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

April 14, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Apr-14 (PDF)

L161 - Thu 14 Apr 2016 / Jeu 14 avr 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 14 April 2016 Jeudi 14 avril 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois concernant les services financiers de rechange

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Special-needs students

Special-needs students

Special-needs students

Fundraising

Special-needs students

Special-needs students

Aboriginal programs and services

Special-needs students

Autism treatment

Ontario budget

Special-needs students

Executive compensation

Student assistance

Deferred Votes

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

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Special-needs students

Essex County Agricultural Hall of Fame

Reading Circle

Farm safety

Child Development Centre run

Tel Aviv

Vaisakhi

Eglinton Crosstown LRT

Torn Memories of Nanking

Introduction of Bills

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

Motions

Nishan Sahib flag

Petitions

Health care funding

Employment standards

Men’s health

Special-needs students

Parental recognition

Sexual violence and harassment

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Child care

Special-needs students

Special-needs students / Élèves ayant des besoins particuliers

Men’s health

Special-needs students

Yad Vashem

Sign-language

interpretation

Visitors

Private Members’ Public Business

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)

Special-needs students / Élèves ayant des besoins particuliers

Capping Ontario’s Debt Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le plafonnement de la dette de l’Ontario

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)

Special-needs students

Capping Ontario’s Debt Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le plafonnement de la dette de l’Ontario

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)

Special-needs students

Capping Ontario’s Debt Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le plafonnement de la dette de l’Ontario

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 13, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act to enact the Ontario Trails Act, 2016 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 100, Loi édictant la Loi de 2016 sur les sentiers de l’Ontario et modifiant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When last we discussed the bill, the member for Prince Edward–Hastings had the floor and we were at two minutes. We are now doing further debate. The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning on Bill 100,

An Act to enact the Ontario Trails Act, 2016 and to amend various Acts. When this bill was introduced in May 2015, we didn’t hear very much about it, but then people started to contact us with their concerns. The concerns were coming from rural Ontario.

We’ve looked at the bill, and we understand the concerns that people are bringing to us. We don’t necessarily agree that the bill brings about the same threats as they may feel, but what really irks me is that the government didn’t go through a better consultative process, sitting down with people in rural Ontario, in particular landowners and snowmobile clubs, to indicate clearly what this bill would and would not do. That’s the crux of the problem for me right now in eastern Ontario.

The government can say, “It doesn’t cause that,” but misunderstanding or whatever about the bill has caused people to shut down snowmobile trails throughout eastern Ontario and, in fact, throughout the province because they’re not comfortable with what the government is doing here without a proper explanation of just what this bill is intended to do.

We have to go back a little bit to the history of why there is distrust—mistrust I guess would be the word—from people who populate rural Ontario.

If you go back to this government when they got elected, they immediately started to do some things that people threw up their hands and said, “What’s this all about?” Church suppers and county fairs were being told they couldn’t serve food because they weren’t going to pass health regulations—shutting down little things like that or threatening to have the local health units go in and shut down a church supper because they didn’t have state-of-the-art sanitation procedures in the basement of St. John’s Augsburg church. They just don’t have those things.

They’re not equipped with state-of-the-art food serving equipment.

They had to back off on that because there was such an uproar. But it spoke to the thinking of the government, about how they viewed activities that have gone on for decades, centuries in fact, in rural Ontario, where no one had ever raised an issue that people were going to the church supper and leaving ill. In fact, I think we get more cases of salmonella and food poisoning in city restaurants that don’t get up to code than we’ve ever had at the church supper down in the local parish. But the government felt that they needed to put the pressure on those rural people.

There have been various publications that have talked about how this government, more than any government before, would like to see rural Ontario depopulated and force everybody to move to the cities because they really find that supporting rural Ontario has just gotten to be too much of a big deal, too expensive and too cumbersome for them. So why is there distrust out there? It’s because of the previous actions of the government.

Let’s get to the bill itself. If they wanted to perpetuate that feeling, that’s all they need to do: bring in a bill that is not properly consulted, not properly explained. Then those who are naturally, and with good reason, suspicious of the government are going to stand and raise their objections to it.

I know we don’t have a lot of time, but the

section of the bill that has caused the most consternation is

section 12, the

section dealing with easements. Before I get too much into it, yesterday I thanked the member for Trinity–Spadina for asking a question about Bill 100 and easements and looking for some clarification around it.

I thought it was a golden opportunity for the minister to actually clarify the situation, extend an olive branch of some description to rural Ontario and maybe clearly state that in committee and before we go back for second reading we will put that kind of language in the bill that rural Ontario is looking for that clearly states that any and all easements will and must be voluntary and that no one can be forced into an easement and verbal agreements cannot ever be made into an easement.

Make that clear to the people, and I think you would have given a great deal of comfort to those people in rural Ontario who are concerned about this bill. Sadly, the minister took the opportunity to talk about how great the bill was and that we, on the wrong side of his argument, were just making a lot of noise. That’s not how you make the other side feel comfortable that you’re trying to get this thing through in a reasonable fashion.

He should have answered the question and he should have satisfied the desires and the wants of those who are concerned about the misunderstandings and the bad drafting of this legislation.

What has happened—and I’m hopeful now that winter is finally over, we think—is that the snowmobile trails, whether they were shut down by the landowners that owned the land that they were traversing, are closed anyway because winter is essentially over. Having said that, we’ve got to make sure that we can give comfort to those landowners so that those trails will be reopened come the fall. Snowmobiling is an integral part of our winter economy.

It would be terrible that because of a badly messaged, badly drafted piece of legislation that did not take into account the need to consult properly with all of the requisite parties, we would see a billion-dollar industry in this province cut off at the knees because they can’t cross certain properties.

You have to understand that snowmobiling requires the co-operation of those landowners. Those landowners are their greatest partners, but the beneficiaries are all of us: the businesses that exist in rural communities, the hotels, the motels, the gas stations, the restaurants—everybody. Truck dealers: If you’ve got a $20,000 or $15,000 snowmobile, you’ve got to buy a trailer for it, and you’re going to have to have a good truck to pull it with. So, what happens to car dealers across the province without snowmobiling?

If you don’t own a snowmobile, you don’t need that big truck to pull it around halfway across the province so you can get onto a good trail and you get there and you find the sign, “Closed because Michael Coteau didn’t talk to us.” That’s not what we want to see.

You need to clarify this. You need to clarify this absolutely, and without any question or doubt, so that the people in rural Ontario can comfortably say to those good people who operate snowmobiles and contribute so much to our economy and have been wonderful neighbours for all of our lives, “My trails are open for business to you.” What we need from Minister Coteau is some clarity that says to everybody that it isn’t just about the trails here and there; it’s also about the trails through rural Ontario, the snowmobile trails, that mean so much to us.

There are some good components to this bill that I think are positive for rural landowners. For rural landowners there are some positive components to this bill. The increased fines for trespassing: That says to rural landowners, “We want to protect your property in a way that it wasn’t protected before.” That’s good. But we should be talking about that; we shouldn’t be talking about the fact that people are losing access to trails in rural Ontario because the minister didn’t do his homework.

We should be talking about the good parts of the bill and not wondering if we are going to shut down an industry that, my god, we all depend on. I say to my friend from Peterborough, do we need another industry shut down in this province? The answer is no. So let’s stand together. Let’s stand together with the people in rural Ontario—the landowners, the snowmobilers—and say: Ontario is open for business and this bill is going to be clarified to make sure that happens.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was a pleasure to address this bill this morning. I hope that when this bill gets to committee the minister will do the right thing and make sure that the attitude that rural Ontario is not respected by this government has a chance—I’ll give the government a chance to improve your relationship with rural Ontario. Show them that you respect them and that you’re interested in their views.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. If I wasn’t awake, I am now.

Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for that roaring speech on Bill 100. You know, a lot of people have actually been up on their feet to talk about this bill. I think it’s clear that the bill is kind of vague in its intent.

The bill really was about an easement issue, but in fact the bill in its intent really talks about increasing awareness, encouraging use of, enhancing the trail experience, protecting trails for today’s generation and future generations, and recognizing the contribution that trails make to the quality of life in Ontario, when the bill should have been more about the actual private access to trails in the province. There should have been more consultation with those people who own land and actually allow people to connect to snowmobile trails on their property, and unfortunately that wasn’t done.

So once again, in this piece of legislation, not enough consultation on the front end, and we know that at the back end there will be an enforcement problem; there always is. We hear about that with every piece of legislation that gets passed here. We continue to put in legislation, but we don’t actually put in the appropriate enforcement at the end of the day. So I hope that when the bill gets to committee, we can address not only the amendments we need to make for the people who will allow access easements, but as well the enforcement piece for those people who may be violating pieces of the legislation.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Speaker. I think you were there when we left yesterday, right? Did you go home?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I like it here.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: You like it there. Good.

Speaker, it’s a pleasure to make a couple of comments on the comments by the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, but I must ask first: Where do you get those pills? I just don’t have the stamina first thing in the morning. If you could help us, it would be great. I know he was at the lung caucus this morning, and I wonder if it was the breakfast. I know that he ate it pretty quickly.

Speaker, let me focus a little bit on the mechanism for easements that the member talked about. I’m going to read this, because I want to make sure I get it right: “An easement under the proposed act would, if passed, be an agreement between a willing landowner and an eligible body that grants the eligible body access to the owner’s land for trail-related activities or purposes.”

I think that’s fairly clear. The two parties have to come together. If the landowner says, “No, you’re not bringing your snowmobile across my land” or “you’re not walking across my land, or your four-wheeler,” I think that’s fairly clear.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: He has to have rights.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: They’ve got to have rights to do that. It’s an agreement, and I think we have to respect that.

Speaker, trails have an important function in our economy. Living in rural Ontario in Northumberland county, I know there are a number of trails, and there are some that create some issues like those we are trying to undo here.

I think we need to be somewhat cautious about how we message this—address it. Can we do better? Maybe we could look at that, for sure, through committee.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I don’t think anybody here is terribly surprised to hear that there isn’t a lot of snowmobiling in my riding of Thornhill. But it doesn’t mean that people don’t want to get out into the country and access our fantastic trail system in Ontario.

I have to say that in Montreal I used to go very often on the weekend with my family to the area of Oka. I think that people here have heard of Oka cheese. There’s a monastery that started Oka cheese that is so famous. Mostly, it was a national park, but I never thought, when in Montreal doing trails, “Is this private land, or is this some kind of national park?” Montreal has an incredible system.

It doesn’t take long to get into the country in Montreal, because it’s an island and things are sort of constrained. We do hear a lot about snowmobiling. The reality is that these trails are used for so much more. They’re used for biking, hiking and cross-country skiing. I mostly use the trails for cross-country skiing, I have to admit.

We have to understand that people are not going to allow total strangers to come on their land, out of the goodness of their heart, to participate in all kinds of winter or summer sports that may involve heavy machinery or other equipment. They may have emergencies. They have to maintain the trails. They’re not going to allow that to happen without absolute assurances they’re not giving up something of value: either access to their own land or providing guaranteed easements in the future or somehow devaluing their own property.

I think the whole reason we’re here in the Legislature is to ensure that people’s needs are met and that their property is respected. I think that what we are hearing from so many people on this side of the House is that there are concerns with this bill. The government had the opportunity to address the concerns, and for some reason the government chose not to. That makes people very nervous.

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

M me France Gélinas: I would say that I agree with lots of what the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke had to say. I represent a northern riding. I live on a lake. There are major snowmobile trails right in front of my house. We have the Walden snowmobile club, the Sudbury snowmobile club, the Espanola snowmobile club, the Massey—there are trails all over. Come and use the trails in Nickel Belt. We have beautiful, beautiful Ski-Doo trails, some of them four lanes, two lanes this way and two lanes that way. They’re beautiful.

But now some of them are closed, not because of a lack of snow but because of this bill. Some of the snowmobile clubs have written to me and said that some landowners had given permission to go on their lands forever. You see, Speaker, in the summer the farmers don’t want you a mile around their field, but in the winter, when there’s four feet of snow on top of it, they’re quite okay. If you stay within the trails, they let you go.

An industry that took a long time to build—and I want a shout-out to my predecessor, Shelley Martel, who was instrumental in making sure that the trail system as we know it in the north was developed—is now at risk of collapsing. You only have to have one piece taken out of the trail and then you’re doomed: This entire trail from beginning to end has to close, with everything that comes with it.

The government keeps saying it’s not going to happen, but you know what? Perception is reality. The perception of those people is that they will have to now hire a lawyer to make sure that the permission that they give is not going to be detrimental to their farm and to their land. This has to be addressed. It’s not to be addressed by telling them that they’re wrong; it’s by talking to the people of northern Ontario. Try it. It’s worth it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has two minutes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the members from Welland, Northumberland–Quinte West, Thornhill and Nickel Belt for their comments. I must say, the member for Nickel Belt summed it up extremely well. That is how we want to close, as well.

These people didn’t start closing trails to snowmobilers because they had a bad dream one night and woke up and decided it would be a good idea to shut the trails. Something came to their attention—across their desk, so to speak—that scared them. It was Bill 100. And regardless of what the government says about how wonderful Bill 100 is, one of the side effects—the unforeseen circumstances, perhaps—was that landowners believed that this constituted a threat to their property rights.

If you feel that it’s your responsibility as a government to make sure that communications are clear, then you have to do something to remedy that. Because the consequence is, as the member from Nickel Belt said, that the trails closed, not because of the climate or weather or lack of snow; they closed because people reacted to what they saw in Bill 100.

It only stands to reason, then, that it is incumbent upon the government to satisfy that concern, to the extent that it can be satisfied, and I think it can, if the minister would clarify, when he has the opportunity to do that, that these easements have to be absolutely—without any question—voluntary. You cannot be forced into one; verbal contracts do not constitute easements. All of those things need to be clarified, so that when this bill comes back to the House from committee, should it pass second reading—but the government has the majority; I’m sure that it’s going to—that has to be cleared up. We want those trails open next winter. It’s vital to us here in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? Oh, the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you very much, Speaker, for noticing me. I appreciate it.

It’s great to rise this morning in the House on the Supporting—

Mr. Tim Hudak: You’ve got to work on your tan.

Mr. Grant Crack: I haven’t gone away yet—Supporting Ontario Trails Act, 2015. If it was passed, it would improve and sustain Ontario’s urban, suburban, rural and remote land and water trails. It would help the trails community more effectively develop, operate and promote trails while enhancing the trail experience for all trail users.

The proposed act would strengthen Ontario’s trails system by enabling the government to:

(1) better manage trail activity and protect public land and property by modernizing stewardship, compliance and enforcement tools;

(2) clarify landowner responsibilities for trails running through their land;

(3) strengthen the consequences of trespassing on private and agricultural land; and

(4) increase the amount that landowners could recover for damages caused by trespassers.

During second reading debate, we heard members of the opposition and we heard members of the third party expressing their support for Bill 100. I’d like to quote a couple of the members, Speaker. One of them is the really good member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek; perhaps you know him. He said, “The NDP supports the objectives of the bill.... It is good that this bill provides the trails community with improved and expanded tools to develop, operate and promote trails.”

What a great quote. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound said he “will support this bill in principle because of a number of reasons.”

The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka said, “I think there are some benefits to this bill, which have been largely overshadowed by the concerns with the easement section.... There’s a change in the limit on fines for trespassers on private property. It goes from $2,000 to $10,000. That’s more protection for private property owners. There’s a reduction in liability, and clarification of liability, for landowners. That’s also a positive that is in this bill.”

Speaker, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington: “The Liberal government has actually introduced a bill that is beneficial and helps rural Ontario. It promotes and improves property rights in Ontario. This is the first bill I have seen from this Liberal government that actually helps and promotes property rights. I’d like to take a few moments to tell people why. I do understand that it is as if the world had been turned upside down by this Liberal government and Bill 100. People don’t know what to make of it.”

Speaker, we allowed, as a government—we enjoyed the number of hours of debate so far. We reached 6.5 hours of debate. And we’ve had more debate than that. We continue to debate it, and we’ve seen nearly 10 hours of debate to this point. According to my count, we’ve had nearly half of the members of this Legislature speak to this bill.

There’s been considerable debate on this bill and we’ve heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. Unfortunately, much of the debate has been repeating points already made by other members. It’s clear there’s support on all sides for this bill, but members on the other side would like to see some amendments. It’s time for this bill to be put to a vote for second reading and hopefully be referred to committee, where the important work takes place.

In committee, that’s where members of all parties will hear from stakeholders who have an interest in this bill. Members of the public will be able to provide input into this important bill. In committee, members will have the opportunity to move amendments to strengthen the bill, and this House can move on to debate other matters.

There are a number of pieces of important legislation already introduced which the government would like to debate and move through the legislative process. We have Bill 119, the Health Information Protection Act; Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act; Bill 156, the Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act; and Bill 181, the Municipal Elections Modernization Act.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to spend some time debating some of those other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we can’t until Bill 100 is referred to committee for further review. As the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who spoke earlier, said, he’d like to see this go to committee. Well, as a result, I would move that the question now be put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to first thank the member for mentioning me in his submission. Thanks so much. It was nice of him to allow us to talk for 10 hours.

Mr. Crack has moved that the question now be put. I’m satisfied that we have a benchmark and I’m satisfied there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a “no.”

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be voted on after question period.

Vote deferred.

Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois concernant les services financiers de rechange

Mr. Orazietti moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 156,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to financial services / Projet de loi 156, Loi modifiant diverses lois concernant les services financiers.

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

Hon. David Orazietti: I’ll be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Newmarket–Aurora.

This is an important piece of legislation. There has been much discussion about this. From the time when the federal government downloaded responsibility for payday loans and other financial services, the province has stepped up with legislation. My colleague and predecessor in this ministry, Minister Ted McMeekin, first introduced the Payday Loans Act in 2008 in our government. Since then, we have been building on the appropriate regulations and legislative requirements that help to protect vulnerable consumers in the province of Ontario.

I want to make a couple of introductory comments first, before I get into the key issues of the legislation. Back to the point that I was making, there has been considerable commentary on this in various media outlets across the province, in Windsor and Hamilton and Ottawa, and here in Toronto as well. I have spoken to a number of councillors in the province with respect to this issue, including Matthew Green in Hamilton, who has been active on this issue. I know there are other councillors that my staff have also spoken with who want to see better regulations to support vulnerable consumers in their respective communities.

I can also say that with respect to our ministry, our data show that complaints with respect to alternative financial services—payday lending and the like—have been the number one complaint or inquiry in our ministry. In some years, that’s meant well over a thousand calls or complaints with respect to this particular issue. So it is an issue that has significant concern in Ontario, an issue that Ontarians do want addressed.

There are over 800 licensed payday lenders in the province of Ontario today. With respect to this piece of legislation, approximately a thousand Ontarians were consulted in the development of it. As well, obviously, all Ontarians have an opportunity to provide input into legislation that’s being made by the province. Our consultations took us to Hamilton, to Owen Sound, to Guelph, to Ottawa, to Windsor. So this has not been a piece of legislation that has been developed in isolation or in a bubble, so to speak. It has been one that has been sounded well with communities across the province and with many different stakeholders.

I’m going to make some comments with respect to the bill and the importance of passing this legislation. The bill aims to better protect financially insecure Ontarians with limited access to traditional credit by amending legislation to protect consumers who use financial services other than banks and credit unions. If passed, this legislation would also protect consumers with debts in collection. Financial security is a broad issue that our government is addressing in partnership with all levels of government, community agencies and the private sector.

Ontario has had a long history of protecting consumers in debt and those who use alternative financial services. The Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act sets rules for when and how collection agencies can contact consumers with debts in collection. The Consumer Protection Act sets rules for credit agreements and leasing. And the Payday Loans Act capped the cost of borrowing and protected payday loan borrowers from certain practices.

Consumers who use these services and consumers with debts in collection are part of a broad spectrum. They may be employed full-time or they may be on a fixed income. They may be newcomers to Ontario or have lived in Ontario all of their lives. They may be facing financial difficulties for the first time or have been in debt for many years.

Speaker, what consumers of alternative financial services and those with debts in collection have in common is limited financial assets, incomes that can fall short of expenses and few options for credit. We have heard from a wide range of stakeholders that alternative financial services are an important source of credit during emergencies to avoid a bounced cheque, a late payment or an overdraft charge. However, these services also come with a high price, and that cost can become a new financial burden for some consumers.

It’s our responsibility to ensure that the options for financially vulnerable consumers help to break the cycle of debt. Our government is proud of the fact that legislation is in place to protect these consumers, yet we all know that today’s marketplace is innovative and constantly changing. As new alternative financial services slowly enter the market, we must be vigilant and respond to those changes. We must make sure that consumers have the information and resources they need to make the right decision for themselves.

It was also important to ask consumers and other stakeholders what they thought, and so we did. We consulted with a payday lending panel, which provided advice on how to improve payday loans. I have already referenced, Speaker, the locations that we have travelled to in the province to undertake these consultations. We wanted to ensure that the ever-changing alternative financial services market can be addressed and, as well, the importance of debt collection more generally.

We responded by developing broader proposals to strengthen consumer financial protection in the province. We consulted with consumers, community agencies, consumer advocates, the debt collection industry and the alternative financial services industry. When Ontarians tell us there are areas we can improve on, it’s imperative that we take steps to do so.

Today our government is focused on the path forward. The legislation before the House for second reading today, the Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, proposes to help consumers using alternative financial services and consumers with debts in collection. If passed, it will strengthen protections in order to address a wide range of alternative financial services and debt collection issues.

With regard to cheque cashing services, alternative financial service providers typically cash cheques for a flat fee of $3 plus 3% of the face value of the cheque. With repeat use, this quickly adds up and can eat away at a family’s bottom line. Our proposed law would ensure that consumers are given the information they need when cashing government cheques. It would also allow for limits to be set on the cost of cashing a government-issued cheque. This would help ensure that recipients of government-issued cheques receive the intended value.

With respect to rent-to-own services, we are also proposing improvements to the rules surrounding rent-to-own services in Ontario. Consumers are likely to choose rent-to-own when they cannot afford to purchase the product outright and have limited options to borrow the funds. Through these services, customers can rent furniture, electronics and appliances and, at some point in the agreement, purchase them outright. Short term, the weekly or monthly payments appear low, but long term, consumers typically pay far more for the item than if they would have purchased it outright.

If passed, this legislation would enable further protection of consumers by providing that important information about rent-to-own services to potential customers, giving customers a grace period for late payments, and establishing consumer rights to reinstate a terminated lease agreement and thereby avoid additional penalties. Changes such as these would make us leaders in Canada when it comes to protecting consumers using rent-to-own services.

With regard to instalment loans, we’re proposing to improve regulations surrounding credit agreements by addressing potential risks to consumers using high-cost instalment loans. Instalment loans are any loan that has a set number of scheduled payments. High-cost instalment loans typically offered by alternative financial service providers have grown in use in recent years. According to a large bankruptcy trustee, the number of insolvencies involving these instalment loans grew five times in just two years.

Speaker, when we consulted, we heard that consumers can find the cost of these loans confusing and unexpectedly expensive, and that some consumers are offered services that they don’t need and pressured into borrowing again and again. With this legislation, we are proposing to allow for rules to address these issues.

First, the bill would allow us to require the lender to assess if the borrower can afford the loan, and share that assessment with the borrower. Consumers need to know how that loan will affect their financial situation.

Second, if passed, this bill would allow for the control over the cost of fees not included in the cost of borrowing, such as optional insurance which can be very costly to a consumer.

Third, we are proposing to prevent lenders from contacting consumers for the purpose of offering to refinance those same loans. Refinancing an instalment loan can keep consumers in debt longer. Ontario’s consumers deserve the opportunity to consider whether or not they want or need to refinance a loan themselves. These proposed changes will better protect Ontarians in the growing high-cost loan instalment market.

Speaker, with regard to debt collection services, Ontario is proud to have strong rules in place for consumers who have debts that have progressed to collection. We propose to make existing rules for debt collection even stronger. The practices of debt-collection agencies account for the highest number of telephone calls and inquiries received by Consumer Protection Ontario. We’re proposing to expand existing rules against unfair and harmful collection practices and have them apply to collection agencies and creditors that have purchased overdue debts. We would also allow for a requirement that more information be provided to consumers as part of the collection process.

These are just a few ways in which Bill 156 would help vulnerable individuals and families in Ontario. Our actions would protect consumers from financial harm and would help ensure they receive better information and guidance so they can make informed decisions. If passed, this legislation would protect consumers from both abusive debt-collection practices and unlicensed lenders in the payday loan industry.

With regard to payday loans, Speaker: This brings us to a topic that led to our broader review of strengthening consumer financial protection, specifically payday loans. When we introduced the Payday Loans Act in 2008, we did so to protect Ontarians using these services. We set rules to inform borrowers, to prohibit payday loans from being rolled over, and to limit the cost of a payday loan. Since the act took effect in 2009, we have taken enforcement action to correct non-compliance and have monitored the payday loan lending market. We know we can do more.

Speaker, payday lending is a widely used service. In Ontario in 2014, approximately 400,000 households used a payday loan. This is three times the number using payday loans as compared to 2009, and the typical payday loan borrower uses the service repeatedly. The average payday loan user in Ontario enters into about eight agreements a year with an average loan size of approximately $460. That means that the average payday loan user ends up paying approximately $770 in costs per year.

We know that payday loan borrowers tend to have lower incomes and are likely to be more financially insecure. Despite clearly displayed costs and the common practice of repeat borrowing, only one third of borrowers of payday loans know that their payday loan is the most expensive way to borrow money. In fact, less than 10% of consumers understand exactly how expensive payday loans are, so we’re taking action to ensure Ontario’s payday loan users are better informed and better protected.

Speaker, the law before us today would, if passed, enhance Ontario’s already strong Payday Loans Act. For example, once a payday loan is paid back, payday lenders would need to wait a week before they entered into a new payday loan agreement with the borrower. This would give borrowers some time to determine whether or not there are less expensive options available to them.

We’re also proposing to strengthen protection for repeat borrowers. We would do this by allowing rules to be made that would give certain repeat borrowers more time to repay their debts.

It’s clear that payday borrowers would benefit from having more information about available options. For this reason, we are proposing rules that would help consumers learn about various credit counselling services. We also propose expanded rules on the type of information that would be required to be provided to borrowers and how this information is given to them.

In addition, we would strengthen our ability to enforce the act by allowing inspections of unlicensed lenders and loan brokers. The purpose of the Payday Loans Act is to protect borrowers, and we want to make sure that we have the tools in place to do so.

Speaker, we have much to be proud of when it comes to protecting consumers in the marketplace. We now have an opportunity and an obligation to do more.

We’ve consulted with businesses, consumers and community agencies. We have sought the expertise of other jurisdictions across the country, the continent and overseas.

We understand that alternative financial services are seen as an important way to address financial needs in the absence of other services or options for some borrowers. We know that partners outside of government, such as traditional financial institutions and community agencies, are working hard to provide other options, and we applaud their work.

Addressing the broader issues of financial security is a complex task, and it takes time. But we have the opportunity to strengthen protections for financially insecure consumers now. Our responsibility is to protect those who depend on financial services that fall outside mainstream banks and credit unions.

Speaker, I know how important this issue is to many people who have contacted our ministry and to people who raised this issue with me in my riding. I know how important this is to members of this Legislature who have come to me on this particular issue. Many consumers, vulnerable consumers in particular, and community agencies have raised this issue with their MPPs. This is clearly not a partisan issue. I know that we all want to ensure that vulnerable consumers in Ontario have the protection that they need, regardless of where they live. I hope all members of the Legislature will strongly support this legislation and help to move it forward.

We know that the traditional form of lending and borrowing in this province is difficult to access, especially for vulnerable and needy consumers. We know that the industry continues to evolve and continues to invent new products, new criteria and new ways to capture additional profits in their sector while providing a service. Some community organizations and community activist groups have said that this particular sector is important to regulate.

But it is also important that we understand that there needs to be available credit provided to individuals in emergency circumstances and in emergency situations when someone needs, for example, to get some money for, perhaps, a prescription for their child. We know that there are these types of situations out there.

We have a few choices. We could say that we would completely ban payday lending in the province of Ontario, and the implications of doing that would be that certain individuals would not have access to credit that they needed.

We can look at a more prudent, and I believe a more practical, approach to this, which is to ensure that the rules and the environment that are in place in Ontario help to protect vulnerable consumers and create an environment where people are being informed, where they have the information they need and they know what they’re getting into when they borrow from a payday lender in the province. That gives people the best information and the best protection they possibly can have.

I believe in the legislation that we’re moving forward because it will take steps to help protect vulnerable consumers. I’m looking forward to the discussions at committee and I’m looking forward to hearing the feedback from members in the Legislature on this particular issue.

I’ve had several conversations with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regard to the locations of payday lending stores and the clustering of these stores in municipalities. I know that municipal councillors are concerned with the location of the stores, the clustering, as well, and, under the Municipal Act, about whether or not there can be provisions made to limit the distances by where they are located. There are other examples of other types of businesses in this province that need to comply with those types of rules.

So I am supportive of that and I am supportive of the work that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is doing in that regard. I am sensitive to the concerns of municipalities when they are talking about ensuring that they have the tools that they need to help protect consumers and to look at ways in which the location and the density of these particular retail outlets are placed in communities.

We know in other provinces they’re having the same discussion around this issue. This is not an issue that is easily solved. We’re talking about individuals who are often in significant need, who are vulnerable and who have challenges with respect to credit and may have in some cases limited knowledge and understanding of the environment that they’re getting into when they take up a payday loan.

Again, I’m very pleased to have the opportunity today to move this legislation forward with second reading. I’m looking forward to hearing the comments from my colleagues. I’m going to turn the floor over to my colleague the parliamentary assistant and the MPP for Newmarket–Aurora, who is very concerned about this issue as well and who is a strong advocate for vulnerable consumers in his riding, and we’ll continue the debate. Thank you very much, Speaker.

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: As we heard today, the Minister of Government and Consumer Services has introduced second reading of Bill 156, the Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016. As the minister indicated, alternative financial services include an array of financial services offered outside of traditional banks and credit unions. They include payday loans, cheque cashing and rent-to-own services.

This important law proposes to amend existing legislation to protect consumers who use alternative financial services providers; that is, providers other than banks and credit unions. We have consulted widely before bringing forward the legislation before you today. We spoke with community agencies, consumer advocates, credit counsellors, debt collectors, municipalities, credit unions, the banking sector, the alternative financial services sector, including payday loan lenders, the financial services industry and consumers.

From those consultations, we know that some people do not have access to a lower-cost source of credit when they have urgent financial obligations, when their income falls short of expenses or they have limited financial assets. We also know that they need to have access to these alternative financial services so they can meet their urgent obligations. These urgent financial obligations include paying the rent, paying bills, buying groceries and paying for unexpected expenses such as car repairs. We also heard alternative sources of credit can be harmful to consumers by putting them further into a cycle of debt and financial hardship.

We explored further. We established a panel with representatives from community agencies, consumer advocates, credit counsellors and the payday loans industry. The panel did its own extensive research before recommending a number of ways to strengthen payday lending in Ontario. Their findings and recommendations were posted on the Regulatory Registry for the public to share their views on payday loans. The message to the government was clear. That message was that the government can do more to protect users of alternative financial services, and specifically users of payday loans.

The ministry also held focus groups with payday loan users that year. Many borrowers considered borrowing from family, accessing loans or tapping their credit card before choosing to use payday loans. They told us they chose payday loans because at the end of the day, these loans were easy and available. They are also an important source of credit for many people in this province. In the absence of access to lower-cost credit, they want to see payday loans continue to be made available in the marketplace, and they asked us to consider changes that would strengthen the protections that already exist for payday loans in our province.

Some of the things people asked us to consider are longer terms and lower costs, a reduced cost of repaying the loan earlier, and the option to pay back loans in instalments.

We explored this further. We wanted to make sure that we got it right. Last year, ministry staff visited six communities across Ontario. They spoke with municipalities, agencies and consumers on topics including rent-to-own, instalment loans, payday loans, cheque-cashing, remittances, and debt-collection practices.

During these discussions, payday loans emerged as a popular focus of conversation. Stakeholders told us that stricter regulations were needed for payday loans and rent-to-own services.

Mr. Speaker, it became clear to us that the marketplace for alternative financial services is changing and that those in the marketplace and those using the services had expectations they wanted us to meet.

Our government decided that it was important to expand the scope of our new proposed legislation. Strengthened protections for payday loan users are an important part of this new proposed law.

But we propose to include the broader alternative financial services marketplace. The proposed law includes provisions related to cashing of government cheques, rent-to-own services, instalment loans and protection of consumers who have debts in collections. Ontarians should have choice when it comes to their finances, and that includes the opportunity to access credit and other financial services.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the people of this province. We have sought the expertise of other jurisdictions across the country, continent and overseas. We are making an ongoing effort to explore all of the options available to us to strengthen protections for consumers from the risks of using alternative financial services.

In speaking with consumers and the industry, it is clear that alternative financial services can be an important way for many people in our province to meet their financial obligations in the absence of low-cost alternatives to short-term credit. We understand that alternative financial services are seen as an important way to address financial needs in the absence of other options.

We know that partners outside of government, such as traditional financial institutions and community agencies, are working hard to provide other options, and we applaud their work.

We are also working with municipalities across Ontario. We know some municipalities are taking steps to limit the number and regulate the locations of payday loan and cheque-cashing outlets in their communities. In community meetings and consultation feedback, we heard concerns about how high concentrations of payday lenders affect local neighbourhoods. We heard the desire for more control of where payday lenders operate, in order to address community-level impacts. We’re working with our municipal partners at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to explore how we can work together to address their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we have much to be proud of when it comes to protecting consumers in the marketplace. We have taken the time to listen to the people of our province. We have consulted businesses, consumers and other interested parties such as community agencies. We have done our due diligence.

We understand that alternative financial services are seen as an important way to address financial needs in the absence of other options. Our goal is to take every opportunity we can to strengthen protections for financially insecure consumers. To build a stronger foundation of consumer protection for the people in our province, Mr. Speaker and honourable colleagues, I invite you to support our Minister of Government and Consumer Services as we work to give people in our province the stronger protection they have asked for and they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, just to carry on and to provide a bit more background: As we said, there is a bit of historical context to the second reading of this bill. As the minister noted earlier, our government is committed to protecting consumers. That includes protecting Ontarians from a cycle of debt. In fact, in 2013, the ministry committed to review the payday loan legislation. That review was expanded to include other types of high-cost alternative financial services, such as instalment loans, cheque cashing and rent-to-own services, as well as debt collection.

Broader public consultation informed our approach to strengthening protections for consumers of alternative financial services and those who are struggling with debt.

The proposed bill would protect consumers in several important ways. We’ve heard the minister outline a number of them, and I’ve touched on a number of them myself.

Consumers with debt in collections would benefit from debt collection rules that apply more broadly, including applying them to debt purchasers. Consumers cashing government cheques at alternative financial service providers would have more information and may benefit from a cap on the rate of cheque-cashing services. Consumers using rent-to-own services would benefit from a grace period for late payment and a right to reinstate the agreement under certain circumstances. Consumers using instalment loans would benefit from cost control of certain fees, such as optional insurance.

Consumers of payday loans would have to wait seven days between payday loans, giving them more time to consider their options. Finally, before I wrap up, those who borrow repeatedly would have a longer repayment period in certain circumstances.

Again, I would urge my colleagues in the House to support this bill, Bill 156, the Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015, as we move it through the House. I thank you for your time and attention.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? Questions and comments? No questions and comments.

Back to either the minister or the member for a two-minute response.

Further debate, then, if there are no questions and comments. Further debate?

Mr. John Fraser: I’m just waiting for it to go around.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Too late. You missed the boat. Further debate?

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s an honour to get up and speak to Bill 156,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to financial services. This bill was first introduced back in December of 2015, so apparently it wasn’t too important to the government, because it has taken months to actually bring it back.

Anyway, the bill amends the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the Payday Loans Act and expands the regulation-making powers in each act. There are some significant amendments.

Now, I know that particularly the payday loan issue is a huge problem in many of our communities. We have constituents who come into our office day in and day out who complain about the fact that they perhaps can’t open an account at a bank or at a credit union because either they don’t have identification, they don’t have an address or they just can’t afford to have a bank account, because in some of the banks you need to pay as much as $25 a month. Potentially, the lowest bank account is $7.50 to $10 a month.

Interjection.

Ms. Cindy Forster: The whip brought something to my attention that I should—Mr. Speaker, I’m going to stand down the lead for the caucus.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Welland—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I heard you. The member from Welland has asked to stand down the lead. Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Further debate? The member from Welland again.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker.

I was speaking about the fact that there are many people who live in poverty in our communities who don’t have the ability to open a bank account or open an account at a credit union. Even at credit unions, although you don’t necessarily pay a fee for banking in some situations, you have to have shares in that credit union and you have to come up with some form of money to be able to do that. Certainly in banks there are considerable banking fees that some people just can’t afford to pay. Lots of times, it’s because they’re homeless. They don’t have a permanent address; they’re perhaps living in a shelter.

So when these people are on ODSP or Ontario Works and get their cheques, their only option is to go to one of these payday loan companies to get their cheque cashed. Then they get sucked into that system because they don’t have enough money to live.

Somebody on Ontario Works who is single is getting just over $600 a month. The average rent, for example, in my community is probably $700 or $800 a month. Here in the city of Toronto, it can be as much as $1,200 to $1,800 a month. So for people who are living on the edge like that, their only option is to go and perhaps borrow money from payday lenders. So then they get into that vortex where they end up paying more than they’re even getting from Ontario Works or from, perhaps, some minimum wage employment that they have.

The bill also speaks to amending the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act. The bill amends the act to permit administrative penalties to be imposed against a person who has contravened or is contravening a prescribed provision of the act. It establishes rules respecting the making of an order imposing an administrative penalty, the appeal of such orders, the enforcement of such orders and related matters.

I can tell you that over the last five years I’ve had a number of people who have come into my office, who have entered into agreements with these debt settlement offices. We have a number of them in my riding. At the end of the day, you could end up paying as much as—I remember one particular constituent. It was $1,500 or $1,600 that they were trying to consolidate debt on. They paid a huge fee to the debt consolidation office and, at the end of the day, they didn’t get any results.

Here are people who are in financial difficulty already, to start with, trying to consolidate some debts so they don’t have to claim bankruptcy, who end up paying huge fees to the people who work in the debt consolidation agencies who don’t get them any positive outcomes.

I think there needs to be something done in that regard as well, as to how much fees they can charge, so that people who are trying to be upstanding citizens in our communities, who perhaps find themselves unable to pay their bills through no fault of their own, because they’ve been off sick from work and they don’t have any sick pay, or they’ve been injured and they are waiting for their compensation to come through—there has to be some clearer rules around the fees and how that can address the needs of constituents in our ridings.

The third part of the act is consumer protection. The bill adds a new part to that bill regarding the cashing of government cheques. The new part provides for a limit on the fee that may be imposed for cashing that government cheque. A supplier who cashes a government cheque for a consumer must also provide the consumer with a statement setting out prescribed information with respect to the cashing of the cheque. I spoke about that briefly, about the fact that many people can’t open bank accounts.

I think that we should, in some way, try and address the fact that if people have government cheques, they should be able to cash them at a bank. They should be able to cash them at a credit union. I don’t see this necessarily being addressed in this particular bill. Hopefully, when we get to committee, there will be some way to put forward an amendment that will actually deal with that.

We hear about this issue a lot. I know the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton actually talks about this quite often when we’re here in the Legislature. I know that many new immigrants, perhaps refugees who are settling in this country, get sucked into this system of actually going to these payday loan companies. At the end of the day, they have less money in their pocket to support their families, but they find that that’s the only option that they have.

I’ve even had people in my own family who have found themselves in hard times, people who perhaps don’t want to go to their family and let them know that they’re having financial problems. Instead of doing that, they’ll go off and enter into some kind of relationship with these agencies. At the end of the day, they find themselves in worse financial shape than they were to start with.

The bill looks like it’s got a fair number of amendments. Under the payday loan section, it looks like the bill will amend the restrictions respecting concurrent or replacement payday loan agreements, and respecting the making of more than one payday loan between the same borrower and different lenders.

The bill will also permit the registrar to conduct inspections if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that a person or an entity is acting as a lender or a loan broker while not licensed. I’m sure that there are agencies out there that aren’t licensed. I know that there is probably no enforcement, or very limited enforcement, with respect to these particular financial institutions.

There certainly needs to be more. Regardless of the amendments that get made, and I talked about this on the bill we were discussing earlier today, there needs to be enforcement, right? At the end of the day, we can put in as much legislation as we want, but if we’re not enforcing that legislation, then it is problematic.

We know that in many areas of government where we have legislation—I’ll take the Employment Standards Act, for example, Speaker, because that’s my critic area. We hear from thousands of people each year that the Employment Standards Act isn’t enforced, so people aren’t getting their regular pay, let alone their overtime pay. They’re perhaps not being paid for statutory holidays that they are entitled to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thanks to the member from Welland. It’s 10:15 and this will continue at another time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Gila Martow: First, I want to welcome my friend from my constituency of Thornhill, Willem Hart, who is here today. He had breakfast with me and the mayor of Tel Aviv, Ron Huldai, who unfortunately had to leave.

There are many people here from the Yad Vashem foundation, and we’re going to be having statements on that later on.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ east gallery today, I’d like to welcome Peter and Elizabeth Peeters, who won an auction in the riding of Peterborough to have a lunch with their MPP.

I would also like to announce today, Mr. Speaker, that a former member of my staff, Stewart, and his wife Jessica just welcomed their first baby, Bryce Andrew Skinner, into the world. We want to give them congratulations.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased to introduce champions of demonstration schools Julie Clarke, Cody Clarke, Janet Marriage, Carissa Macaulay, Wendy Haggitt, Dean Ducharme and Tressa Ducharme. They made the trek from Huron county today, and I welcome them.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’m pleased to welcome the mother of page captain Joshua Kim. Tina Chan-Kim is in the east members’ gallery.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to welcome some residents from the city of Ottawa who are here today in support of demonstration schools: Stephanie Grenon, Kevin Van Dyk, Jennifer Pike, Lila-Rosa Prankie, Liz Rosamond and Tyler Cunningham. I welcome them to Queen’s Park, and I’m so sorry they had to come here from five hours away.

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to welcome two guests of mine from Scarborough–Agincourt: page captain Aarbhi Krishnakumar’s mother, Sandy, as well as her brother, Mandaran. They are here in the east gallery.

I also want to welcome my constituents from Scarborough–Agincourt who are sitting in the west visitors’ gallery: Denis Lanoue and his wife. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I want to welcome to the Legislature today Ruth and Patrick Bourachot from my riding. They are here representing their son Nathaniel. The issue, of course, is provincial and demonstration schools.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us here today in the east members’ gallery is Tim West, a former TIAO member and one of the early supporters of Bill 100. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I am pleased to be able to introduce Ann and Harold Wall, constituents of mine who are here to show their concern over the direction this government is taking—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me: Introductions only, please.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Thank you.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my pleasure to welcome community leader Sarbjit Deol. Along with him is a religious leader from India, Baba Lakha Singh, who is the chairman of Vishav Dharm Sewa Shanti Mission; Rakshpal Singh Sangha; Dharminder Singh; Kulwinder Toor; and Paramjit Deol. They are in the east members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Steve Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Legislative Assembly, constituents from my riding in Leeds–Grenville who have children at the Sagonaska school in Belleville: Sherry Convery, Lesley and Michael Lehman, and Kortney Jensen. I’d ask the members to give them our traditional warm welcome here in the Legislature.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to welcome families, education workers and community supporters from across Ontario who are here today in order to be here for my debate over the motion to save the provincial and demonstration schools.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with a group. I’d like to introduce and welcome the Diller Teen Fellows from Eilat, Israel, to the House today. These teens are visiting Toronto as part of an international leadership program in partnership with the Toronto Jewish community, and I welcome them here to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce, from the township of Cavan Monaghan, Scott McFadden, Yvette Hurley and Brigid Ayotte. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to introduce Carrie Helmer. Her daughter Katie Helmer attends the Amethyst Demonstration School, and they’re here today at Queen’s Park.

Hon. David Zimmer: I would like to introduce guests from the Professional Engineers Government of Ontario: Ping Wu, president; Jim Chisholm, vice-president; Martin Haalstra, board director; George Collins, board director; Hiona Murray, labour relations officer; and Howard Brown, their consultant.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome from my riding Jill, Alex and Evan Grant; Lynn, Raymond, April and Thomas Desormeaux; Laurie, Peter and James Forrester; and Dr. Diane, Martin, Chris and Micheal Poilly. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: On behalf of the Legislature, I would like to wish a happy birthday to Sophie Kiwala, who turned 28 on April 10.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome those from my constituency here for the demonstration today, but I also just noticed that Martin Haalstra is here, a constituent of mine and an engineer. Thanks for coming in.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome the members from Sarnia–Lambton that are here with the demonstration schools today as well.

Mr. Todd Smith: I would also like to welcome all of our special guests here from Sagonaska, which of course is the demonstration school in Belleville, and those with an interest in Sir James Whitney School in Belleville as well. We welcome them all to the Legislature here today.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I understand that today, in the House, we have some members from Glenburnie School in Oakville. Please give them a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today we have in the Speaker’s gallery the new consul general of Malta in Toronto, Ms. Hanan El Khatib, and joining the consul general is Ms. Karen Zahra, the administrative officer. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Just before we start question period, another note—please bear with me. The rules that were changed with regard to introductions—I want to be clear. I try not to be heavy-handed when it comes to introducing our guests. Two things have happened lately that kind of elicit from me that I have to start being either tougher on the time or tougher on the introductions. It’s a time for introducing people. To give a speech or to make some kind of statement beyond that, there’s another place for that in the House. The introductions are set there by your rules to simply introduce our guests.

I would appreciate it very much if you did not take advantage of that in any other way, either by stretching things out or making some kind of editorial comment. Please, just introduce our guests, because we want them here, and nine times out of 10 we know why they’re here. There’s another place for that to be done in this House, and I appreciate your indulgence and your co-operation in that.

Oral Questions

Special-needs students

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. I have heard story after story from students and parents that have been positively impacted by Ontario’s demonstration and provincial schools. Just look at each and every family here today: They represent the countless success stories and soon-to-be success stories. Blind, deaf and learning-disabled students are able to flourish because of these schools. I have heard a student say that the demonstration school actually saved their life.

This government can’t play games with the education of these children. My question is very direct, very straightforward to the Premier: Will you commit to keeping the Ontario provincial demonstration schools open for years to come?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome all of the parents and the families here today. It’s very important that we have this conversation and you’re very welcome. Thank you for coming to the Legislature.

Our government is committed to the success and well-being of every child in this province. We’re committed to giving every child access to the programming that they need. I know that there have been successes in the programming in the provincial and demonstration schools. One of the challenges that we have is that there are children who are not in the provincial and demonstration schools who actually need access to programming such as is in the provincial and demonstration schools.

So we launched consultations to better understand how students currently attending the provincial and demonstration schools are being supported. I know the Minister of Education will have more to say about that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Back to the Premier: This morning, the people of Ontario got to meet Lexi. I had the chance to speak with 10-year-old Lexi a couple of weeks ago at my constituency office in Belleville, and let me tell you, this is one intelligent girl who is as cute as a button. When we sat in my office, she had prepared text that she read for me. It was in a large font and spaced out, and she did extremely well. But when I asked her to read something that I had on my desk that was in a 12-point font, Lexi struggled and actually broke down in tears. That’s completely unacceptable that that should happen.

She deserves a future just like other kids do. She wants to go to Sagonaska next year, like her brother did, and have the future that her brother now has. But there are kids like Lexi in every county and every city right across Ontario.

My question to the Premier is simple: Why does she think it’s acceptable to put the education of students with severe learning disabilities in year-to-year chaos, when it would be unacceptable for any other student?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I, too, would like to welcome all of the families that are here today from both the demonstration schools and the provincial schools around the province.

I want to respond to the member by saying that we get it. The demonstration schools provide a wonderful program. The demonstration schools provide a very effective program. But what you’re reporting, which is that here is a child who needs the programming—there are thousands of children around Ontario who need the programming, and we need to figure out how—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you’re going to start taking advantage of it, I’m going to start calling it.

Answer?

Hon. Liz Sandals: We need to figure out how we can deliver programming to kids all over the province who can’t read, because we want all the—

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

Final supplementary. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Marie Desrosier lives in North Bay, and her daughter Amanda is enrolled at the Sagonaska Demonstration School. She wrote to our leader, “Without these schools, students like my daughter would not be employable because they would never make it through high school. My daughter is 15 years old and was reading at a grade one level in September of this school year. Today, after six months at Sagonaska, she’s reading at a grade three level, with hopes of reaching age-level reading within another year.” She continued: “The closure of these schools will mean that these students will never reach their full potential.”

Will the Premier stand here today and promise Marie Desrosier that these schools will remain open in the years ahead so that her daughter will have the opportunity to graduate high school?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Yes, and just to be clear, I want everyone to be aware that the application process for the demonstration schools and the enrolment in the provincial schools for the deaf will be continuing. Those processes are starting up again for the 2016-17 year. So for any of the students who are currently enrolled at a demonstration school and are in year one of the program, and who the school says require a second year, then those children would be able to complete that second year.

It’s the principals who actually designate whether the students should go for one year or whether they need to continue for a second year. But for those students who are in the first year of a program and the principal recommends they continue in the second year, they will be able to do that.

Special-needs students

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. Parents from my riding with children at Belleville’s Sagonaska Demonstration School are among the hundreds here today. They’ve been spared for one year, but their fight isn’t over. They’ve fought too hard to maintain these life-changing programs to risk what might happen after this year. As one mom in my riding told me, “This school will not just educate my child, but will change the trajectory of his life.” If the government was truly listening to these parents like her, they’d stop trying to close these schools and work to put more kids in them.

Speaker, will the Premier guarantee that these schools will be open after the 2016-17 year, and will she assure the parents with us today that the families won’t be put through this again next year?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Minister of Education has said, there was a consultation to better understand how students who are currently attending the provincial and demonstration schools can best be supported and, beyond that, to determine how we can support these kids and their families and how we can support the thousands of kids and their families—

Interjection.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —how we can provide access to programs that are much needed for the thousands of kids and families who don’t have access at this point. Surely that is a point that we can agree on: that of course the kids and the families who are here are extremely important, but there are thousands of kids outside of these schools who also need support. That’s what we need to determine: How do we, as a society, provide access to all of the kids who need the programs?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: My constituent Ruth Bourachot’s son, Nathaniel, struggles with learning disabilities. Last fall, Nathaniel was accepted to the Trillium Demonstration School in Milton. Ruth tells me he entered grade 7 this year with zero ability to read. Today he has now surpassed kindergarten reading and is moving to grade 3 reading. Ms. Bourachot states that her son’s success at Trillium is incredible, and I agree.

Ms. Bourachot told the Toronto Star yesterday, “They can open the applications and close the door again. They haven’t told the teachers they’ll have their jobs back in September; they haven’t told the counsellors and support [staff] they’ll have their jobs back in September.”

Will the Premier please explain to educators why these issues remain unanswered and why she’s leaving such uncertainty out there? Have a heart; clean it up today.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Education is going to want to speak to the logistics around staffing, but I just want to be perfectly clear. I understand how important these programs are to the children and the families who are here today, but it is our responsibility to make sure that we don’t stand in the way of a change that could actually provide more service and more programming to children across the province.

If the member opposite is asking me: Will we never change those opportunities? Will we stand in the way of other kids getting the program that they need?—no. I won’t commit to that. I believe that the education system has to continue to evolve.

My hope for this consultation was—and I said this to the Minister of Education before it started—that we’d be able to work with the families who have these programs and with the families outside of the programs to figure out how we can solve the problem for the kids who do not have access to this program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary. The member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the Premier: Your government is failing students and families who rely on your province’s demonstration schools.

Interjection.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Schools like Robarts and Amethyst give young people opportunities to build their skills, confidence and hope so that they can look ahead optimistically to the future.

In a meeting just last Friday with families from my riding, I learned of a young lady who so honestly said that when she’s sitting in a classroom full of classmates, knowing that she learns differently, she never feels more alone. Premier, that’s not the inclusion these young people deserve. This young lady wants to learn amongst her peers.

Despite the short-term solution that we heard the minister announce yesterday, the Liberals have done nothing to help families plan for long term. We need to hear from the Premier today. Will she commit to all of the families from Huron and across Ontario today that she’ll remove the cap and keep the—

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I just want to clarify the situation. The formal consultation process ended on April 8. I’m actually still having some meetings with various parties, so we haven’t made any decisions yet in terms of how we provide programming in the future. As the Premier has noted, we want to find a way that will provide good, solid programming of the nature provided in the demonstration schools in a variety of locations, but we haven’t made any decisions about how we do that.

But what I can assure you is that we didn’t just notify the media of the decision. Before we did that yesterday, we notified the unions, we notified the principals, we—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I stand; you sit.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m trying to speak. I stand; you sit.

New question.

Special-needs students

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. For months, families and students with exceptional learning needs have pleaded with this government to keep their schools open. They’ve organized, they’ve gathered thousands of signatures and they’ve rallied from Belleville to London. Today, hundreds of families from across the province join us here at Queen’s Park, united for one reason and one reason only: the future of our provincial and demonstration schools.

It boggles the mind to think that this Premier doesn’t see the value in schools that help some of our most vulnerable children. It all comes down to priorities. Children should always be our priority, Speaker. They should always be our priority.

Will this Premier listen to families and commit to keeping these schools open long-term, or will she turn her back on our most vulnerable children?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, our priority is actually all the children in this province. It is absolutely fundamental that we provide the programming that kids need, the supports that they need, which is why we value the programming in the provincial and demonstration schools. We know that there are aspects of those programs that are very, very successful, and we want to make sure as we go through this process that we provide opportunities for the thousands of kids and the thousands of families who don’t have access to those programs, that we provide those opportunities so that every child in the province gets the opportunity that they deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has the final word when it comes to prioritization of what this government sees as important, and I guess vulnerable children just don’t check the boxes for the Premier when it comes to priorities. Families should not be forced to fight for the opportunity for their children to thrive—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Provincial schools for the deaf allow students to be immersed in an ASL or LSQ environment, essential for individual expression. Demonstration schools boost reading comprehension and competence for students with exceptional learning needs.

Will this Premier confirm that her government has no plans to close any provincial or demonstration school in this year or next year or in the long term?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I cannot in good conscience say that we will never change anything about the delivery of programming in education, which is exactly what the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition are asking.

I cannot in good conscience say that as we see changes in society, as we see changes in health—I know that there’s a huge debate about the programming for deaf and deaf-blind children and the availability of ASL and LSQ in our schools. It’s something that I dealt with when I was Minister of Education. A former member here, Gary Malkowski, worked with me so that we could change regulations so that there would be more ASL delivered in our schools.

I understand that there are debates that have to be engaged. One of those debates is, how do we make sure that programming that works for kids has the opportunity to work for all kids in the province who need it?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Closing enrolment without notice to families and students for these schools was the wrong thing to do. It was a callous and inappropriate move for this government to take. What did this Premier think was going to happen? Of course students and families rallied to try to save the very thing that they need, to make sure that their kids could reach their potential.

For at least a month, New Democrats have been raising this issue in the House, and for a while now, this government has dodged any commitment to actually backtracking on their wrong-headed decision.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, second time.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: So now, here we are: hundreds of people on the lawn of the Legislature this afternoon.

This government has made a commitment to a small change of direction for September, but what all of these families and all of these people need to know is that the change is permanent and they will not close the demonstration and provincial schools in this province.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will say that what the leader of the third party is asking is that we determine that it is impossible to provide more programming and more opportunities for the thousands of kids who are not in these schools. What the leader of the third party is saying is, “You can’t change. You cannot change the delivery of programs in this province.” That’s just not reasonable. We have to be able to work with the families.

As I said before, one of the conversations that the Minister of Education and I had was, how do we work with the families to determine what’s in the best interests of the kids who are here today and the kids who are in these schools and accessing these programs, but beyond that, what is the solution for the kids who are not in these schools?

The enrolment has been reopened, but final decisions haven’t been made. I pray that we’ll have the opportunity to work with families to come up with solutions that work for these kids and all of the kids in the province.

Fundraising

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. I don’t understand why this government thinks that they need to rob Peter to pay Paul. It seems that they do that on every single file, and it’s the wrong thing to do.

It’s good to see that the Premier can admit when she’s wrong and overturn some of her bad decisions, whether it’s backing off on a plan to double drug costs for seniors, lifting the freeze on enrolment at the provincial and demonstration schools, or backing off on bad regulation changes for child care.

When will the Premier reconsider her undemocratic plan to change election financing laws and open the process to include a non-partisan panel?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe that the House leaders are meeting either today or in the very near future to talk about what the committee process will be as we move to bring legislation forward in the spring, in the next few weeks, so that we can move to getting legislation to first reading and have a broad consultation across the province after first reading, and then again after second reading.

I’m looking forward to that input. I’m looking forward to that discussion that should take place into May and June, and into the summer and then into the fall. I look forward to all of that input as we, together, move to what I believe is a fair degree of consensus in terms of the changes that need to be made to fundraising, but we need that input in order to get it right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is making a mistake by writing new election laws by herself without prior consultation with civil society, other political parties or Ontarians. At a time when people are increasingly cynical about politics, one party changing election rules all by itself is only going to make people more cynical.

Will this Premier respect the democratic rights of Ontarians to have a say in their own electoral system and open up the process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The process that we’re putting forward, given that there is a broad consensus, given that there are other jurisdictions that have moved on many of the changes that we’re proposing—the federal government, some other provinces—and given that we’re proposing we bring legislation and we move to consultation after first reading across the province and then again after second reading, is quintessentially the democratic process. That is how this Legislature works. That is how decisions are made. It’s not one party.

The role of the Legislature is to bring forward legislation, to have a debate and to listen to that debate, and then to make changes based on it and to move forward.

That’s what we’re going to do, and I look forward to the input. I asked for input from the leaders of the opposition parties. I hope I will hear from them, Mr. Speaker, as we draft the legislation, but, for sure, we will hear from people across the province as we go into consultation.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, what a difference a little bit of power makes. Members of the Liberal front bench once called it “antidemocratic” to unilaterally change election laws. They saw, rightly, that changing election laws without consensus and public buy-in is bad for democracy.

People deserve to know that our democracy is fair, and the party writing the rules doesn’t have its thumb on the scale. This Premier, who was instrumental in creating the system of ministerial quotas, appearing to sell access to government decision-makers and shaking the public trust, is not one to be now changing the rules on her own.

Will this Premier open up the process of updating campaign financing to a fast-moving, independent panel and start to rebuild Ontarian’s trust in their government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I really don’t understand why the NDP leader is undermining the role of the legislators. We’re elected for the sole purpose of developing legislation. That is exactly the job that is given to us by the people of Ontario.

Speaker, you don’t need a grade 10 civics lesson to know that. I don’t know what she says when she goes to her schools in grade 10 classes as to what the role of the legislators is. It is to bring forward legislation; it is to hold public consultations; it is to listen to Ontarians; it is to then make amendments through the clause-by-clause process.

I look forward to speaking with the other House leaders this afternoon to talk about how we can develop a process that will ensure that Ontarians from across this great province have an opportunity to provide their input and for experts to come forward to provide their input. That is our role as legislators. We should be doing our job by following suit.

Special-needs students

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question: The member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Applause.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you. My question is to the Minister of Education this morning. Minister, today, there are five families from Sarnia–Lambton who are counting on the life-changing education that their children receive at the Amethyst Demonstration School in London. There are dozens more whose children have graduated from the intensive program at Amethyst and are now thriving in secondary and post-secondary education. There are even more families eager to apply for admission to Amethyst, knowing in their hearts that the education their children receive from this school will change their child’s future forever.

Yet these families fear that this government is preparing to close Amethyst. These concerned parents and students I’ve met with have contacted my office and described the Amethyst Demonstration School as essential, a blessing and their last hope.

Minister, will you commit today to keeping Amethyst open not just for current students but also for future enrolment by students from Sarnia–Lambton and across Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to make it clear, Speaker, that we’re concerned about all special-needs students, wherever they may be in the province. It’s precisely because we’re concerned about the students who are deaf, deaf-blind or who have severe special learning disability needs that we started the consultations in the first place.

We want to figure out how we can provide the best program possible, particularly for all those students with severe learning disabilities and for all those students in southwestern Ontario or eastern Ontario who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

It’s because we are concerned about those students that we entered into the consultations. At this point, no decisions have been made on the outcome of the consultations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, you started the consultations, but you shut down enrolment and you’ve refused to offer future employment for the teachers that are working at these schools. We think you’re thinking something else during this process. Thankfully, you realized you made a mistake, and because of the parents who are here and the protests, you started the admittance process again.

I have a constituent of mine, Josh, and due to his age, this is his last chance to have a hope for his future. But your government is only committing to one year for Josh, and most students need more than that.

Minister, the application process alone takes a year to start. Your actions today will deter students from applying for next year.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Due to uncertainty, Mr. Speaker—sorry—the school system may not get the necessary applications, leading to your argument that there are not enough students for the programs.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit today to keeping Robarts School for the Deaf and the Amethyst Demonstration School in London open beyond this coming school year? Or was her decision yesterday simply to shut down the protests?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I noted earlier, the formal consultations ended on April 8. At one of the meetings that we had with the parents, the parents had asked if we would reopen the process for this year. People had already put together the binders, put together the psychological testing. I committed to them at one of the parent meetings that once the formal consultations were over, we would look at whether or not we would reopen the process for this year.

I followed through on that commitment when the formal consultation process was done. We announced yesterday that in fact the application process is open again for the 2016-17 year. That’s exactly what I committed to determining. I determined that the process is open for the 2016-17 year.

Special-needs students

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Education. The government keeps saying more children need access to specialized programming that’s available at demonstration and provincial schools. So why did the minister cap enrolment in the first place? If more children need access to these programs, why are they even thinking about closing them? It just doesn’t make sense. Children with exceptional learning needs deserve better from this government. We know these programs are successful. The minister herself admits it.

Will the minister tell families in the gallery, and those that are at home today, that the provincial and demonstration schools will remain open after the 2016-17 school year?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I just said, we’re in the process of completing the consultations. We’re reviewing the information that has come in, and no decision has been made as a result of the consultations.

We do respect the fact that these are highly successful programs. That’s why we have reopened the admission, to ensure that for those who have submitted their applications for the 2016-17 year, that process will go forward.

We are committed, though, to figuring out how we manage to serve kids with severe learning disabilities from all across the province. There are children from all across the province with severe learning disabilities who are not being adequately served right now, and that’s a problem we need to fix. We need to make sure that students all over the province—

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

Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the Minister of Education: This government is failing vulnerable children. Their spin doesn’t make sense. In fact, the minister’s own briefing note that I obtained through a freedom of information request shows that the consultation process ends with a discussion with unions on details of staff impact. That directly shows that they were considering closing these schools all along. It seems like the minister started “consulting” with the end goal of closing schools without actually listening to what was said. That is shameful.

Today the minister should listen to children and families; listen to what these schools have meant to them. Children are begging the minister to listen.

Again, will the Minister of Education guarantee that these important schools will stay open beyond the 2016-17 school year? Will she make a long-term commitment to these worried families?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: What I will commit to is that we want to find a way to serve all the children in the province with severe learning disabilities. The fact that we have heard over and over again, from children and families all across the province, that children who have average or above average intelligence and who are in grade 7, 8, 9 or 10 are unable to read beyond a kindergarten or grade 1 level says to me that we have a problem; there’s a problem that we need to solve. We need to make a commitment to all those students that we are looking at how we design programs to best serve children with severe learning disabilities all over the province. That’s what the consultations are about.

Aboriginal programs and services

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Speaker, I’m sure I speak for all members of this House when I say, collectively, that we were deeply saddened by the tragic news in Attawapiskat this weekend. The First Nations community of less than 2,000 people saw 11 people try to take their lives on Saturday night. This community has seen over 100 suicide attempts since last September, and the community declared a state of emergency over the weekend.

I know the Minister of Children and Youth Services and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care visited Attawapiskat yesterday. Can the Minister of Children and Youth Services please update this House on the visit and what was heard from the community of Attawapiskat?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for this very important and serious question.

Yes, I did travel yesterday with the Minister of Health to the Attawapiskat community to speak, not just to communities but to the youth themselves and their leadership. We heard how we must all work together on short-, medium- and long-term solutions to address very serious challenges facing this community and their youth.

Our government will be providing additional assistance to the community, following the government’s emergency medical assistance team—also known as EMAT—assessment. There’s an EMAT reconnaissance team, working with the local band council, as well as the Weeneebayko Area Health Authority, to determine how EMAT can best provide assistance in this community.

The assessment led to some very important actions our government will be taking, which will be touched on in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Minister, it sounds like our government took immediate action to address the crisis in Attawapiskat. But we’ve heard time and again that these underserviced areas face serious and chronic problems. A visit from the ministers, while it’s informative and important, is not enough if we’re really going to address the epidemic problems the First Nations communities like Attawapiskat face.

Speaker, through you: Did the minister come to any agreements with the community about the best way to move forward so that Attawapiskat will receive the full supports that they need?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are actually, right now, deploying 13 health care personnel, including mental health workers. We’re providing $2 million in support.

But I want to speak to just how moved Tracy and I were in Attawapiskat yesterday. The incredible leadership demonstrated by the local chief, Chief Shisheesh, and the band council—we were accompanied by Perry Bellegarde, who is the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. But the youth that we met—and we met dozens of youth, who are demonstrating such tremendous courage and determination.

All we need to do is follow the path that they themselves have set out for us to follow, in terms of providing not just the immediate support that we announced yesterday, but that long-term support to restore their hope, to restore their futures.

We stand side by side with those youth, with the local leadership and the community and Perry Bellegarde, to make sure that we’re working hard, and with our federal partners, to solve this crisis.

Special-needs students

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, my constituents are concerned about the current situation regarding demonstration and provincial schools in Ontario.

Ontario has recognized its duty to provide education to deaf students for well over 100 years. My constituents, like Ann and Harold Wall, are worried that without dedicated schools for deaf children, these children will not have the full ability to participate in academic, social and extracurricular aspects of their education. How can they learn when they don’t have the opportunity to communicate?

Minister, will you do the right thing and eliminate the ongoing uncertainty, anxiety and the fear of closure of the demonstration and provincial schools in Ontario? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Liz Sandals: You mentioned schools for the deaf. I believe that students who live in your riding would be going to a school for the deaf. The Drury school for the deaf in Milton would be probably the usual placement, or possibly at the east-end side of your riding, it might be Whitney in Belleville.

I have said all along that we will continue to be operating the school for the deaf in Milton, Drury, and the school for the deaf in Belleville, Whitney. We understand that those are the schools that offer a program in ASL, American Sign Language. ASL is the teaching language at those two schools for the deaf.

We have committed, right from the beginning, that those are not schools that we have been consulting on, that certainly those schools will continue to operate, and that that is—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Education. Chris Zondervan from Shakespeare attends Amethyst Demonstration School. This specialized school environment has increased his confidence, and his learning has progressed at an exceptional rate. Without Amethyst, his family tells me they don’t think he could have graduated high school with a diploma. His mother, Cindy, put it best. She says, “Our students did not create Ontario’s deficit, and we should not jeopardize their future to fix it.”

Will the minister please explain to Chris and his family why she is willing to jeopardize his future? Will she do the right thing and guarantee—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Sport is warned.

Please finish.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, will she do the right thing and guarantee that Chris’s school will remain open?

Hon. Liz Sandals: First of all, I want to assure everyone that this is not about money. This is about how we provide the best programming possible to students who are deaf and to students who have severe learning disabilities.

It’s precisely because of people like Chris, who have been able to attend the program and who have been successful in the program and have graduated and gone on to employment—it is precisely because we see that success that we want to look at how more students can enjoy the success of—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: It has nothing—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. For the second time today, please, when I stand, you sit. And the member from Huron–Bruce just kept right on going when I asked her to come to order.

You have one wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Let me just assure people that the reason that we are looking at the consultations is so that we can do a better job for our children with spec ed needs.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Two days ago, more than 200 parents came to the Legislature to make their voices heard on the minister’s autism funding mistake. Instead of properly investing to ensure all kids with ASD, regardless of age, receive the supports they need, the minister decided to try to make a good-news announcement out of kicking kids five and over off the list for life-changing, essential therapy.

In the end, this minister holds the responsibility for the books. Where are her priorities? Why are they not helping some of our most vulnerable kids? Why is she trying to balance the books on the backs of kids with ASD? Will the minister explain to families of kids—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not endearing you to me.

Please finish.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Speaker.

Will the President of the Treasury Board please explain to families of children with ASD over the age of five why she doesn’t think they’re worth helping?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m afraid this question demonstrates a very serious problem in the caucus of the third party. The budget they voted against yesterday included an additional $333 million—additional dollars—for kids with autism. They can stand up and complain about what we are doing; we added $333 million to kids with autism and they somehow interpret that as a cut. That’s irresponsible; it’s very unfortunate. It is unfair to the parents of kids with autism to suggest that we are cutting services when, in fact, we are adding $333 million to service kids with autism. Shame on you.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: The families and kids in this province know where the problems are coming from and it’s certainly not in my backyard that they’re looking. I don’t know how this minister sleeps with herself at night.

As experts and parents have laid out, it’s either pay now or pay later; help kids develop skills for independence or pay later.

The minister has to live with the fact that her funding decision, according to the experts, will leave kids with ASD with higher rates of behavioural difficulties and possibly worse: institutionalization, a life confined to a room or even their own bed. We’ve seen what this looks like, Speaker, and it’s devastating. This is not the future kids with ASD deserve in this province.

With the stroke of a pen, she can reverse this decision and ensure that kids with autism get the IBI that they so desperately deserve.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In fairness to the kids with autism in Ontario, and the parents and families of kids with autism, the NDP should be recognizing that 16,000 more kids are going to get access to evidence-based care for autism—16,000 more kids. Only the NDP could characterize—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Only the NDP could characterize an additional $333 million as a cut.

But that’s not the only thing they voted against in yesterday’s budget bill. They voted against free tuition for low-income and middle-income kids—free tuition, an absolutely transformational change in this province. The NDP, who used to be the champion for low-income people, has turned their back on them and voted—

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

New question.

Ontario budget

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, yesterday this House passed Bill 173, the Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act. This piece of legislation is, of course, adjacent to our 2016 budget, which will help to make Ontarians’ everyday lives better.

Minister, you and I have spoken on a number of occasions and, as a business person, you know that I am a passionate advocate to make sure that we’re building a strong economy and supporting the creation of jobs. The Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act also outlines the next phase of our government’s plan to do just that, while helping people to reach their full potential and succeed in an evolving economy.

Could the minister please inform this House about how the 2016 budget and budget bill will improve the lives of everyday Ontarians?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to thank the member from Etobicoke Centre for the question. As the member said, yesterday our government passed the Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act. The 2016 budget is part of our government’s economic plan to build Ontario up and to deliver its number one priority: to grow the economy and create jobs.

The four-part plan includes investing in talents and skills, including helping more people get and create the jobs of the future by expanding access to high-quality college and university education. The plan is making the largest investment in public infrastructure in Ontario’s history and investing in a low-carbon economy driven by innovative, high-growth, export-oriented businesses. The plan is also helping working Ontarians achieve a more secure retirement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Thank you, Minister. Many of my constituents have expressed support for a number of very important elements of this budget, in particular the record investment in public infrastructure, the investments in community care and palliative care, and the free shingles vaccine.

As a member of the Treasury Board, Minister, I am proud of the work that not only the Treasury Board, but you, our Premier, all our cabinet and our caucus have done to make sure that we’re working towards a balanced budget by 2017-18 while protecting the services that everyday Ontarians value so much.

Minister, could you tell us what other measures were enacted yesterday by the passing of the 2016 budget?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m happy to answer the question from the member from Etobicoke Centre, who has been a champion on Treasury Board as well. As the member said, we consulted with many Ontarians about their priorities and their values, which our plan has outlined in the 2016 budget.

Unfortunately, yesterday the opposition decided to let politics get in the way of supporting these initiatives that will help Ontarians both today and tomorrow. For example, yesterday they voted against $400 million to the Business Growth Initiative to invest in our plan to grow the economy and create jobs. They voted against transforming student financial assistance to make it more upfront and affordable. They voted against providing an additional $1 billion for health care and increasing hospital-based funding.

They voted against ensuring Ontario leads the low-carbon economy that will ensure $1.9 billion in reinvestment in green projects. Worse yet, they voted against making everyday life easier for Ontarians by eliminating fees and costs, like Drive Clean, and lowering hospital parking costs.

Special-needs students

I didn’t fully appreciate his struggles until I heard Lexi, a grade 5 student who wants to continue to go to Sagonaska, read to us this morning. It was incredibly emotional. She deserves to thrive just as those like her brother did before her.

Responses from your government today have been less than reassuring. Their noncommittal is increasing anxiety not just here in the gallery today but I’m sure across Ontario.

My constituent Kelly Foley’s son attended Sagonaska. She called the school life-changing. Her son has been able to thrive and succeed because of that school. I ask the minister to have some compassion today, provide some long-term clarity to the people in this gallery and make sure that those schools remain open without a cap, and that there’s a long-term plan.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I’ve said, we are very concerned about kids who have severe learning disabilities. We know that in the case of some of the children who are attending or who would like to attend the demonstration schools, there is a significant gap between their age level, their presumed grade level and their access to reading.

We know that for some of the children, they’ve been in special-needs programs at their local school board and they’ve been unsuccessful, and that the program that’s delivered at the demonstration school is excellent and has been successful.

We know that there are others, like your relative, who have successfully had programs delivered in their local school boards so that they’ve been able to learn to read.

We need to figure out how more students can have success. That’s the purpose of the consultation, to figure out how more students can—

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

Supplementary? The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Minister of Education: This Liberal government says it’s for the people, about the people, but when put to the test, nothing could be further from the truth. They’re cutting provincial and demonstration schools for children and students with special education needs and who are blind, deaf, or deaf-blind.

The minister says it’s not about money, but they fired 50 special education teachers in my riding, and now they are threatening to close provincial and demonstration schools.

This Liberal government’s waste and mismanagement is seriously undermining special education services across Ontario, and for parents of children with complex and special needs, it’s catastrophic.

Speaker, why is this minister telling parents in my riding, like Melanie Dennie and dozens of others, their children are getting more special education dollars when in fact she is cutting core special education resources and threatening to close schools across Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Okay, let me try and correct the list of bits of misinformation there.

Interjection: There’s not enough time.

Hon. Liz Sandals: True. Somebody said there’s not—

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: Withdraw.

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

We in fact have already said that we’re not closing the AS schools for the deaf, the two big ones in Milton and Belleville. So the idea that we are closing all these schools is simply wrong.

What we are doing is looking at how we can provide better programming for children who are deaf, because we are concerned about the programming at some of the schools, and how we can provide better—

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

New question.

Executive compensation

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. The first line of the sunshine list law indicates very clearly that public disclosure is required for salary and benefits for anyone earning over $100,000 in the public sector.

For years, New Democrats have been calling for bringing public sector executive pay under control. According to the government sunshine list, the CEO for OPG earned $787,000. However, according to OPG itself, that amount is close to double that, and more like $1.4 million.

On one hand, we have the government disclosing one amount. On the other hand, we have the OPG itself disclosing another amount. The question is simple: How much did the CEO for OPG actually earn?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to respond to the member on this, on behalf of our Minister of Energy. The fact is, the current CEO, Jeffrey Lyash, is earning 3% less than his predecessor.

I’ve got to tell you, when you look at this kind of position, you’re talking about a CEO who is in a position where you have to globally compete for that talent. These are the folks who are running our nuclear units. These are the folks who are running our entire energy production system. These are not the places where you would go to get anybody who is anything less than the best in the world, to ensure that Ontario Power Generation and our energy system is operating efficiently, effectively and safely. This is not the place to go when it comes to trying to discount people’s earnings. This is the place where you want the best in the world, and that’s what we have.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: In case anyone forgot, the question was about disclosure, and there was absolutely no answer to that question.

For more than a decade, the Liberals have promised to bring public sector executive pay under control. In fact, they passed legislation in 2014 to try to address this issue, and now they’re promising to do something on this issue again. It was a stretch goal for the Liberals 10 years ago, and it’s a stretch goal again right now.

On top of all that, we have information before us that this government has not been disclosing the full truth in their own sunshine list.

Ontarians deserve transparency. That is something they have a right to have.

My question is simple: Given the lack of information provided by this government, how many other public sector executives are earning more than what the government admits?

Hon. Brad Duguid: To the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the minister said, the income reported for Jeff Lyash in the 2015 public sector salary disclosure was $787,472. That included his entire signing bonus, plus his salary for 2015, from August to December. He started in his position as CEO in August.

When it comes to the broader question of executive compensation frameworks, we are moving forward with developing those frameworks for executive compensation. It is not a simple task. It is not as simple as they claim—“Just make it double the Premier’s salary.”

We’re taking a thoughtful approach. We started with the college and university sector. The frameworks are now out for consultation. We are moving forward with agencies, Speaker. It’s important that we get this right. We need to find the right balance between attracting th