having the conversation, that any time this government is making decisions behind closed doors without the consultations that are necessary, we have concerns. So we continue to debate this and hold them to account.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I appreciate the interesting comments by the member from Huron–Bruce. I remember here in Toronto we had a referendum where 76% of the people of Toronto said they didn’t want the megacity and they didn’t want their municipalities amalgamated, yet the government of the time still forced the amalgamation. Talk about local democracy.

The other point here is that municipalities have the option of whether to have the ranked ballot system or not. That choice is given to every local municipality.

The other changes proposed in the act, a lot of them, are quite complex, and to try to get agreement on all of these is going to be quite interesting, because I’m sure if you talked to the over 400 mayors and reeves across Ontario, you’re going to get so many different opinions and so many different variations. But I think the main thing about this act is that it’s at least starting—over the last year, there has been a good discussion and debate about municipal elections.

I know that when we talk about voter turnout, the voter turnout in Toronto has been going up every year. I know people think there is a magical way of increasing voter turnout. The best way I see of increasing voter turnout is by interesting the electorate. If you’ve got boring campaigns, boring candidates, the electorate doesn’t come out to vote. Luckily, in Toronto over the last decade, we’ve had a lot of interesting engagement, and it’s very healthy in terms of seeing the turnout go up. I don’t think you’re going to find a quick fix.

I hope to talk about my pet peeve on this in the future, but I’ll let you know about that later.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m going to talk about my pet peeve in this bill. I’ve talked to four ministers about this, and numerous ministry staff. It’s about the new

section that’s in the act,

section 88.24.

Presently, what happened in the system is that if you didn’t file with the clerk, you would be basically disbarred out of office. Many, many councillors in my riding and across the province ended up paying thousands of dollars—some in excess of $10,000—to go to the judge and basically say, “I didn’t know the provisions,” or “They weren’t explained to me.” And every time, the judge gave them their seat back.

I went to ministers over and over and over again and said, “Why are the penalties so excessive for municipalities as opposed to, for example, provincial politicians?” I think it was my NDP candidate in the last two elections who didn’t file on the deadline, applied to the Chief Electoral Officer and was given an extension. Pretty easy, right? But in this case, previous to this

section of the bill, that wasn’t possible. In fact, in my riding, one of the clerks had a death in the family, and in fact, every member of council and every candidate was disbarred from office. They all collectively had to go to the judge and make an application to get put back. Not at any time did anybody from the ministry or any minister make any opportunity to make those changes. I had meetings with each and every one of them and asked them specifically to fix that.

Finally this

section is fixed. I’m not particularly happy about the late filing fee of $500, even regardless of whether they can get it back. I think their rules for filing an extension for their expenses for the campaign should be exactly the same as our rules.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always an honour to stand on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

I want to give a shout-out to the member from Huron–Bruce, who started out her comments this morning making points in regard to remarkable women who have come through this Legislature. I wanted to thank her, because I always like starting my day on a good note. It made me think of someone remarkable, a remarkable woman who actually gave me the opportunity of being here. For whatever reason—I don’t know why—out of the five boys at home, she picked on me and punished me, because she carried me along to every one of the campaigns. I was along with her, and I quite hated it. But here I am today thanks to her.

I miss her every day. My mom was definitely a woman who deserves to have her own statue.

She did highlight two big points that have stood out to me in her comments this morning, with the engagement process. Across Algoma–Manitoulin, I have 37 municipalities. This is going to be a huge task as far as engaging with each and every one’s leadership, which we already started.

The bill is entitled

An Act to amend Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and to make—key word—complementary amendments. Those complementary amendments should come without any concerns, without any discouragement of individuals participating at the municipal level. But this is what is actually happening. What raises alarms with me is that in many of my municipalities, many individuals wear different hats. People are on recreation committees. People are volunteer firefighters. People are on the council. People are on a variety of committees. This might hinder their opportunity to serve their communities.

So these are some of the things that I’m going to be going out and actually having that discussion about with a lot of my municipal leaders and fire departments, because as I said, we wear many hats in small communities in northern Ontario. This restricts us from being a participant in the future of our communities.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I certainly appreciate the comments from the members from Oshawa, Eglinton–Lawrence, Leeds–Grenville and Algoma–Manitoulin.

It is all about engagement. I just want to reflect on a few comments and quotes that I have, reflecting on the fact that this government is all over the map. In February of this past year, an Insights West poll found that 65% of Canadians say a referendum should definitely or probably be held on any changes to an electoral system. What is concerning is the seemingly laissez-faire attitude that the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing has taken on the matter.

Mr. John Yakabuski: At the kitchen table.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes. Absolutely. You raise a good point. In no way should policy be devised around a private kitchen table. We’re having too much of that.

I just want to close by sharing the position that the PC Party has. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, my leader, Patrick Brown, said just this past weekend, “No government should rush through electoral reform without first putting it to the citizens to decide. The government of the day doesn’t get to change the electoral system, given that they, themselves, are an interested party. I believe if you’re going to change how we have elections ... a referendum is necessary.” I couldn’t agree more.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s my pleasure to join in the debate. First off, I think it’s important that we address some of the concerns that have been raised in the previous municipal election, and this review resulted in some issues that were raised. Some of the key areas that people were concerned with were the way people were selecting their municipal leaders and the idea of a ranked ballot.

There were some issues around the election calendar, and other key areas were some of the enforcement, which previous members have talked about; some of the imbalances with respect to the way the enforcement would apply to municipalities—they’re much more strict; and how provincially, the enforcement rules are far different.

Some of the key areas that I want to touch on, and some of the key areas that I think are important to address—first and foremost, a ranked ballot option. I understand that this provides that option to municipalities. Now, we see all too often in elections, generally speaking, that the turnout is abysmally low. It’s a serious problem. We look at the Canadian system, and the highest turnouts are in our federal, and then with every other level of government it becomes lower and lower. When it comes to provincial, it’s lower than federal, and municipal elections are some of the lowest turnouts.

The funny thing is, and I’m sure you hear this all the time, Mr. Speaker, is that it’s the municipal levels of government that probably have the most impact on our day-to-day lives, but that’s where we have the lowest turnout. Some of the concern is that perhaps the system, or the way that the election process goes about it, is disenfranchising or discouraging people from being involved.

One of the solutions may be this ranked ballot system. It allows for a more interesting manner in which we select our leaders. But more important than allowing it in a more interesting manner, one of the things we see that we lack here in Ontario, specifically in Toronto, is that Toronto is probably one of the most diverse cities not only in Canada, but probably in the world, and despite that diversity, we don’t see that diversity reflected in the municipal leadership.

What can we do to encourage the representation of more women, more racialized community members and people from different backgrounds? What can we do to make it more accessible? There is significant research and arguments are made that a ranked ballot system would make it easier to allow other individuals who are historically marginalized to be elected. Wherever there have been ranked ballot systems, more women have been elected and younger people are often elected, as well as more racialized members of the community are elected. That’s a positive thing.

If we can encourage that, I think that’s something that should be supported. Allowing that opportunity or that option to municipalities is something that we should certainly look at, and I think that’s a positive step in the right direction.

Generally speaking, though, we need to do more to make it easier to vote. I think that’s something that’s not really addressed in this bill that could have been addressed. I think, looking at this modern age—the 21st century, the digital age—we really need to look at how we can make it easier so that people can participate in the democratic system. It needs to be something that everyone is involved in. It needs to be something that is easy. We find that, whether it’s in health promotion, people will do what’s healthy if it’s the easier option. People will choose the easier option.

If you make the healthy option the easier option—which is a strong campaign in the health promotion field—people will choose that healthier option. So in the democratic realm, if we make it easier to be involved in your civic responsibility of voting, if we make it more accessible, the idea would be that more people would be involved and more people would participate.

That’s an area that this bill doesn’t address, and I think it’s something we should discuss here. Perhaps we can find ways to make some amendments in committee to ensure that—we can look at extending the hours. Many people work in the evening, and the cut-off being a strict 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. sometimes doesn’t allow for people to get home from work, to refresh and then get back out into the lineups and vote.

Another area this bill talks about is third-party advertising. That’s something that has been addressed and raised in all levels of government, whether it’s federal or whether it’s provincial and, again, obviously, at the municipal level as well. As a broad principle, the way our current system is laid out, it should be the case that the everyday person—that their voice is not eclipsed by individuals or corporations who have more power or more access to resources, and that shouldn’t be a way of defining or a way of determining their ability to impact an election.

In the current system, with the third-party advertising rules as they are, there is the potential for people, organizations, corporations or entities with deep pockets to be able to influence elections in perhaps a way that discourages the true principles of democracy. That’s something that people have raised as a concern. However, we also need to be very aware that, in addressing third-party advertising, we don’t unfairly impact community organizations, which are actually the voice of the community. They’re not an unfair representation of the voice of one small group, but in fact a representation of the entire community.

There are groups like ACORN, which speaks on behalf of tenants. They have a campaign called Toronto Tenants Vote, which encourages tenants to vote. We often find in voting turnout that those who own their own property are more likely to vote, but people who are renting—those who are tenants in an apartment building—are less likely to. So ACORN mounted a campaign to encourage more people to actually get out and vote. The concern is that, with very strict third-party advertising limitations, perhaps a campaign which is to encourage people to vote might be limited by these types of rules.

So we need to be sure that we’re addressing the actual concern, which is the disproportionate impact of an entity being able to have too much of a say or too much of a voice versus allowing community voices to be heard. In fact, a community organization which is actually trying to encourage more people to vote—that shouldn’t be stopped.

There are other groups that do great work in our community that are by no means trying to usurp democracy or trying to overshadow the voice of the everyday person. Campaigns like the cancer society’s Fighting for Life campaign was something that was a demand that this organization had to encourage municipalities to disclose the use and location of carcinogens. Now, that’s a very fair demand and they’re trying to speak for the concerns of everyday folks and people about where carcinogens are located, where they’re being used and if municipalities are using them.

That type of campaign or that type of organization might be limited by the proposed laws. I guess that’s something that we really need to focus in on. Are those the types of campaigns that we want to discourage? Is there a distinction between what we really want to limit when it comes to third-party advertising?

Another example: There’s TTCriders. They do phenomenal work in our community with respect to promoting public transit. If during a campaign period they were to advertise the importance of public transit, that the community needs more public transit—as New Democrats, we fully support the idea that we need to aggressively invest in improving our public transit and infrastructure. If they were to mount a campaign to promote these issues during a political campaign, they might be precluded from doing so, though their whole organization is built up on membership of local community members.

They are the voice of people in the public, in the community, and they’re simply voicing the concerns of their members. Now, if they’re precluded from being involved in voicing their concerns and the concerns of their members, again, are we really addressing the real concerns when it comes to third-party advertising? That’s another concern.

To bring it closer to home on a specific issue, the sell-off of our Hydro One is an issue that impacts various community members. It’s something that’s going to impact our province, broadly speaking.

Community organizations that come together to say, “This is something we need to oppose,” and perhaps there’s a campaign during an election period where they want to talk municipally about this issue and say, “Listen, this is something that should be brought up by our municipal leaders”—if various groups come together and band together on this issue, the concern is that they might be precluded from using a united platform to raise this issue and perhaps engage in town halls or engage in some form of organizing to get people together to say, “Listen, this public asset is being sold off.

Let’s organize so that, at least on the municipal level, we can have a voice in our municipal level of government that opposes this.” Perhaps that organizing itself might be limited due to this proposed amendment of third-party advertising.

That’s, again, why it’s so important for us to really home in on what it is that we really want to limit. We want to limit the unfair advantage that deep pockets or greater resources might have on your ability to have a louder voice in a democratic system than one individual or groups of individuals. That’s something that we really need to focus in on: Do we cast the net too broadly and cover organizations or community groups that are actually doing important work in expressing the concerns of the community, providing a platform for that? Are they going to be precluded because of these rules? That’s something we certainly need to take a look at.

Mr. Speaker, I’m mindful of the time. I don’t want to go over and leave you in a position where you have to quickly stop me. I’ve noticed your indication; thank you very much for that.

In wrapping up—I will have more time to address these issues in more detail later on—there are a number of very good changes that are proposed by this bill. There are more areas that need more clarity. I look forward, later on, to providing more details and perhaps some suggestions on how we can improve. Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank all members for their debate this morning. Since it is close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before we move on to introduction of guests, I want you to know that I will be introducing the Speaker’s guests in the gallery and that we will be as brief as possible, as there seems to be a very large number of visitors today. So let’s move that along.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m pleased to introduce today students from the Robert Land Academy in my riding—I’m proud to say I’m a board member; I’m honoured to be on the board at Robert Land—and their leadership Major Kevin Wendling, Lieutenant Rick Infantino, Lieutenant Stewart Jones, and Captain Geoff Bowman. Again, welcome to the cadets from the Robert Land Academy.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s Girls’ Government day here, and I just want to introduce, from Humbercrest Public School, teacher Kathleen Scott-Houchen and students Emma Stuart Kiss, Ryley Nathaniel, Ameera Bogle, Lucy Hanna, Armita Ebrahimnejad and Sumaya Goulet; and from St. James Catholic School, teacher Cecilia DeMonte Bahr, Jasmine Dos Santos, Sophia Laspinas, Milda Gutauskaite, Jeniffer Aguilar, Kyara Charles, Sydney Turnbull and Breanna Lewis-Patterson. And Equal Voice is in the House as well.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s my pleasure to welcome representatives of the National Airlines Council of Canada and their partners to the Legislature today. I understand they have a full day of meetings with members and staff from all parties and are looking forward to discussing the aviation and tourism sectors with all of us today. Welcome to the gallery.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome, in the west members’ gallery, Ms. Susan Pearce, with the Ontario Autism Coalition, formerly of Sarnia–Lambton and now of Toronto.

Miss Monique Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the House is full today with families of autism, and they’re joining us here today. I’m going to start the list by welcoming Erin Syer, Lelia Greenfield, Kirk Greenfield, Tetyana Kofanova, Erin Rogerson, Terry Wright, Jill Breugem, Jennifer Majer, Sarah Haight, Charan Machado, Glen Machado, Irine Ogrodnik, David Galvao, Linda Galvao, Nancy Silva Khan, Dylan Dias, Anita Marques, Josie Spatafora, Anne Mason, Sarah Jones, Niveen Shrem, Lisa Kota, Robin Konstantopoulos, David Lehtinen, Jennifer Chu, Nicole Taylor, Paul Taylor and Gary Burbridge.

Many more will be introduced by my other caucus members. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to congratulate Cooper Stone from Durham, who is page captain here today, and to welcome his family in the east members’ gallery to Queen’s Park: his mom and dad, Jen and Gareth; sister Sophia; and grandparents Michael, Nancy, Michael and Susan. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like to echo my NDP colleagues’ welcome to families with children who have autism, but most particularly, I want to welcome Nathan, who made my day this morning by giving me a great big Queen’s Park hug. Welcome.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I too wish to introduce parents who are here on the autism issue: Alexandra Dezenhouse, Kelly Dunklee, Adelia Novielli, Fatima Tavaniello, Natalie Proia, Sonia Carnovale, Nick Carnovale, Jennifer Taylor, Melanie Cooper, Jeanne-Marie Brennan, Amanda Martin, Gasparino Strazzeri, Cheyenne Procenko and David Procenko.

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to welcome three groups of students from my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt: from the Jean Augustine Girls’ Leadership Academy, teacher Jacqueline Smith and students Reem Wahab, Hanifa Beni-Asaf, Mariam Saleem and Aravi Shanmugalingam; from Kennedy Public School, the principal, Rhonda Cohen-Pierobon, teacher Camille Khan and students Joey Zhuo, Lily Cao, Jessica Zhang and Anson Wu; and from St. Sylvester Catholic School, the principal, Roy Fernandes, will be joining us shortly, with teacher Oycie Povo and students Madonna Estefanos, Briana Pereira, Katrina Villarino and Juno Lins. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d like to welcome to question period Ms. Nancy Laver, who is here to discuss autism with us today.

Mr. Paul Miller: Further to the list that the honourable member from Hamilton Mountain added: Angela Mok, Evelyn Wong, Hubert Wong, Anthony Konstantopoulos, Jeff Lipinski and Monique Saunders. Welcome.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park the Rolling Meadows elementary school grade 8 girls leadership group and their teachers, Tanya Ferro and Sandra Lumsden, from my riding in Burlington. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome the parents who drove in from Kitchener to also attend the autism press conference this morning. Welcome, parents from Kitchener.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d also like to welcome some families dealing with autism. They are Kimberly Murray, Tammy Frazer, Rebecca Haight, Jenna Lech, Raquel Turner, Ingrid Rijo, Marie Fatima Soares Goncalves, Elisha Chesler, Stephanie Giguere, Nisha Kapadia, Daniela Tripolino, Giuseppina Chaves, Eleonora Morgillo and Andrea Rios.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to welcome 14 students from my riding of Davenport participating in Girls’ Government day at the Legislature today. I want to welcome the girls from St. Clare, accompanied by principal Manuela Sequeira; St. Nicholas of Bari with their vice-principal, Ms. Ruscitto-D’Addario; and from my very own elementary school, St. Rita, the girls who are here today with their teacher, Mr. Contiga. Welcome, girls, and have a great day here at Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to welcome Susan Pearce and the many people from York region who have come here to emphasize the importance of autism.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am pleased to welcome a number of other families who have joined us today for the autism news conference: Stan Byma, Ilinaz Naeli, Tania Ratnam, Sherie and Mark Hatfield, Rachel Nicole Williams, Samantha Lynn Bliss, Nancy Marchese, Kristen Ellison, Heather Bourdon, and Linda, Anthony and Tony DiMambro.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I, too, would like to welcome Kristen Ellison from the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. I had the pleasure of meeting her last Friday.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to introduce Diana Santucci, Sabrina Puopolo, Nicole DeVries, Michael DeVries, Emanuele Caruso, Venette Gerden, Jing Ding, Michelle Makris, Malgorzata Szypula, Gurjeet Gakhal, Aiden Gakhal, Tobi Riley, Dayna Janicki, Louella Mendonsa, Tracey-Anne White, Marimuthu Ramakrishnan, Vidhya Thangam and Shrinithin Marimuthu, who are here to fight for their children and all children in the province of Ontario with autism.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome all the families here today who are here to speak out about autism and the challenges that they face.

I’d like to welcome Jowita Filipowicz, Mieszko Filipowicz, Edgar Filipowicz, Victoria Filipowicz, Dr. Janet McLaughlin, Carmen Genuardi-Binns, Eva Bissell, Stephanie Gallant, Isabella Bissell, Francesca Bissell, Jeremy Pottle, Debbie Samuels, Laura Martin and Sampaguita Tan.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s a pleasure to welcome my constituent Chrissy Orr, who’s a civics teacher with Neil McNeil High School and here with her class of civic students, our young leaders of tomorrow. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: Ça me fait plaisir de souhaiter la bienvenue à Queen’s Park aux gens qui sont ici pour appuyer les enfants avec l’autisme. Je commence avec Carmel Bourdon, Bren et Christina Vieira, Tanya Corey, Melissa Bottoni, Samantha Billings, Julian McDowell, Ivy La Rue, Stephanie Kerschbaumer, Mason Riley, Natalie Janicki, Anna Kim, Nancy Marchese and Yanina Kanevsky. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to welcome Dave Camilleri, Hadil Lewis, Sabrina Tavares, Fatima Costa, Diana Rojas, George Kourtis, Nina Pereira, Christina Charalambous, Stephanie MacLellan, Catherine Brunner, Cassandra Burton, Dora Ferreira, Georgea Sarantopoulos, Abbey McCann and, from Waterloo, Laura Martin, Niveen Shrem and Sarah Jones. Thank you for coming today.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce Kevin Wendling, who is the father to page Ariel Wendling and who is here with us in this session. He’s in the members’ gallery.

I’d also like to introduce some families dealing with autism who are here for the media event today: Daniela Dattomo, Jennifer David-Ortuoste, Joshua Wong, Georgette Spence-Morris, Peter Leung, Yuet Hei Lam, Catharine Grossi, Jessica Cabral, Jennifer Heath, Venette Gerden, Janet Bojti, Cynthia Capa, Joslin Lopez and Flora Ho. Welcome.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Further names I’d like to introduce in regard to the fight against autism: Melissa Mark, Tina Pinto, Pedro Pinto, Nathan Pinto, Michael Luchka, Alice Billones, Shannon Beauregard, Matthew Kuzmic, Steve Kuzmic, Chelsey Rupnow, Scott Parker, Marlene Pereira, Meghan Stevens and Rachel Lam.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: We have more members here visiting today from the autism coalition: Tia-Paz Riopel, Tajtan Kuzmic, Karel Kuzmic, Sheng-Xiang Ding, Zhi-yun Duan, Matthew Joseph Perusco, Ryan Fentie, Susan Fentie-Pearce, Melissa Page, James D’Aprile, Rosaria Micks, Kayla Medeiros, Nakita Medeiros and LeeAnn Gallo.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I would also like to welcome members of the autism coalition, and I apologize to anyone whose name I do not pronounce correctly: Stephanie Galluzzo, Nellie and Pavlos Simtikidis, Ross Maclean, Korine Goodman-Maclean, Brenna Bloodworth, Amy Hackett, Itai Sever, Sophia Sairoglou, Heather Bourdon, Dominique Bourdon, Jacob Bourdon and Gianna Bourdon. Welcome.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Yes. I’m pleased to rise to welcome the parents who are here fighting for their children: Adrian Lee, George Kurtis, Carolyn Martin, Bruce McIntosh and Karen Palmer. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m also pleased to welcome those who are here fighting against the government’s autism cuts—

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Welcome to Laura Levesque, Sheri Robinson, Kent Robinson, Keegan Robinson, Ruby Robinson, Dr. James Porter, Kurt Lingenfelter, Stephanie Ridley, Nancy Laver, Ashley Tyler, Amy McIntosh, Cory Farrell, Sharon Gabison and Jaclyn Atkins. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I just want to do a special thank you to the members who joined us on the panel this morning: Dr. James Porter, Kristen Ellison and Heather Bourdon. Welcome, everybody, to Queen’s Park today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It wasn’t lost on me that I do have rules to follow, and I know the members have rules to follow. My lenience was tested a couple of times. I would appreciate all members to abide by those offers. The five-minute limitation is actually when it should have stopped, but because I understand that we have visitors and we want them introduced, I allowed that to happen. But I would say that taking liberty would not be, in my book, getting along with the Speaker.

Would members please join me in welcoming the family of the late Mr. Frank Sheehan, MPP for Lincoln during the 36th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: his wife, Diane; daughters Marguerite, Rebecca and Trish; sons Gordon and Vincent, with his wife, Tricia Fang; his siblings, Sister Agnes Toni Sheehan and Joe, with his wife, Mary Frances; and his grandchildren, Jacob, Molly, Ben, Will and Elizabeth Sheehan, Erin Sukkau, Sam and Nicholas Nolan, Catherine Schmidt and her husband, Jordan.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery is Mr. Steve Gilchrist, former MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments; and Mr. Michael Harris, MPP for Nipissing during the 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 35th Parliaments, and Premier during the 36th and 37th Parliaments.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Frank Sheehan

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Good morning, Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Frank Sheehan, former member for Lincoln, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to first take the opportunity to welcome the family and guests of Frank Sheehan, who are here at Queen’s Park today to pay tribute to a man who was an MPP for the PC Party and who passed away on December 17, 2013.

Frank took his first step into politics as a school board trustee for the Lincoln county separate school board and then, later, as a PC MPP for the former riding of Lincoln. Frank held that seat for four years, until 1999, when the riding boundaries changed to include a very different political climate in that riding.

Frank had a reputation for being a community heavyweight. He’s remembered for his tireless work and how he championed his community and his constituents. His reputation for never being able to sit down, keep still or slow down is reflected in the countless number of causes he led and championed and many that he founded.

Whether he was busy with chairing the Red Tape Commission in those days or co-founding the local Wayside House in his community, which was a transitional housing program for recovering drug addicts—just a couple of many initiatives that Frank undertook and helped lead for more than 40 years in the Niagara area. These are just a few of the testaments to his willingness to work hard and want to leave his community in better shape.

In the lead-up to his political life, he was hoping to follow in his father’s footsteps to become a plumber and get involved in the plumbing business. That proved to be not in his cards, so he went on to the insurance business instead, founding a well-known insurance company, Sheehan and Rosie, which he ran successfully for more than 50 years.

His motivations to enter politics really speak to the person. He said that he didn’t like the way things were and so he wanted to make a difference. His principles and his fearlessness on issues that were not always popular here and otherwise were nonetheless respected, if not always supported, even within his own caucus. It is often said that you knew exactly where he stood on any issue. He was blunt, frank—no pun intended—and honest, traits appreciated by many. It was never personal. He fundamentally believed in tackling issues and not people.

The footprint Frank left behind in Niagara alone is a testament to that. When he wasn’t busy championing issues here at Queen’s Park for his constituents, he was busy helping at-risk youth and community members as the former president of the John Howard Society in Niagara. He left an invaluable mark on many programs and initiatives and, of course, the people who served in those programs. He dedicated much of his time to a program that’s still running in the Niagara region, the Out of the Cold program, an emergency program that provides warmth, a meal and fellowship in participating churches and public buildings.

The Ozanam Centre of St. Catharines wouldn’t be the same without Frank’s leadership and time. The centre in St. Catharines opens its doors and serves more than 100 people a day with lunch and friendship. He also was very active in driving cancer patients to and from their treatments, from Niagara—just a few of the organizations that Frank was involved in that spoke to his nature, his community spirit and his caring values.

In closing, I know that many of us, politicians included, often cringe at the thought of reading about ourselves in letters to the editor, or comments about us in local newspapers. But in reading some of the comments after Frank passed away, I thought they were important to share.

One person commented after his passing that he was a “man whose word you could take to the bank! A missing feature in most other politicians today!” Another person’s comment: “My father passed away in June of 1995; his visitation was on June 8, the day of the election” that year. “During the evening visitation, when the elections results were starting to come in, Frank Sheehan quietly arrived at the funeral home to” pay respect and to “extend his sympathies to my mother.... I have never forgotten that moment.”

In closing, although I only met Frank once or twice while he was in politics, it was a pleasure to do a little research, to discover his many qualities that I was not aware of and to have the honour of paying tribute to Frank Sheehan.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I had the opportunity and privilege of serving in the Legislative Assembly with Frank Sheehan. There are some people who will be forgettable, perhaps because they did not have huge impacts, one place or another. Frank was unforgettable; I can assure you of that.

The very fact that Mike Harris, the former Premier of the province of Ontario, is here today is evidence of the very significant role that Frank played within the Common Sense Revolution that was part of the regime of Mike Harris when he governed the province from 1995 to 2003, with Ernie Eves as the Premier at that time.

Frank was a guy who—even those people who disagreed with him really grew to like him very much. We used to sit at night from time to time, and I’d get an opportunity to go across the floor and chat with him about a number of things that related to St. Catharines, some of which didn’t relate to politics at all. You could see his deep love for and involvement in the community.

Many people said he was a penny-pincher, and he was a penny-pincher, but a penny-pincher with taxpayers’ dollars. With his own dollars, he was extremely generous to the people of our community and well beyond our borders—generous not only with money but generous with his time and with his involvement in the community.

You would expect that when the regime was in power at that time—they were a law-and-order group of people—Frank would be totally law and order, and those who had been convicted at some time or other would have been persona non grata. Frank actually took people like that under his wing. With youth, he tried to ensure that they would not become involved on the wrong side of the law. When he ran Wayside House, people would say, “Here’s a right-wing Conservative. What is he doing running Wayside House?” That was the feeling he had for people in the community who had gone astray in one way or another.

At the John Howard Society, again an organization that dealt with people who were on the wrong side of the law from time to time, Frank wasn’t afraid to take that on as a personal cause. I remember that there were cuts made, so that Wayside House had to essentially close. To show his consistency—Frank was always consistent. He could have said, “Everything else should be cut, but not Wayside House.” He didn’t say that. His reaction at the time was to say, “If we are going in this direction, if we have to make cuts, then I can’t be exempted and my organization can’t be exempted from those cuts.” So he was very, very consistent in that regard.

I think there were three nuns and two priests in the family. Frank would not fit into that category, I can assure you—either one. He was once asked why he got into politics. He said he was tired of the frigging NDP and the frigging Liberals. Somebody asked him about that later; he said, “I didn’t say ‘frigging.’”

Laughter.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I won’t say what he said, but anyway.

Another way you judge a person, I suppose—and it may be superficial, but I think it’s meaningful—is who shows up at the funeral home and who shows up at the funeral itself. There was a long line of people. If you wanted to greet the family on the occasion to express your sympathy, you were in a long line at the funeral home, because that’s the impact he had across the community.

I mentioned him being rough and tough. He was also head of the Niagara Symphony Association at one time. He helped out with Women’s Place, which is a shelter for abused women and members of their family. He had touched a lot of people in the community.

It was a full house for the funeral and there were people from all kinds of backgrounds, some who no doubt had cursed Frank at one time or other, who were there to pay tribute to him because they knew he was consistent and that he was a man of immense principle, as far as I could see.

By the way, you know how sometimes people try to develop a consensus on an issue? Consensus was not in the vocabulary of Frank Sheehan. He staked out his position and he defended that position with his heart and his soul and his mind.

Most of the attributes that he had can be found in the members of the family, whether they are siblings or whether they are children. Frank set a tough standard for members of the family, and they lived up to it. We’re extremely grateful to the family for sharing Frank with us in the Legislative Assembly for a period of time.

Members of the Legislature—there are lot of people who will sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at those who are in public office. I always admire a person who will put his or her views on the line and run for public office, and Frank did, for the Roman Catholic Separate School Board in Lincoln, and later for the Legislative Assembly. Then he took on a tough fight against another icon in the Niagara Peninsula by the name of Peter Kormos. He wasn’t afraid to take on that fight and he wasn’t afraid to lose, if he knew he was going to go down standing for something he believed in.

I can speak for our community, and I think our Legislature, in saying that we were a better place in here and a better place in our community because of the generous contribution that Frank Sheehan made to St. Catharines and Niagara, to the province of Ontario and to our country.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Francis Xavier Sheehan was one of 10 kids in his family. As Mr. Bradley noted, the first three, the elder three sisters, were all literally sisters—they’re nuns—and two Basilian priests as brothers. So when Frank passed, he certainly had a lot of folks who could put a good word in for him to get through the Pearly Gates.

But I think Frank made it on his own, so I’m going to tell you a little bit about why I can say that. Believe it or not, Frank actually did follow the family tradition and enrolled in seminary. He was there for six months. It didn’t take. There was a little too much mischief, I think, in those eyes, to all those who knew Frank, for it to last. Eldest son Gordon said, “Thank God it didn’t,” or the gallery would be less full today.

Frank had an extraordinarily big heart. He came back from seminary and he was trying to figure out what to do with the rest of his life and, as was mentioned by my colleague from Niagara Centre, he went to work for his dad in the Sheehan Plumbing and Heating business in St. Catharines. I didn’t know Frank’s dad, but I’m going to guess they were quite similar, because Gordon related a conversation to me where Frank came on board and it just didn’t take, it didn’t work out so much in the business.

So his dad said to him one day, “You know, Francis, you’ve got a big mouth.” Francis replied, “Well, you paid enough for it.” Then dad said, “I don’t think this is working out.” Frank said, “Me, neither,” and he up and quit. A little while later his dad said, “Frank, what do you want to do with the rest of your life?” Frank said, “I don’t know.” So he said, “Why don’t you go and join your uncle?” Uncle Hubert had just taken over the family insurance business, Sheehan Insurance. Frank said, “I don’t know anything about insurance.” His dad said, “Neither does Hubert, so why don’t you go ahead?” And that took.

Frank was a legend in the insurance business. He built up Sheehan and Rosie. He was extraordinarily generous, through the company and through himself. He took a leadership position provincially—I think nationally, if memory serves—with the insurance brokers as well, and then found his way here in 1995 in the cast of 82 characters we called the government, in June 1995.

Premier Mike Harris is here today. It’s no surprise to see the Premier here, because he said he looked at his entire team, and the one person in his caucus who had the principles and the backbone to be his leader of the Red Tape Commission, by and far—easy call—was Frank Sheehan. He made the right call.

I’ll tell you a quick story. In cabinet one day—and Frank was there. To Premier Harris’s credit, the head of the Red Tape Commission was at those cabinet meetings. One veteran minister—not present company; no longer here in the assembly—was bringing through a new bill. The bill had all kinds of new rules and regulations in it. Frank took them on, right there at the cabinet table, and said, “This has got to go through” what he called “a regulatory knothole.” That was his term.

The minister got frustrated. “Who is this? He’s not a minister. What’s he doing at the table? I can get what I want.” The minister actually said, “We’re just getting rid of red tape and doing blue tape instead.” Premier Harris said, “That’s exactly the point,” and Frank got his way.

Then, as cabinet, we knew what the ballgame was. We took Frank seriously, the committee work that he did. You had to get his blessing to get a bill through. Then, after all those years, he kicked down 2,100 unnecessary government regulations. Fifteen red-tape bills actually passed here in the assembly.

An interesting thing about Frank, too—because he was not a big-government guy—he had tremendous respect for the civil service.

He actually compared reducing red tape to teaching elephants to dance. He said, “It’s really hard, but when you get it done, it’s an awesome spectacle.”

Frank got it done. I spoke with Bill Mantel, a current ADM, who was one of the key people on the Red Tape Commission and a respected civil servant. I said, “Bill, why did this work?” He said, “Because of two reasons: Frank didn’t suffer fools. He wouldn’t take no for an answer.”

He made progress. If a minister was not following the line that Premier Harris laid out, Frank would end the meeting and walk out on the minister. That sends a signal pretty fast. It also gave ministries an opportunity to actually get stuff done that otherwise they wouldn’t. There was tremendous respect for what Frank did and for his leadership, not only on the political level but throughout the civil service.

One story I’ll quickly tell: Frank and I also had a huge fight. I probably would have lost that fight, because it’s hard to think of another more determined, focused and driven individual I’ve had the honour of serving with here in the assembly. It was because our ridings came together in 1999. Here I was, coming from Erie; Frank was Lincoln. The two ridings merged. A lot of MPPs fought. I said, “Holy crow, now I’ve got to take on Frank Sheehan. How’s that going to work out for me, as a rookie MPP?”

Frank took me aside and put his arm around me. This conversation was probably in early 1999. He called me Timmy, like he was my football coach or something. He said, “Timmy, you’ve got a bright future in this business. I’m not going to run in Erie–Lincoln. And besides that, somebody’s got to take on that socialist in cowboy boots next door.” Frank took him on, and I think he gave Kormos a scare too, which is, I think, an incredible thing. Maybe that debate continues somewhere else today.

My colleagues talked about how Frank had a reputation for being gruff, tough-minded and determined, but they also talked, accurately, about how he had a big heart, in some personal stories.

There’s a theme, too, that you pick up of the prodigal son, if you will, in Frank’s good deeds. Wayside House helps recovering drug addicts get back on the straight and narrow. He was a big leader in the John Howard Society, helping people who had been in prison to get back on the right path.

Robert Land Academy is here today as well. I’m honoured to serve on their board. This is for young boys who have wandered away, to help bring them back. Frank was a regular guest there. In fact, headmaster Scott Bowman told me, “Frank would often tell the cadets some rather salty stories, but they loved it.” When the headmaster tried to censor Frank and look at his remarks beforehand, Frank Sheehan never listened. They loved him at the Robert Land Academy. He was a guide for them, for a man of principle and the success he can have.

At the end of the day too, I think what was remarkable was—Jim mentioned his funeral—there were people there from all walks of life, all political parties. There was a wake, with lots of dignitaries there at the same time. It’s because we always have this image of the politician who is a generous and public person but a miser with their own. Frank was the absolute opposite of that. He was that way not because he thought government was bad. He just believed that a lot of people didn’t have much money left in their pockets after a lot was taken away.

But he also had a big faith in humanity because Frank believed, too, that if more people had money in their pockets they would give generously, just like he did. He was, at his heart, an optimist and loved people.

A lot of folks wondered who among all of these dignitaries was going to make the big speech at the wake after the funeral. Gord decided Frank wouldn’t want that. In Frank’s life he always said that the good deeds speak for themselves; you don’t wear them on your sleeve. That’s exactly the most important lesson of what Frank Sheehan has taught us. Thanks for those good deeds. God bless. Thank you.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all the members for their kind, thoughtful and heartfelt comments. To the family, thank you for the gift of Frank. We will, as we have always done, provide you with a copy of Hansard and a DVD of today’s testimonies. Thank you so much again for the life of Frank.

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Just look at the parents here today at Queen’s Park. These are parents with remarkable young children who just happen to have autism. Intensive behavioural intervention, IBI, has been a proven treatment for many of these children. The impact and progress made by these children using IBI programs is amazing and undeniable. Mr. Speaker, why is the government turning their back on these children and these parents?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to welcome the parents and the children who are here. This is obviously an extremely important issue for all of us. We have for a number of years, as a government and as individuals within this government, worked with the organizations of parents working with children with autism to make the changes, as new science is discovered and as new programs are developed, to make sure that we provide to children the resources that they need.

What is unacceptable to us, Mr. Speaker, is that children would languish on a waiting list and not get service. That is what is happening now, and so it is incredibly important that we put the investments in place to help children get the services that they need. I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier. What is unacceptable is these cuts to families with autism. I want to read you a quote from Lisa Meunier that was in the Canadian Press

article written by Allison Jones. Ms. Meunier is a Brampton mom who has a nearly five-year-old daughter who has been on the IBI wait-list for almost three years. She said that the government funding will only pay for a few weeks of therapy. She said, “I’m disappointed that the government would do that to our children,” and that “there is therapy out there that can help our children and now they’re just taking that away from them.”

Mr. Speaker, the Premier can’t let these children and parents down. It’s not the Ontario way. It’s not acceptable. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing? Will she reinstate proper funding for IBI treatment?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think all of us know that with the prevalence of autism increasing, which is in and of itself a huge challenge—I know that there’s work going on in our laboratories here in Ontario to look at the genetics, Mr. Speaker, to find answers to why this is happening and what the best treatment should be.

What has happened is that the wait times have increased and so the status quo is unacceptable. The Leader of the Opposition actually makes my point, because he talks about families whose children have been on that wait-list for three years. That’s unacceptable because that window for the treatment closes. It is demonstrated that the efficacy of that intensive treatment is in the early years. That’s why our budget makes a historic $333-million investment. We’re putting in place a new autism program, Mr. Speaker. It will give 16,000 more children access to services and it will provide a continuum of intensive services—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: This government’s approach is to remove people outright from the wait-list. That’s not solving the wait-list. There wouldn’t be thousands and thousands of families irate about this if it wasn’t affecting the services that they desperately needed for their children.

The changes to IBI have been called destructive. Families have been left in the dark. Just listen to what Joseph Daley of the Grimsby Lincoln News said: “The policy changes of the Ontario government are condemning my child to a life of ongoing illness on top of the challenges he will face as an autistic individual.”

Thousands and thousands of families are telling the Premier her changes are dead wrong. Does the Premier agree with the fundamental principle that autism doesn’t end at age 5?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker—absolutely. What this program recognizes is exactly that: that there needs to be a continuum of service. So we cut the wait times in half and 16,000 more children get service. The families—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The children who have been languishing on the wait-list and who we are letting down at this moment, because the status quo is letting them down, will transition off the wait-list—$8,000 initially—and then they will be eligible for the new autism program that will have intensive ABA and will recognize that there’s a continuum of intensive service that is necessary. That’s what the new program will provide: a continuity of service. That is what the best science is telling us is necessary.

Fundraising

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Since I can’t get an answer on autism, let’s try something else.

I was very disappointed with the meeting that occurred yesterday on the Liberal donation scandal. It was a Liberal PR stunt. I can tell you, despite the meeting being a sham, that we will not back down. We will not be bullied into dropping our request for a public inquiry.

Yesterday, the Premier claimed that political donations have never bought a policy in her government. This comes despite numerous examples that are causing the public to question this government’s integrity.

So let’s try it another way. Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: Has the Premier ever given out a government grant in exchange for future political donations? Yes or no?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Again, I’m going to take the time to remind members that impugning motive takes different characteristics, and it’s getting closer. I’m going to remind the member to guard his questions.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. That’s not how decisions are made in our government. There are very clear protocols and processes.

Look, I’m committed to changing political donations in Ontario. There’s a broad consensus on the actions that need to be taken to update Ontario’s rules. In fact, I had a meeting with the leader of the Green Party this morning, and he brought in a set of proposals that were very reflective of the proposals that I had brought to the leaders yesterday. I think that there is a broad consensus. This consensus is the basis of what I brought forward to the leaders of the opposition.

It’s interesting to me; in preparation for what I deemed to be an important meeting with the leaders of the opposition, I did some work at home getting ready for the meeting. Somehow, that’s an unacceptable thing. Well, I don’t know how the leaders of the opposition parties work, but it was an important meeting. I brought some proposals forward looking at all—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I did some preparatory work to bring forward some proposals based on what I saw as the consensus in all of the discussion and in other jurisdictions in the hope that we would have a substantive discussion about those issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: I recognize that the Premier wants me to drop my request for a public inquiry, but I will continue to raise examples in the Legislature and around Ontario for exactly why we need a public inquiry. So let’s start with another one today.

In October 2013, the Liberals quietly gave Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment $500,000. That’s a $2.25-billion company that the Liberals gave public money to; the world’s second wealthiest sporting organization. They didn’t announce this grant, they just quietly handed the money over and, surprise, surprise, MLSE turned around and donated nearly $30,000 despite never donating to any political party before.

Did the Premier, a member of her staff, an MPP—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the deputy House leader to refrain and to withdraw.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Withdraw.

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

It is a testimony to what I’ve been trying to ask you to do: to guard your questions and comments. This place is not the place to impugn motive.

Please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Did the Premier—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Does the member from Renfrew care to challenge the Chair?

Mr. John Yakabuski: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Then don’t say anything.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Did the Premier or a member of her staff pressure MLSE in any way to donate to the Liberal Party in exchange for that $500,000?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition—I know he is going to continue to ask for a public inquiry. I’ve been very clear that this whole discussion is born of a need to modernize the rules, to update the fundraising rules, and that’s what we’re going to do.

I brought forward a set of proposals yesterday. I’ve proposed reform of third-party advertising rules; a ban on corporate union donations; a reduction of maximum allowable donations to a figure that’s in the range of what’s permitted federally for each party; constraints on loans and loan guarantees to parties and candidates, including leadership candidates; reform of by-election donation rules; overall reduction in spending limits by central parties in election periods; and the introduction of limits—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: And finally, the introduction of leadership and nomination campaign spending limits.

I came to the meeting with those seven reforms. I wanted to have a conversation about their perceptions of those. I still hope that we will get some substantive feedback from the leaders.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The donations to the Liberal Party included the maximum in the Sudbury by-election using the loophole they now suddenly want to close. The Premier would never propose a solution to a problem that did not exist. Nearly $30,000 in donations starting immediately after receiving a government grant sure seems like a problem to me.

How many examples do I need to raise day after day in the Legislature of these shady dealings, of these shady fundraising techniques, before the Premier supports our call for a public inquiry into her party’s political fundraising?

Will the Premier give us one justification, one reason, why she doesn’t want this public inquiry? Why hide from it if you have nothing that you’re trying to cover up?

Interjections.

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

The leader will withdraw.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have been very clear. As far back as last June, I said that we needed to move on the changes for funding donations—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve brought forward a proposal and, on top of the substantial changes, I’ve said that we need to have a process that will allow public input from across the province.

I suggested to the leaders yesterday, and to the leader of the Green Party today, that we bring draft legislation forward this spring and that we send that draft legislation to committee after first reading rather than after second reading. That allows the whole summer for consultation around the province and then another round of consultation after second reading.

This morning, the leader of the Green Party said that it might be a good idea for the House leaders to talk about how to maximize the input in those committee hearings. My experience on committee was that the discussion was truncated. I think it would be a good discussion for the House leaders to have on how we could maximize the input from the public as part of those committee hearings.

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. This morning, my children and youth services critic, the MPP for Hamilton Mountain, was joined by Dr. James Porter, Kristen Ellison and Heather Bourdon. They came to Queen’s Park along with hundreds of other parents to sound the alarm about this Premier’s decision to take away essential therapy from kids with autism over the age of five.

They told heartbreaking stories of waiting for years, only to learn that their children will now never receive access to those services. We heard about the negative long-term impacts of this government’s decision to create a lost generation of kids with autism spectrum disorder. All children with ASD deserve better from a Premier who once claimed, “Every Ontarian with autism deserves our support and has mine.”

My question is a simple one: Can the Premier look up to all of these families in the gallery and tell them why she doesn’t think their kids are worth the investment?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Children and Youth Services is going to want to comment on this, but I can look into the eyes of every one of the parents here and say that I don’t want your children languishing on a wait-list indefinitely. I want your children to get intensive service. I want your children to have access to the services that are going to help them. That’s why we’re making these changes, because I, unlike the NDP, am not willing to have those kids languish on a wait-list.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. A reminder on all sides that the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A reminder on all sides that the debate—start the clock—is through the Chair. There’s a reason for that, and you know what it is. Stay to it, please.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m sure they would respond that what they don’t want is for the Premier to kick their kids off the waiting list.

Liberal members need to imagine what they would do if this decision was impacting their children: knowing that there is intervention available that could help your child communicate to the outside world and hearing, after years of waiting, that your child will finally access this service, then having the rug pulled out from under you. With the stroke of this Premier’s pen, your child will never receive access to those services. What would you do? Would you fight for your child? You absolutely would. Liberal members have a duty to fight for all children with autism spectrum disorder. They need to tell the Premier and the minister to stand up for kids.

So, again, I ask this Premier: Tell the parents today that are here why their kids don’t deserve this life-changing therapy.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here’s why we’re putting $330 million into creating a new Ontario autism program: $330 million more because children are languishing on waiting lists, because children need intensive therapy, because there is a continuum of therapy that is needed, because we need to make sure that children come off the waiting list and get immediate support—which is what the $8,000 is—and then have access to a new intensive program that will allow them to get the service that they need.

That is a far better situation than a situation where a child is sitting on a waiting list not getting the therapy and the window for when that intensive therapy would be successful is closing. I am not willing, as the Premier, to allow that window to close on thousands of children. They need that therapy. That’s why we’re putting this program in place.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Liberals have promised changes to services in autism spectrum disorder for 14 years, since I was the critic of children and youth services in this House. Fourteen years ago they promised that they would put services in schools to help these kids, and the services are not there today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The members will come to order.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: So it is not surprising, then, that the families in this room and elsewhere across this province do not trust this Liberal government for one minute that their kids are going to see the services that they need. The bottom line is: Clearing the list to put out a headline that you don’t have a list anymore is not the right way to treat children with autism in this province.

This Premier needs to step up to the plate and promise these kids who are currently on the list that they will be grandfathered into any new system and get the autism services, the IBI therapy, that they need to be able to communicate with the outside world. Will she step up and do the right thing?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

Now, to the minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you. I’m glad to have the opportunity to answer questions in front of the parents who are here today.

Speaker, I know that change is difficult for families. I know that first-hand. I know—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I’m going to ask and advise our guests that while we want you here, any displays are not allowed from the public gallery. I would appreciate it if you resisted doing so.

Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I know that this change affects a number of families across the province, in addition to the families and the children that are here today.

We are changing the program because we are following the best scientific evidence. In addition to 330 million new dollars, we are creating 16,000 new spaces for children to get those critical interventions when they need it the most.

That’s why we are working very hard to reach out to parents. We are holding webinars. We started one last night, and we had over 500 parents participating. We have four more webinars to come.

Fundraising

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier said yesterday that her plan to change political fundraising was “non-partisan” and that she wanted to work with the other parties. But then she told the media that she actually wrote this plan by herself, at her dining room table, on the weekend.

To add to that, she wants any consultation to happen—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To add to that, she wants any consultation to happen on a committee, with a Liberal majority, where the Liberal Party can outvote anything that the Premier doesn’t like when it comes to amendments.

Does this Premier honestly believe that’s a process that the people of Ontario will respect and have confidence in?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I did prepare for the meeting with the leaders. I prepared a set of proposals, looking at the regimes in other jurisdictions, looking at the commentary that had been made in the public, and I brought those proposals to my meeting with the leaders. I would expect that anyone going into an important meeting would prepare for that meeting.

I was quite prepared to hear substantive proposals coming from the other side, coming from the opposition leaders. There were a number of questions that I put on the table, Mr. Speaker, and I made it clear to the leaders of the opposition parties, as I did to the leader of the Green Party this morning, that in the committee process that we are proposing, we would bring draft legislation forward this spring. We would send that legislation, with agreement of the House, to the committee after first reading, as opposed to second reading, so that there would be two rounds of consultations around the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: At any given time, this Premier has dozens of expert advisory panels on the go. There were panels whose job it was to study the reports made by other panels. But when it comes to ensuring that people can trust the basic fairness of our democracy, this Premier is refusing to establish a fast-moving, non-partisan and transparent panel.

Can the Premier explain, when it comes to an issue of such import as how election campaigns are funded, why she’s refusing the input of a non-partisan expert panel that includes political parties, civil society and NGOs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: A couple of things on this: First of all, I believe that there is a fair degree of consensus on where we need to go. As I said, when I met with the leader of the Green Party this morning, the suggestions that he brought forward were very much in sync with the proposal that I had brought to the leaders of the opposition parties. Now, I don’t know where the leaders of the opposition parties stand substantially on some of these things because they weren’t willing to engage with me in a substantial discussion.

I believe that the process of a standing committee, having two rounds of consultation around the province—we’ve committed to inviting the Chief Electoral Officer as the first government delegate. I said to the leader of the Green Party this morning that we would ask him to come as the second delegate to the committee, once the draft legislation got to that process.

I believe that there is ample opportunity between now and into the fall for everyone who wants to weigh in on this to do so, and for us to make sure we get the best piece of legislation possible.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier insists that there’s a broad public consensus for a plan that she wrote by herself at her table over the weekend. Can she tell Ontarians, perhaps, what public meetings on campaign financing—

Interjections.

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

Leader?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Can she tell Ontarians what public meetings on campaign financing she’s attended? How many Ontarians has she consulted with? Which NGOs, which academics and which civil society groups made submissions to her in the development of her at-home-table document that she provided?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here’s what I’m not willing to do: I’m not willing to delay this process by layering on process and the creation of new committees. We have a completely legitimate process. In fact, it’s the definition of the democratic process that this Legislative Assembly draft legislation and that we do that in consultation with people around the province. We do that, and then we send that draft legislation to consultation.

What the leader of the third party is proposing is that another process be put in place, after which legislation would be drafted, after which there would be consultation. So in order to get changes in place by the beginning of January 2017—that would be impossible. That is what the leader of the third party is proposing. We’re not willing to do that.

I think there’s been a lot of discussion. There needs to be more, but it needs to be on a substantial set of proposals. I’d like to get moving on that.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Last week, I shared stories from families that are devastated because of your decision to stop providing IBI therapy to children over five years old. Some of those families have joined us here today and are looking to you for answers.

One family shared their story about their son, John Paul. In October 2015, one month prior to turning five, John Paul finally began IBI therapy after waiting for nearly three years. Prior to receiving IBI therapy, he wasn’t able to say a word. Now, after a couple of months, he’s using sentences. Now the minister will be stripping away this IBI support for John Paul and other children just because they’re five. John Paul’s experience clearly shows that IBI is working.

Will the minister do the right thing and reverse her decision and allow children over the age of five access to IBI therapy?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank my critic from the opposition party for this very important question and, again, acknowledge the families that are here today. These parents here today, and others across the province and on our webinar last night with hundreds of parents, have heard me say that the clinical experts have advised us that intensive intervention is most effective for children under five. That means that children over five are not in the right developmental window for this service.

To help families with children over the age of five who are currently waiting for services, we are providing them with one-time funding of $8,000. That will take children off the waiting list today and into immediate service. Parents can buy the service immediately and the children will not have to wait. Once that money is spent, families can access or improve upon publicly funded autism services. It will continue to provide more service for a longer duration, tailored to the children’s needs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Webinars where you try to justify your decision are not what these parents are looking for. They want therapy for their kids.

I want to quote from another letter I received from a parent. He wrote, “It’s unfortunate autism isn’t given the same priority as cancer. Both do not have a cure. Both cost money to treat and manage. And both can be devastating for the families....

“Whenever you’re going to talk about limited funding for autism treatment, try replacing the word ‘autism’ with ‘cancer’ and read it for yourself. How does it sound? What would the reaction be if you read that statement in public?”

I agree. We would never push aside a cancer patient based on age, yet this is exactly what the minister is doing with children with ASD.

Will the minister reverse her decision and provide real support to the thousands of Ontario children waiting for IBI therapy today?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Again, I thank the member for the question. It’s very important.

I know what it’s like to have a child with special needs. When I was asked, as parliamentary assistant to then Minister of Children and Youth Services, to write the special-needs report, it was my honour and privilege to talk to families with special needs, with all kinds of disabilities, to help them get the information they needed, to help them navigate a far-too-complicated system, to help them figure out what the best evidence is, to help them determine when a diagnosis is appropriate, to help them get the services they needed. This is the most important piece of work I’ve ever done, Speaker.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you.

As Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services, my job is to advocate and support and protect children. My job is to follow the evidence and provide the best possible—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. We have hundreds of parents here today who told us that they are mourning the death of their children’s potential due to this government’s decision. It’s unacceptable that kids who waited because of this government’s misplaced priorities are now being forced to pay the price again. This government is failing kids and families with ASD. This government is pulling the rug out from families who were about to receive that very important therapy. They deserve better. This shouldn’t be about money. This should be about kids and their well-being.

Will the Premier do the right thing and ensure that kids who were on the wait-list will be grandfathered into the program?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This is a gut-wrenching issue. I think it’s obvious that there is huge emotional investment by every one of the families here and the thousands of families across the province.

I’ve been the Minister of Education. I worked with the then Minister of Children and Youth Services. We made changes in the autism program. The demographics have changed. There are more children who are born with autism, who are born on the spectrum. We have to continue to change the program so that it meets the ne