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

September 21, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Sep-21 (PDF)

L005 - Wed 21 Sep 2016 / Mer 21 sep 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 21 September 2016 Mercredi 21 septembre 2016

Throne speech debate

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

Introduction of Visitors

Resignation of member for Niagara West–Glanbrook

Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Autism treatment

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Ministry grants

Mercury poisoning

Automotive industry

Transportation infrastructure

Hydro rates

Steel industry

Pesticides

School transportation

Highway tolls

Human trafficking

Access to justice

Private members’ public business

Deferred Votes

Throne speech debate

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

World Alzheimer’s Day

Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes / Franco-Ontarian Day

Government anti-racism programs

Gin-Cor Industries

National Tree Day

Say Hi Day

Brooke and Brittany Henderson

Trucking safety

Don Panos

Introduction of Bills

Saving the Girl Next Door Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la sauvegarde des jeunes filles

Safe Texting Zones Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’aménagement de haltes texto sécuritaires

Improving Mental Health and Addictions Services in Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’amélioration des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances en Ontario

Petitions

Taxation

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Mental health services

Human trafficking

Disaster relief

Government services

Mental health and addiction services

Natural gas

Services for the developmentally disabled

Health care funding

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Orders of the Day

Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la remise de l’Ontario pour les consommateurs d’électricité

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Throne speech debate

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 15, 2016, on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker, very much for recognizing me to speak on the speech from the throne. I want to take just a few minutes to express my support for the speech from the throne.

First and foremost, my apologies to all members in the House; they will be hearing me speak a fair bit this morning. I’m a bit under the weather so I’m going to be a bit slow, and may sniffle and sneeze and cough in the process, so I’ll keep you away from me. If you heckle back at me, my ears are plugged, too, so I may or may not hear you—just an excuse.

What I wanted to quickly share with you is that I hope everybody had a great summer in their respective communities. It’s always a fantastic time to reconnect. Despite popular belief, we are not off. As elected representatives, we are all perhaps even busier in our respective ridings. I know many of the members from all sides of the House have been quite active in their respective communities.

As many of you know, one of the things that I do on a regular basis is knock on doors in my community and engage door to door with constituents so that we can address their specific personal issues, and broader issues as well. It was a great summer to do that. The weather was fantastic, of course, to meet new constituents in my great community of Ottawa Centre.

We’ve also seen some incredible progress, Speaker, on some very important projects in my community, such as the new Broadview Public School, which is located in the Westboro area of my community. That school is open and kids are going to this beautiful, brand new school. I want to give a big shout-out to all of the parents who were engaged, and the advocacy and the work they did in getting that school built, because it was replacing an almost 100-year-old school.

That school in my community is very symbolic of the kind of investments we are making in the infrastructure that is extremely important to our communities. I know “infrastructure” becomes a bit of a vague, sanitized term. What infrastructure really means is schools. Schools like Broadview Public School are what infrastructure is all about. I’m really proud that our government spent over $14 million in building this brand new school in the downtown of Ottawa. This is providing another 100 years of excellent learning for these children, in an environ-

ment where they are going to thrive.

Another very important investment that I’m really proud of is investment in the full-day kindergarten program. I speak personally because my son, Rafi, is now four years old and has embarked on full-day learning and, two weeks ago, started attending school. I can tell you, Speaker, I’m biased: I love my children. I love my son; I think he’s the smartest kid on the planet. However, in the seven or eight days he has actually gone to school, the kind of progress I’ve seen and the learning—he’s going to a French immersion school, so he’s learning French as well.

He is already starting to speak words of French and singing songs in French. And that’s all in just seven days; it’s remarkable and something that, as a parent, I am very excited about. I know Christine, at home, is as well. I think a lot of that credit goes to the full-day kindergarten program. I hear that sentiment again and again from parents in my community all the time, and now I’m witnessing it.

Another important piece of infrastructure that’s extremely important to my community—and the work is ongoing—is the expansion of the Ottawa Heart Institute. This is a world-class facility, globally known for the research they do and, of course, providing incredible services to people in eastern Ontario when it comes to matters of the heart. Of course, physical matters of the heart, not emotional matters of the heart—it’s an important distinction. Both can give you heartaches. We’re investing over $200 million, through this govern-

ment’s investment, in building six new surgery rooms at the Ottawa Heart Institute and, of course, other many important facilities—another very important piece of infrastructure, but in tangible terms, an expansion of a hospital which saves lives every single day and is making a difference in people’s lives.

These are important investments, Speaker. I’m really proud that our government, under the leadership of our Premier, is really focused on issues that improve and enhance the day-to-day lives of Ontarians, regardless of their age, and I—

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

Due to the time restraint, pursuant to standing order 42(a), there has been 12 hours of debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am now required to put the question.

On September 13, 2016, Ms. Wynne moved, seconded by Ms. Naidoo-Harris, that an humble address be presented to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session.”

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This vote will be deferred to the end of question period.

Vote deferred.

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

Mr. Naqvi moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

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

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you for recognizing me to speak on Bill 2, a very important piece of legislation. I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the honourable member from Scarborough Southwest.

Again, Speaker, good morning to everyone. Thank you for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important piece of legislation. I am glad that this legislation is right on the top of the docket here at the Legislature, as the second matter that has been introduced. I think it in many respects demonstrates the importance of this issue. I’m confident that there’s going to be robust debate on this piece of legislation and I very much look forward to hearing members’ views on this.

Speaker, I rise in the House today to open debate on a bill that, if passed, would change the way politics is done in our province. Indeed, as the Chief Electoral Officer has said, this would be the largest overhaul of Ontario’s election financing rules in 40 years. That’s a very significant statement that the Chief Electoral Officer made, given the breadth and scope of his experience.

This is not a task we have taken lightly. The principle guiding us through this process has been one person, one vote. I believe this principle is at the very core of our democracy. It means that just as we are all seen as equals under the law, so too must we be heard as equals in our democracy.

We have an election system that gives life to this very principle and we need an election finance system that safeguards it as well. We need a system that ensures that the views of some are not privileged over others, and one that protects the fundamental equality that is a corner-

stone of our democracy; that ensures that the people are being represented first and foremost in a democracy and in our democratic institutions, not just well-funded special interests. This system must always be working to maintain confidence in our democratic institutions. After all, if people grow concerned about the fairness of the system, they may begin to lose trust in their representatives—in all of us.

Speaker, I say these comments fully knowing that all members of this House believe in this perspective. This is not at all, from my perspective, a partisan issue. When it comes to safeguarding democracy, every single member of this Legislature takes that responsibility very seriously. And in my view, they work toward it together to ensure that we protect these democratic institutions. If there are flaws and if there are gaps, then we work hard, we work tirelessly to put an end to those flaws or those gaps. That is our responsibility.

I have full confidence in all members from both sides of the aisle, all three political parties that are represented in this Legislature, that that responsibility is taken seriously. It’s important for us to affirm that collectively to the people of Ontario, in order to ensure that we reinforce their confidence, their faith in our democracy and our democratic institutions.

Our elections and the fairness of those elections provide the authority for each of us as legislators. It’s in the interest of all of us to reform our election financing system. We need to create a system that the people of Ontario can see is working for them and representing their interests alone. As legislators we should only be here to represent our constituents, which we all do, and we work very hard toward that goal. Their struggles and their needs must be the top of our priority.

Openness and transparency remain the hallmark of our government, but we must do more to ensure that openness and transparency flow through all levels of Ontario’s political culture. That is why we’re proposing new rules that will build the public’s faith in the political financing system and, consequently, in the representatives they elect.

It is also important to note that there is no suggestion here that there actually has been a conflict. But what’s troublesome, what could be worrisome for all of us and for Ontarians is that even if there is any indication or hint of apprehension of a conflict, that’s a serious issue. We need to address that. I think that’s what we’re all working toward. Because if there is an apprehension of conflict on any of our parts—and we’re all in the same boat, as elected representatives, in this particular ship—that under

mines the confidence people may have in the system we have created.

The rules up to now have been rules that we all have agreed to. It’s not that they were rules created by just one political party over time; these are rules that we have all worked under and still use. They have worked well, Speaker. They have evolved over time. Technology has been brought into those rules. The hallmarks of the rules have always been transparency, accountability and making sure that Ontarians know what groups and which individuals are donating to political parties, to the MPPs and to candidates. All of us have used those same rules in the manner in which they are lawful.

The other point that I think is very important—and I will love to see what kind of heckling I get. People who get defensive are the ones who heckle, in my opinion, and I think we’re seeing that. A notion that I think we all should acknowledge is that fundraising on its own is not a bad thing. In order for our democracy to thrive, in order for us all to be able to engage in the political process, fundraising is something that is part of that process. The question then becomes—and I think the question that we’re addressing through this legislation—the manner in which fundraising is done and the rules, the safe-

guards, the transparency and accountability measures that relate to fundraising.

But the point about whether fundraising is good or bad is a very important notion and a topic on which I’d love to hear from members opposite, because I’ve never heard from anybody in this House that somehow fundraising is bad. We know that we live in a free market system where, in order for us to participate, even at an individual level—forget the political parties. When we engage in the political process, the democratic process, when we en-

gage in elections, you need money in order to mount a campaign. You need money to buy lawn signs, you need money to rent a campaign office, you need money to pay for gas when you’re going from one place to another in your riding. Those of you from large communities know that very, very well. You need money to print brochures. All of those things require money, and I am fairly confident when I say this: None of us in this room are independently rich enough to be able to foot the bill for that—none of us.

Speaker, I ran for first time almost nine years ago, in 2007 at the tender age of 34. I was a young lawyer at that time. I was very engaged in my community. I was engaged in my local riding association. I took politics very seriously because it very much defines our democratic system. I aspired to run and I got an opportunity to run when my predecessor announced his retirement. I would not have been able to run, I would have not been able to successfully contest a nomination and then go on to contest an election if people who supported me did not also make a contribution towards my campaign.

I did not have savings. I didn’t have the money. My parents did not have the resources to help me get there.

I think you know my story. I came to Canada at age 15. I don’t have the pedigree or the last name. None of us actually do. None of us in this chamber have that where we just come with some sort of a built-in infrastructure, a built-in system of support that will propel us from our regular, normal lives to one that is an elected position. We all have all worked very hard—very, very hard—to ensure that we get an opportunity to put forward our ideas, get an opportunity to gain the trust of our constituents and an incredible, humble opportunity to stand here and represent our respective communities.

But that requires a lot of hard work—you will know that, Speaker; you and I were elected at the same time, in the same year—but also the support of people; and not just their moral support, not just their pat on the back, not just, of course, their vote, which is integral, but also a small contribution—all within the rules—to help you get your message out, to help you be able to connect with constituents and be able to mount a successful campaign.

I think all of us have been in situations and have seen where—I remember very distinctly when I ran for the first time and so many people came to me and said, “Oh yeah, Yasir, you’re a really smart, bright guy and I’m there for you.” But when you asked them to sign up a membership form when I was seeking the nomination, there were 10 reasons why they couldn’t do it. Right? You can be as good as good is, but they won’t sign up for a membership. Or when you were nominated and running a campaign and you said, “Hey, can you give me a hundred bucks?

Because I have got to buy a few more signs; I need to have another run of brochures,” there was always an excuse not to do it. You know and I know, and all the members in this House know, how difficult that then becomes. I don’t think that difficulty supports democracy in any way whatsoever.

That actually undermines democracy because I, for one—and I also have had conversations with members in this House from both sides of the aisle and all three parties—don’t want a system of democracy where only a privileged few have an opportunity to run for office, where the true meaning of the House of Commons, which that is, is not representative of the commoners that all of us are. That’s why it’s called the House of Commons. It is the house of commoners. It is the house made up of individuals from all walks of life. That is what gives me so much pride.

When I look through this Legislature and you see all of these different faces, you see all these different communities, you see all these different backgrounds, every one of us, every single one of us brings a unique story with ourselves, a unique set of reasons as to why we chose to run and why we’re sitting in this House as representatives. It’s a respectful story for every one of you.

We may differ in our perspectives. You’ve heard me say this before. I think our end is the same: It’s to build stronger communities. Our means may be different. That may be the difference in perspective, and that’s totally healthy in a democracy, but our motivations are identical. The stories are emotional. They’re amazing. If we don’t have a system in place in a democracy so that we don’t get that opportunity to run, we’re undermining our democracy.

So I come back to my original point, Speaker: As much as fundraising has become a bad word—and this is not just now, not two weeks ago; it’s over time—it’s not bad, and I would love to hear other arguments on this. It is something important to foster our democracy.

The other very important point I want to make, and I think this is an important opportunity to make this point, is a point that I often make when I’m speaking with young people in high schools and universities. It is that political parties are not evil. In order for our democracy to thrive, we need diversity of political parties, we need diversity of ideas. Our democratic system is a marketplace of ideas, and that marketplace of ideas comes into play because we have different political parties.

Imagine a system if we had one political party. We know of those systems. We stand against those systems because we always remind people that one political party cannot present all the best ideas. We need that diversity. We need that choice, that option. That is an argument that, in my humble view, doesn’t get made that often, because there’s a perception out there that, “Oh, I’m not going to join a political party. It’s just so bad.” You know, “I support you, Yasir, but I’m just not going to join the political party.”

Well, I’m not separate from the political party. Political parties give you a means. You don’t want a system in this House where every single one of us is sitting independently. Speaker, that’s my very strong view. Perhaps I’m influenced by my beginnings, where I was born and grew up in a country where political parties were banned—they were outlawed—because there was a military government. Generals don’t like political parties. They like to have their own view. I was born in Pakistan, and there was a running joke that there’s one political party, and that’s the army. That’s not the system of democracy we want to build.

I’ll share with you who my hero is. My hero is that 21-year-old young woman in Hong Kong who most recently stood up. She started the yellow umbrella revolution. She stood up in downtown Hong Kong, facing one of the most powerful governments in the world—China, a single-party government. She started a whole movement. That whole movement was run by a bunch of 20-year-old students. They had only one demand—one demand only—to allow for multi-party elections to be held in Hong Kong.

How remarkable—a 21-year-old. Google her; see her images. She’s yea high, but she’s probably one of the strongest persons in this world I know, who took on one of the strongest governments in the world. Her demand was multi-party elections. She said that was a promise that was made to Hong Kong when Hong Kong was returned back to China, and that promise must be kept. In fact, as a result of that there were multi-party elections that were held. She and another bunch of 20-year-olds ran in that election, using yellow umbrellas as a symbol, and they were successful. I think they won 40% of the seats, as I recall reading about that election. If you see images, these are young kids.

So I remind our 20-year-olds all the time: That’s what we should be looking at. Let’s not forget that we already have this, so we should be the last ones throwing stones at our democratic institutions. Political parties are a big part—in fact, one of the cornerstones—an essential part of the system, because we should not—we will not—have a system of so-called democracy that does not have a diversity of ideas, that would not have choices for people. Political parties very much provide this. I had to say this, Speaker. I think those two points are very important, from my perspective, and it’s something that I would love to hear views on from other members, for sure.

I wanted to take some time to get into a little bit of the journey as to how we got here in terms of this bill, Bill 2, Speaker, and then speak to some of the key elements of the bill as well, and then lay out to you and to the honourable members what else needs to be done moving forward.

As the members very much will recall, in May of this year, the previous session, we introduced the Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act. That was Bill 201, as I recall. At that time we committed to an open and collaborative consultation process. In that spirit, we referred the bill to committee after first reading, a very rare step. Again, in the nine years that I have been a member of this House that has never happened. I don’t know if the member from St. Catharines remembers in his 39 years or so—

Mr. James J. Bradley: I remember that Norm Sterling was the one who recommended that.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The former member, Norm Sterling, from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, I think, may have employed this. This is something very rare, Speaker, but it allows for the opportunity to have a bill be discussed in a consultative way through the committee process and to hear from the public and from the experts.

It also allows for another great benefit, which is that it provides latitude to members to bring broader-in-scope changes to the bill; they may not be just directly tied in to the content of the bill. As you know, Speaker, in second reading there are, through procedural rules, some restrictions as to the scope of the amendments that can be brought in.

So it was very much by design that we, as the govern-

ment, proposed—and I thank all the members for agree-

ing to that—to take the bill to the committee process right after first reading. It was an extraordinary step—certainly, the first of its kind, as I said, Speaker, that I have seen in my time here—and it allowed the committee to begin to gather feedback and shape the bill even before its approval in principle by the assembly.

Over the summer, the Standing Committee on General Government held public hearings in communities across the province to hear from experts, stakeholders and the public in cities and towns like Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Kitchener, London and Windsor. The committee heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, the leader of the Green Party of Ontario, the Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General, along with experts selected by the opposition parties; the heads of major unions and corporations; lawyers; and, most important of all, interested citizens.

These consultations helped to give us an even greater sense of just how important this topic is to the people of our province and how much work needs to be done.

Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank everybody who appeared before the committee this summer and offered their time and expertise.

I also want to thank the Chief Electoral Officer, who was present to answer questions and provide information to committee members throughout the public hearings. Of course, Speaker, as we know, he brings an incredible amount of experience on the issue of elections.

As I’ve said before, I want to thank all the members of the committee who participated in the process throughout the summer, those who are permanent members of the committee and those who subbed in from time to time. Big thanks to all of you, from those of us who are not on the committee, for your work on this very important bill.

Also, during our deliberations, we found a number of areas of common ground. I was pleased that we were able to work together on several amendments to this legislation. When this bill was reintroduced last week—what we’re debating now as Bill 2—it included all of the amendments, both government and opposition, that were passed in the committee stage. I believe that this collaborative approach has resulted in an even stronger bill than what we started with in May—exactly what the purpose behind the process has been.

This proposed legislation, if passed, would help bring further transparency to election financing in our province.

In a few minutes, as I mentioned, you will be hearing from my colleague and parliamentary assistant, the member from Scarborough Southwest, about what took place over the summer months and some of the information that we learned and, of course, a more in-depth explanation of some of the amendments to the previous bill that is now re-tabled as Bill 2.

At this stage, I want to go through some of the key aspects of this bill that are important for this debate. I’ll start with the issue around contributions that is addressed in this bill.

This bill proposes sweeping reforms, starting with the basics: how our political system is paid for. When people cast their ballots, they provide us with their support. We need a system that ensures that their support is the loudest voice in our political system.

We understand that many people have concerns with the perception that donations could purchase political influence. We have said from the outset that for our government, donations have no bearing on policy decisions, but we need to go further and remove this per-

ception completely. That’s why we’re proposing an all-out ban on corporate and union donations to political parties and campaigns. This is just one of the steps that we are taking to level the playing field in the political process.

We are also reducing the maximum amount of money people can donate by nearly 90%, from $33,250 to $3,600 in an election year. In a non-election year or in a non-leadership year, that amount is going from $16,625 to $2,400 under the new rules. This will further remove any perception that the wealthy have disproportionate influence in our political system. In addition to lowering the amount that can be donated, we are also proposing to end election-based contribution periods to political parties, which currently add another opportunity to contribute the maximum amount. We believe that limits should be limits, in an election year or any other.

The next important aspect of this bill is around nomination contestants. This bill would greatly expand the types of campaigns that are subject to these rules. Today, there are few restrictions on the campaigns of nomination and leadership contests within a party. For example, there are no limits on donations to these contestants, even though they might soon be, and often already are, MPPs.

Fairness demands that we ensure that all parts of the political process are subject to the same rules so that we’ve got transparency and accountability around them. One of the things that Bill 2 does is it imposes donation limits and holds these contestants accountable to the Chief Electoral Officer, thereby ensuring an ethical and transparent electoral process from start to finish.

The third important aspect of this bill is around the per-vote allowance. We recognize that we are proposing many changes in this bill that will amount to a dramatic reduction in resources for political parties. To help the political process through the period of adjustment that these changes would require, we are also proposing in this bill a per-vote allowance for eligible political parties. This allowance is modelled after steps the federal gov-

ernment took when they updated their election financing laws. Similar to the federal government, we plan to gradually reduce the allowance to 75% of year-one levels and then review it after five years to determine whether it should continue. For now, this measure will smooth the transition to the new election finance regime that this bill would create.

The fourth element I want to touch upon that this bill regulates is around political advertising. The fact is that Ontario already has the lowest campaign-period spending limits in the country besides Quebec, once this legislation is passed, but there are currently no limits on political advertising before an election period. We are proposing to cap pre-election period advertising spending by political parties to $1 million in the six months before a scheduled general election. We think that this would help to prevent anyone from getting around the intent of campaign-period spending limits by spending significant amounts of money before the election period.

Another important topic that’s tackled is the long-standing issue of third-party advertising. We know that many special interest groups want to have their views heard, especially around election time. It’s important that those views be expressed and that a diverse range of voices be heard in our public discourse. This is healthy for our politics and healthy for our democracy. At the same time, disproportionate financial resources among some of these interests have the potential to distort the conversation, potentially allowing some opinions to be heard louder or more frequently than others.

That’s why we’re proposing strict limits on the amount of money that third parties can spend on political advertising, both before and during an election period.

Third-party advertising spending will have to be reported to the Chief Electoral Officer. Those who break the new law would have to pay fines of up to five times the amount exceeded. The bill also cracks down on collusion and regulates collaboration between political and third parties.

Finally, this bill puts forward measures to promote openness and transparency in political fundraising. The proposals I’ve spoken to are just some of the many transformative changes that we want to explore through this bill. The member from Scarborough Southwest will speak more to it.

All told, these measures, if passed, will add up to a fair and modern election financing system that rivals those of our provincial counterparts. Additionally, in nearly every measurable category, these reforms meet, and often exceed, those that have been implemented at the federal level. Still, we recognize that Ontarians don’t just want electoral finance rules that meet some national bench-

mark; they expect that our province will set the tone for the entire country.

With this in mind, our government is prepared to take yet another extraordinary step. We plan to be the first jurisdiction in Canada to bar political candidates and MPPs outright from attending political fundraising events. As I have already said, even the perception of a conflict of interest or of undue influence over a politician can weaken our democracy.

While the reforms already in this bill would go a long way towards preserving the confidence of Ontario voters, over the summer our government came to realize that it just wasn’t enough. We want to prevent any situation where a politician receives money in exchange for their time and attention, or even the appearance that this is happening. It could have the effect of undermining our democratic process, as I think we’ve all discussed over time. That’s why this measure would extend not only to MPPs on both sides of the floor, but to party leaders, nomination contestants and leadership contestants.

Our democratic responsibilities begin well before we take our seats in the Legislature; they start from the moment we choose to seek office.

This is a dramatic and progressive change and we do want to be clear about its impact. This is not a provision that is meant to diminish a politician’s ability nor their responsibility to interact with their constituents. They will still be welcome and encouraged to attend community events, including barbecues, spaghetti dinners and holiday parties, for example. We simply feel that there should not be any expectation of compensation in return for doing so. We plan to introduce this measure in an amendment at the committee stage. I very much look forward to receiving feedback from my colleagues and stakeholders on this matter.

Another aspect that I think we need to recognize about these fundraising rules and the manner in which we’re putting in place these restrictions is that there has been a tremendous change in the practice around fundraising as a result of technology. In the old days—and when I say the old days, this is going back to when I was running almost nine years ago—you didn’t really have the kind of technologies or tools available through online donations and through using other sophisticated means, especially through the Internet.

I think charities, in particular, that do amazing work, have demonstrated how successful they can be in fundraising by going to a large group of people soliciting smaller amounts of money.

We’ve seen election campaigns being very successful. President Obama’s campaign, especially in 2008, was groundbreaking in that regard, and caught everybody’s attention as to how he was able to build his base and support, but also to do it in a manner that was able to raise him millions and millions of dollars. We know how much American elections cost. They were primarily sup-

ported and funded by grassroots, by individuals.

There are opportunities which—frankly speaking, the way our rules have been written up to now has not helped us explore them. I speak again of all three political parties. We have been set in our ways. We have done things in a particular way because the rules allowed for it. Nobody was breaking any rules whatsoever, but we have not had the opportunity to then explore other opportunities for raising funds. I think these rules will make us do it because we will have no opportunity or other way of doing it.

In the end, I just also wanted to prelude what else is to come when it comes to election laws. I would like to remind the colleagues of another set of proposed changes that are being planned, apart from the finance reform, changes that also aim to strengthen our province’s electoral system but in a very different way: by seeking to boost voter engagement and participation. Many of the changes we will be proposing address recommendations that were made by our Chief Electoral Officer as part of the review he does after every election. These were recommendations that were made after the last election in 2014.

One such proposal is a plan to move the fixed election date from fall to spring, taking advantage of the better weather and longer daylight hours to encourage voter turnout. We also hope to engage more young people in the voting process by allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to join a provisional voter registry. We also plan to introduce a number of other measures to further modern-

ize and improve the election process. We’re hoping to bring these changes forward to the Legislature next month.

Speaker, in conclusion, given that my time is coming to an end—and I know the member from Scarborough Southwest wants some time to speak as well—the bill before you today is about ensuring public trust in our democratic process. It is about levelling the playing field for politicians, parties and third parties alike. It is about creating clear rules that everyone, regardless of political stripe or particular interest, can trust. Above all, the bill is about putting people at the centre of our democracy, where they belong.

With these reforms, Ontario is poised to become a leader on election financing, with rules that would be among the strongest and most transparent in Canada. I would like to once again thank everyone who has helped get this bill to where it is today. With your input into it and diverse perspectives, I’m confident that we have created a set of proposals that truly represent the best interests of all Ontarians.

Of course, Speaker, our work is not done yet. As I mentioned earlier, there will be new proposals to discuss at the next committee stage, and, of course, there will undoubtedly be a few more tweaks and refinements that will need to be made to other reforms. I’m sure other members will have feedback and comments on that.

So today, Speaker, I ask you that once again we take advantage of this opportunity to work together and to be part of a positive, transformational change in our election financing system. I’m very much looking forward to this very important debate: a healthy debate; a debate that is going to move our democracy even further; and a debate that will ensure that we are creating a new system, a system that is more transparent and accountable.

No doubt, Speaker, as with any change, change will bring some anxiety because we will be charting a new path. As we have done in this Legislature again and again, as people who, on behalf of our constituents do it again and again—that is, to change things—that is why we all ran. That is exactly why we always said at the doors when we ran the first time, “I want to change things. I want things to be better.” This is a change, and it is for the better. I very much look forward to members’ support for this bill. I look forward to working with them to make it even stronger.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Scarborough Southwest.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. I rise in the House today to continue debate on an important bill that would, if passed, change the way election campaigns are funded and how campaign advertising is paid for.

As my colleague the Honourable Yasir Naqvi, Attorney General, pointed out, the purpose of this bill is not only to take some long-overdue steps to modernize the rules around election financing, but also to build and perhaps restore the public’s confidence in the electoral process.

As Minister Naqvi explained, the bill introduces reforms in several areas. I just wanted to touch on a few of them: contributions to political parties and other political actors—in other words, candidates, constituent associations, nomination contestants and leadership contestants; advertising spending by third parties during an election period, as well as by political parties and third parties in the six months before a scheduled general election is called; and—a new area of regulation—creating new rules about how nomination contestants’ campaigns are funded and paid for as they fight to represent a political party as a candidate in their particular riding.

In addition, the bill also includes a series of house-

keeping measures to improve and modernize processes and procedures within the election finance system.

I would like to now continue the conversation by telling you a bit about the process we took to get to the bill you have before you today.

Mr. Speaker, our path to developing this bill was an unusual one. It could even be called unprecedented. When my colleague introduced this bill in the spring, both he and the Premier made it very clear that the bill was to be viewed by the members as a starting point in a discussion, a starting point for a much larger, longer-term discussion about the kinds of changes that the members collectively envisioned for our election finance system. That’s why, immediately after this bill was introduced, it was referred to the Standing Committee on General Government right away.

As the members here are aware, this is a step rarely taken. The normal course of things is that bills are taken to committee after second reading.

The government regarded this bill very much as a work-in-progress, still at a formative stage, so we felt that an extra round of consultation was not only helpful but a necessary step. The advantage of referring this bill after first reading is that the text is more open to change at that stage, before it has been approved in principle by the assembly.

Of course, it was not just the committee members who participated in these discussions, which were held in communities across the province throughout the summer. In fact, we heard from a variety of organizations and individuals about what they thought about the province’s existing election finance rules, as well as their ideas about how these rules could change.

Some wondered why we advocated for this approach and didn’t simply hold public consultations in advance of introducing the bill. Some also suggested, like the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, that an independent body be struck to develop a bill instead of figuring it out in the House. However, as the government, we felt this would not serve the best interests of Ontarians for two reasons. First, striking another committee did not acknowledge the fact that there’s already a broad consensus in place. We all knew that significant transformative change would be needed, and we all knew it had to happen quickly.

Taking time to create an independent body would have precluded legislative reforms from being in place by early 2017 or even in time for the next general election.

Secondly, we feel strongly that the Legislature already has a robust and transparent process to allow us to introduce, debate and amend legislation, one that can mobilize quickly. It’s the right place for MPPs and the public to debate and shape this important piece of legislation. We’re not alone in taking this approach. Last year, for example, Alberta banned corporate and union donations, using the normal legislative process.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the many individuals and organizations who, whether they agreed with it or not, took

part in the process. Looking across the floor, I’d like to thank my colleagues the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Randy Hillier; the member from Leeds–Grenville, Steve Clark; and the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, Catherine Fife.

I would also like to acknowledge a few of the many organizations who were represented at the public hearings over the summer. A few that come to mind include the Green Party of Ontario, the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union; and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

I would also like to recognize some of the individuals who appeared before the committee, including a former Attorney General, and my former colleague, John Gerretsen; former federal Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley; Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk; the Integrity Commissioner, Honourable J. David Wake; and of course, our Chief Electoral Officer himself, Mr. Greg Essensa; along with dozens of other passionate groups and concerned citizens.

An open and consultative process is really the key to ensuring these changes reflect the best interests of Ontarians. The bill that’s before you today—which, I should point out, is the same version of the bill that left the committee stage this past August—is stronger for that advice. So I would like to thank all of you who participated in this debate for your support.

During the committee meetings, a number of important points were raised by all parties. At the end of the process, all three parties put forward motions for amendments to the bill. I can think of several proposals from both opposition parties that were accepted. It’s important to note that many of the government amend-

ments to the bill reflect concerns that we heard from stakeholders since the introduction of this bill last May.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge that some of the key changes that came out in this process were captured already by my colleague the government House leader, but I would also like to highlight some items that have not, perhaps, received much attention so far.

I would also like to take this opportunity to offer some clarifications on some of the measures. For example, under the category of “contributions,” otherwise known as “donations,” there were a few changes to the bill worth noting. One of these, which Minister Naqvi mentioned, is the elimination of all corporate, union and group contributions to political actors. We believe that this will put the focus of the political process back on the people, where it belongs.

In proposing this dramatic change, we have also tried to make sure that we aren’t opening up any new loop-

holes in the process. To this end, we would be expanding the definition of a political contribution to ensure that groups aren’t making unreported non-financial contributions, such as paid labour. The new law would also require individuals to certify that their donations aren’t on anybody else’s behalf, whether a company or another individual.

Another recent change to the bill is a decrease of contribution limits across the board. We’ve reduced the proposed individual contribution limit for candidates, parties and constituency associations, or nomination contestants, to $1,200 each, and introduced new restrictions and requirements for leadership contestants.

Through all these reforms, we’re effectively cutting a large chunk out of existing political parties’ revenue.

As the Attorney General mentioned, we are proposing a per-vote allowance to help offset the sharp decrease in revenue that political parties will see as a result of the other measures in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the committee heard some skepticism about funding parties with public money, and I want to take a moment to address this concern.

First of all, publicly offsetting political party costs is not a new concept in this province. We currently offer a political contribution tax credit to encourage individuals and corporations alike to contribute to the political party of their choosing. Along with ending corporation donations, this bill will mean that the province is no longer paying out this credit to corporations. Meanwhile, lower individual donation limits will reduce the overall credit payout.

A per-vote allowance is simpler in many ways. When you cast a ballot, you are also directing your share of that allowance to the party that you’ve chosen to support. It’s a much more democratic means to a similar end.

I would also like to dig a little deeper towards what I believe to be the root cause of these concerns: a commonly held perception that political parties are part of the problem.

Certainly, particularly in our current party system, there are issues that need to be overcome, but the fact is that political parties are a staple of our democratic process. They have the will and the infrastructure to foster debate in our communities and help build a culture of political awareness and engagement.

In his remarks before the committee this summer, Canada’s former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, put this point simply, saying, “Healthy parties are good for democracy”—basically, the idea that parties are good for democracy and are not something to be looked down upon.

Mr. Speaker, to completely defund political parties, along with these changes, would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I still have faith in the party system, and our bill proposes to repair it, not reject it outright.

Another key area that this bill has always looked to reform is political advertising. It would impose new restrictions on all parties to ensure that nobody, whether a political party or a third party, is given the upper hand when it comes to political advertising.

Political parties already face spending limits during a writ period. This bill adds limits to the six months prior. It also creates new restrictions for third parties both before and during a writ period.

We feel that limiting political advertising before as well as during a scheduled election period is an important way to ensure that nobody gets a leg up in the political discourse around the election.

While it’s important to impose strong rules to prevent overspending and cheating, it’s equally important to put forward clear rules so that all actors know which advertising activities are allowed. That’s why we’ve proposed numerous clarifications to the definition of political advertising, clearing up ambiguities and making the rules easier to follow.

It’s also why our bill would set clear

definitions and impose new restrictions on collaboration and collusion. Collaboration involves a political party working with a third party to produce political advertising that doesn’t come from the political party, but that contains a politically approved message. This behaviour wouldn’t be prohibited unto itself, but it could be used as a way to circumvent the advertising limit. The bill would provide a clear definition of what does and does not constitute collaboration and define it as a political contribution.

Collusion, on the other hand, is when third parties work together with one another to try to get around their own advertising limits. We are proposing firm measures to prevent this behaviour.

This bill also seeks to set clear limitations on political fundraising events. It proposes to limit the amount of money that can be given at a single event. That limit will be $1,200, which naturally also counts toward the total contribution limit. To further fight the perception of large cheques being written behind closed doors, parties will be required to make information about all fundraisers publicly available on their websites beforehand.

In addition to these measures, we’re planning to bring a few motions for amendments to the standing committee later this month. These include a measure to introduce a per-vote allowance for all registered constituency associations who have run registered candidates in an election. As the members may be aware, currently there is no such rule for constituency associations because there are no limits on donations to these groups. That, of course, will all change with the proposed legislation which, for the first time, places donation caps on these groups, along with on parties, local candidates and leadership candidates.

Finally, another new measure that I expect will be the focus of a lot of discussion at the committee table will be the proposed ban on member attendance at fundraising events.

We recognize that perceptions about large donations at fundraisers undermine Ontario’s confidence in the transparency and integrity of our electoral process—which is what this bill is all about. That’s why we’ve chosen to create rules that would apply to all MPPs, as well as to candidates, party leaders, nomination contestants and leadership contestants, all of whom might soon hold office and be a member of the government.

Given the importance of the entire package of proposals in this bill, and to help ensure that we meet our goals and implement them on January 1, 2017, we’re planning to introduce this amendment when the bill goes to committee after second reading. At that stage, it can undergo a careful examination by all parties, as well as any stakeholders or members of the public who participate in the committee hearings.

Mr. Speaker, our government is proud of the work we’ve done so far. At the same time, we recognize that there is still much more work to be done. I look forward to the opportunity to refine these proposals further at the committee stage. I hope that all members can agree that, overall, our electoral financing process will be stronger, better, more transparent and more accountable to every-

day voters if this package of legislative amendments is put in place.

As the government House leader indicated, as a province, we have an opportunity to be a leader in election financing reform, with rules that could be among the strongest and most transparent in Canada. But we need help. That’s why I stand today and urge all members to support this bill. I ask all members to continue working with us on these proposals, to be a part of a positive, transformational change in our election financing system.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: With regard to Bill 2, the election financing act, again, it seems to be what I would call a Heinz 57 bill, where they’re throwing everything into it. The electoral finance controls, basically—I heard the Attorney General and I heard the other member from Scarborough talk about building public trust, wanting to level the playing field and talking about transparency.

We’ve seen with this government, over the last several years, that their definition of “transparency” would be equivalent to, perhaps, mud wrestling. It’s that clear. They want to best represent the interests of Ontarians, when in fact I believe it best represents the interests of all Liberals in that sense.

They talk about barring MPPs from attending fund-

raising events, yet we’ve seen in two by-elections—the Sudbury by-election, as well as the Whitby–Oshawa by-election—that they found a loophole and were able to raise millions of dollars in addition and put that into their coffers. It sounds like sour grapes from my side; it’s not sour grapes. I just get a little tired of the loopholes that they were able to take advantage of—but once we find out about those loopholes, then they want to tighten them up.

But the one thing that I did like was the fact that they want to move the election date from fall to spring—spring of 2018. I think that’s a good deal, because the sooner we can get rid of this Liberal government and get in a transparent, reasonable, reliable government, it will be the best for all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The major concern that precipi-

tated this legislation was that a number of media resources or outlets looked at some of the behaviour of the Liberal government and the party itself and found that there were certain issues that were troublesome. In particular, a major concern was that there was a per-

ception that people had to pay ministers through donations to have access to their government. This was something that disturbed people, that concerned people. The members of the Liberal Party have not addressed this specific concern.

In addition, there are decisions like the sale of Hydro One, which creates colossal concerns with the apprehension or the perception of a bias or an influence that was purchased. Let me give you the example: The sale of Hydro One does not benefit the people of Ontario. We have an independent officer of this Legislative Assembly who confirms that it does not benefit the province. In fact, it puts the province in a worse financial position. It is also referred to as the worst way to raise money for infrastructure spending. It is the worst way to do it.

It doesn’t benefit the people of Ontario, but it does benefit a small group of lawyers and bankers known as the syndicate, the very same group that threw a fund-

raiser for the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Finance, who are directly responsible for precipitating the sale of Hydro One. That seems to be very trouble-

some. The perception of that is very troublesome. It’s a decision that doesn’t benefit Ontario; it benefits, only in a financial way, the Liberal Party. That was conducted by two ministers who had a fundraiser thrown for them by the very same group that has benefitted. That does not have a perception of something that’s transparent or accountable. These are the issues that we need to see addressed. This is the issue that the people of Ontario are concerned with.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted to have an opportunity to respond to the Attorney General’s comments—and to our member from Scarborough Southwest, which happens to border my riding of Beaches–East York—to put detail to the amendments and reforms that we’re doing on the financing of elections act.

This is an incredibly important turning point in politics, I think, where people will remove all perceptions of the kinds of biases that are alleged by the member from Brampton–Gore–Malton. I don’t buy that. I don’t buy the notion that people have to pay to get access. It’s a completely made-up concept.

The reality is, all of us meet people all the time with no money changing hands. The innuendo that is being thrown and the aspersions that are cast are completely misguided and misdirected. However, having created that perception of cash for access, which we fundamentally reject as being valid—but having created it, they’ve created an expectation where we must remove all doubt.

The reforms that we’re talking about putting in the amendments that are going to come into this bill in the next committee stage, which will then get an opportunity for people to comment on all through across the province—that opportunity will come because there are different ways now that we will have opportunities to raise money: going back to the kinds of Internet appeals, going back to the communities in a different way.

That’s acceptable. I don’t have a problem with doing that. But it is a perception that has been raised by the members of the opposition and the media, casting as-

persions on our process. You made this mess, and we’re quite happy to help you guys get out of it. That’s what you’re seeing in this bill: an opportunity now for all of us to remove any shadow of a doubt that if you want to come see the member from Brampton-Gore, you’d better pony up and spend some money to come to his fund-

raiser.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. For anyone who has actually listened in the last hour to the debate that came forward from the Attorney General and Scarborough Southwest—the two Liberal members—it was political spin at its finest. This bill is all about: You got caught. This has got nothing to do with transparency. It’s about a series of news articles that highlighted just how much the Liberal party has been collecting in exchange for contracts that were let. Let’s not get caught in the political web, in the political spin—

Mr. Arthur Potts: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. Point of order, the member—I haven’t acknowledged you yet. The member from Beaches–East York, go ahead.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I think the member opposite is impugning motive here. I don’t think it’s permitted under the rules.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you for your input. I disagree. Continue.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that.

What we have here is, over the last six months, a series of news articles, a series of highlighted fundraising activities that clearly show the connection between people who are doing business and getting government contracts and people who are participating in some very, very high-end fundraisers. This is all about a government that got caught, and the last hour was about political spin. They tried to talk about transparency. It has nothing to do with transparency.

To suggest that going out on first reading is unprecedented is foolish. Get your history. Call the legislative library. You will find that previous governments have done it many, many times. If you want full transparency, why don’t we have Committee of the Whole on this bill? If it’s so important to you, let all of us participate, not just a few people whom you took out over the summer.

Quite frankly, what you’ve brought forward in this second bill, Bill 2, didn’t cover anything that the Chief Electoral Officer was raising. I’ll leave it at that, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Scarborough Southwest, two minutes.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I wanted to thank the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, the member from Beaches–East York and the member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Speaker, these are changes that are sweeping, very large changes, not just to do with fundraising, but with advertising, with people who run for nomination—presently we have no rules for that—and people who run for leadership positions in their party. There’s no limit to these things. What we’re proposing to do are very, very large sweeping changes to the way fundraising is done. It’s not just the result of news articles. Hopefully, people will see it as making politics better in Ontario. There are so many changes here, and new rules that will apply that will make the system more fair on all levels.

There has been some criticism levelled at the fact that the fundraisers may be held with ministers. Tickets are sold and people are given access, supposedly, to the ministers. But the same thing happens to the opposition parties. We can go and dig up the things that opposition parties do, especially with their leaders, where they can have a 10-person dinner at a place, a restaurant, and charge a lot of money to have access to the opposition leader or the third-party leader. These are changes that apply equally. They have been in government, too, in the past.

Both opposition parties have been in government, and they do the same things. We’re trying to fix the problems that they were involved in as much. Whether it be Bob Rae or whether it be Mike Harris or Ernie Eves, there was access given to them too. Dinners were held the same way.

This will change everything, and I hope the debate continues to be as robust as it has been up to now.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to welcome Mrs. Shannon Elliott, the mother of our page, Amelia Spacek, who is here. Amelia is a fantastic, great page. I’m look-

ing forward to having an evening with her.

Mr. Joe Dickson: We have with us this morning Colletta O’Donnell, grandmother to the wonderful page Brendan O’Donnell. She’s in our public gallery. Welcome. Good to have you here, Colletta.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Fourteen members of the Ontario Association of Food Banks are visiting Queen’s Park today for their Hunger Awareness Week. They’re in the east gallery this morning. I’d like to welcome Carolyn Stewart, Amanda King, Erin Fotheringham, Ashley Quan, Megan Kotze, Akash Kapoor, Chris Hatch, Nitin Jaitly, Volker Kromm, Wesley Isaacs, JoAnne Sytsma, Elliott Innes, Shawna Ballik and Mike Turnbull. Mike is from Windsor-Essex. Thank you all for coming. Wel-

come to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further intro-

ductions? The member from Ajax–Pickering. Sorry, I just did you. Whitby–Oshawa, please.

Mr. Lorne Coe: It’s my pleasure to introduce Wendy Warne, who is the grandmother of page Nicole Vaxvick.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to wish a happy birthday to a friend of the Legislature. Nina Peralta, up in the broadcast booth, is celebrating a milestone birthday to-

day, so happy birthday to Nina.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome the page captain today, Zoe Suderman, who is from my riding of Kitchener–Waterloo. Her mother, Rebecca Seiling, is here; her father, Derek Suderman; sister Eden Suderman; sister Shegofa Alizada; family friend Tea Povea-Brown; and family friend Ruth Brown. They will be in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I too would like to welcome members of the Ontario Association of Food Banks to Queen’s Park here today on their day of action to discuss how to take action on hunger. I look forward to discussions later on with them today.

Resignation of member for Niagara West–Glanbrook

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Mr. Tim Hudak as the member for the electoral district of Niagara West–Glanbrook, effective September 16, 2016.

Accordingly, I have issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Last call for introductions. The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: They are making their way here. MM. Éric Desrochers et Lucas Egan seront avec nous aujourd’hui.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: Yesterday at the International Plowing Match, I heard one thing over and over again—and the question is for the Premier, because I’m sure she heard this too. What we heard was that the Liberal band-aid solutions do not go far enough to address the hydro crisis in Ontario. Rural Ontario has had a few solutions. They want this government to stop signing contracts for energy we don’t need and they want this government to stop the fire sale of Hydro One.

Was the Premier listening yesterday? Will she make that commitment to rural Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We were very clearly listening. It was great to be able to attend the plowing match and connect with people from all over the province and from outside of the province, because our agriculture industry and our agri-food industry are so important to the economy of this province and to the culture in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I did talk to people about electricity rates. I talked about it in my comments.

One of the things that is really important to remember is that we have just come through one of the hottest summers ever and we’ve had no blackouts, no brownouts and no smog days. Those are because of choices that we have made, and I’ll certainly elaborate in the supple-

mentary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: Nickole Prudhomme from Ingersoll is a single working mother of three. She also takes care of her mother. She received a hydro bill of $1,500. The Liberal band-aid solution means she would still pay $1,400. That’s absurd. This government’s plan is too little, too late to help individuals in rural Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell Nickole that a $1,400 or $1,500 hydro bill is acceptable? I absolutely think it’s not. It’s not right. Families can’t afford it.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, we have made a lot of changes in the electricity system that mean it is clean and reliable. But we recognize that there is a cost associated with those changes, and we have moved to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have moved to take costs out of the system and to reduce electricity bills.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know the situation of the particular person that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, but I do know that the Ontario Electricity Support Program for low-income families is already in place. That is a program that people can apply to.

We’ve gone further. We are reducing electricity bills, particularly in rural areas, to the tune of 20%.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supple-

mentary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, no one believes for a second that this government has reduced the electricity bills.

This is more than simply one family. So I’ve got another question for the Premier. We can call this part of the Liberal math test. If, since 2013—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, another Liberal math test question: If, since 2013, there are over 94,000 more households that are in arrears on their hydro bills—pushing that number, in Ontario, to an astonishing 567,000 individuals who can’t afford their hydro bills—and if the Liberals raise rates, as expected, again on November 1, how many Ontarians are going to be unable to afford their hydro bills? Can we have an answer?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: People in Ontario need to be able to count on an electricity system that’s clean and reliable. People in Ontario need to be able to pay their electricity bills, which is why we have put in place—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —which is why we already have the Ontario Electricity Support Program, which is why are taking the provincial portion of the HST off electricity bills, which is why we are giving an additional 12% reduction to rural communities.

People also need to be able to find child care, Mr. Speaker, which is why we have committed to creating 100,000 new child care spaces.

People in Ontario also need to be able to afford post-secondary education, which is why tuition will be free for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Some of you may figure out that I’m trying something, and if that’s not successful, I’ll move to warnings.

Finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —which is why tuition will be free for low- and middle-income families starting next September, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m now moving to warnings.

Finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: All the things I’ve talked about are things that we are doing to help people to afford the things that they need in their families every day in their lives. That’s the focus of what we are doing.

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Since I can’t get an answer on the Liberal hydro crisis, let’s start with something else.

I know the Premier saw the headline last week in the Toronto Star, which read, “Expert Panel was Dismayed by Liberals’ Plan to put Age Cap on Autism Services.” Parents of children with autism need to hear the truth, but members of the expert panel can’t speak out. They are being muzzled by this government.

Will the Premier lift the veil of secrecy and waive the confidentiality agreement? It’s a simple question: Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am very grateful to people like Bruce McIntosh, who is part of the advisory committee. I’ve had many meetings with him. He’s part of the advisory group.

I know the minister has talked with the advisory group. The minister and I have talked. Of course, as those deliberations are under way, it’s perfectly reasonable that members of the group would be able to talk about those deliberations. I know that the minister is having that conversation with the advisory group about how to talk about those discussions that are necessarily confidential in the first place, about how to talk about the decisions that come out of those discussions in the public realm.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier—and I didn’t get an answer in that—the government always seems to be hiding something. They’ve muzzled the expert panel and now they’re trying to muzzle parent activists.

Bruce McIntosh, as the Premier mentioned, has been a tireless advocate and led the fight for this government to recognize that autism doesn’t end at age five. But to be part of that new advisory panel, the government made Bruce McIntosh sign a confidentiality agreement. This government is scared of what he might say.

Mr. Speaker, will this government promise that Bruce McIntosh can continue his fight? Will they promise he won’t be muzzled? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, Bruce McIntosh has been an advocate on this issue for 20 years. When I was the Minister of Education, he was part of a leading group. I know that the former Ministers of Education and Ministers of Children and Youth Services have all had interactions with Bruce and his associates.

Members of the advisory group do speak to the media. They will continue to speak to the media. As I said, the Minister of Children and Youth Services is working with them to determine how to talk about the deliberations in public.

It is really important that those conversations take place, because as we roll out the new supports to families—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will talk about a specific story in the next supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supple-

mentary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Surprise, surprise, no answer on the confidentiality agreement.

Last week, when I asked how many families received the new funding, the government told me three things: first, they wrote a letter; second, they set up a 1-800 number; third, they held a press conference to make the announcement of a transition period—none of which gives families help.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask again: How many families that were kicked off the wait-list have received the promised funding? Has there been any funding delivered to the families of those kicked off the wait-list by the Liberals—any funding at all? Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Families have already started receiving the $10,000, so the answer is yes, they have begun to get the money.

The story I wanted to tell was about a mum who came up to me and told me that her child, who is a toddler—she was told that it was going to be a year and a half before she would get IBI treatment, before she would get the support that she needed. What has happened because of the changes that we have made is she’s starting that treatment right now. She’s getting that treatment a year and a half earlier.

That’s exactly the result that we need to see. People are starting to get money. Kids who were going to have to wait for programs and treatment are actually getting that treatment now. That was the intention and that’s the impact that the changes are having.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Two weeks ago, the Premier said that Ontarians would get a break on their hydro bills. People were hopeful that things would change, but instead of taking the HST off bills, the government is creating a rebate that we all know could disappear at any time, and instead of being just the first step to get bills down, it seems to be the only step. People hoped for so much better.

Will the Premier take action to get bills under control and stop the privatization of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I actually would have thought that the leader of the third party would have been very supportive of what we’re doing, which is a permanent removal of the provincial portion of the HST from electricity bills. It’s not a rebate in the sense that people have to pay and then they will be paid back; it is coming right off the bills.

We will introduce legislation that, if passed, would make that happen. On top of that, we are working to make sure that rural customers who have very high delivery charges have an extra 12% reduction, to upwards of 20%. We’ve taken action.

We’ve also acted in terms of smaller companies that need support through the Industrial Conservation Initiative. They will be able to save up to 34%. We’ve taken a number of initiatives, because we know that people need that support.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People in Ontario are having trouble paying their hydro bills and they are at a breaking point. They’re concerned that the Premier is making decisions that are more about the best headline instead of what’s best for families.

It was amazing that last Friday, Liberal staffers were handing out leaflets at subway stops, talking about rebate legislation that was barely 12 hours old. It looks like this is more about helping the Liberal Party than it is about helping families.

Will this Premier start making this about people instead of making it about her party?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The decisions that we have made to help people with their electricity bills are about people. It’s about their lives every day, helping people in the same way that the 100,000 child care spaces that we’re going to create will. It’s about people. It’s about people when we move to make tuition free for low-income families.

All of those decisions, all of those choices that we have made as a government are in response to people’s concerns, and they are about helping people to deal with their lives every single day.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I was at the plowing match yesterday. I know that the Premier and lots of her team were there, too, and so were a lot of unhappy Ontarians. They showed the Premier that her plan to privatize Hydro One has absolutely no public support, and underlined that this government has no mandate to privatize.

The next election is 20 months away, at which point the Premier has an opportunity to actually get a mandate from the people. In the meantime, this Premier needs to stop selling shares in Hydro One.

Will the Premier commit today to stop any further sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the leader of the third party for that question. For us on this side of the House, we recognize how important it is to continue with jobs and growth and investments, and the broadening of Hydro One will do just that. Of course, when you’re talking about the three-pillar plan that we brought for-

ward to help families, we want to see that implemented as fast as we can, so people and families can continue to save on their bills.

I thought I heard that from the third party before, but when I brought forward unanimous consent to get my legislation passed quickly, do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? They voted against it. Shame on them. We want to ensure that we help families, and they’re not helping us at all, or the families in Ontario.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier as well. Not only do they not have a mandate, the government is being sued for its decision to sell off Hydro One. Flyers that the Liberals were handing out last week were more about politics than they were about people.

Ontarians want to believe that things are going to get better. But the government keeps making decisions that favour the Liberal Party instead of people. Will this Premier start taking action that puts people ahead of her party’s interests?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The investments that we are making in people’s lives around the province, whether it’s in transit, whether it’s roads or bridges, whether it’s in Hamilton or whether it’s in Mississauga or whether it’s in Ottawa, or whether it’s in Thunder Bay—those investments are about supporting people in their communities, to allow them to create the jobs, to create the economic growth that we know is necessary for them to thrive and for their communities to thrive. We can’t do that, Mr. Speaker, if we don’t have the resources to invest in that infrastructure.

So that is the decision that we made. I think the leader of the third party knows full well that the decisions we made, that we brought forward in the throne speech, to reduce electricity costs by removing the provincial portion of the HST, is a recognition that people need help with their electricity bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government should be about helping people and working to address their problems—absolutely. It shouldn’t be about looking after the Liberal Party. So my question is, will this Premier stop any further privatization of Hydro One until the people of this province actually get to have a say?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the member for that question. Obviously, I can’t comment directly on this, as there’s a legal process that’s now under way and we need to allow that process to unfold. It’s also important to note that the Integrity Commissioner has already looked into this and has recently confirmed that there is no wrongdoing.

But I think it’s important to mention that the NDP took over $33,000 from CUPE or its affiliates in 2015, and so far they’ve reported almost $12,000 in 2016. Now they trot out there for a press conference to attack the government’s plan to invest in transit, in transportation and other infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. Top NDP fund-

raisers are launching a lawsuit. We’ve even seen Toronto–Danforth NDP electoral district collect over $3,100 from various CUPE locals. So Mr. Speaker, I beg the question: Is the member for Toronto–Danforth selling access to the media studio?

Interjections.

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

As I confirmed, the member will withdraw.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Withdraw.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the unmitigated gall of this government and its cabinet ministers is unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

Look, in the days prior to the throne speech, the government was saying that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Municipal Affairs is warned. As a reminder, the next one is named.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the days prior to the Liberal throne speech, the government was saying that they finally understood: Hydro bills were too high. They told people to expect big changes, and people were hopeful. Instead, what should have been a first step, giving people a bit of a break, was the only step. People hoping for action got yet another letdown by this government, Speaker. Why did the Liberals not use the opportunity to make a real difference and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I think it’s important to mention that we’re getting value for the sale and the broadening of Hydro ownership, and we’re investing in transit, in infrastructure.

Recently I was able to tour the north part of our province and make announcements in Kapuskasing, in North Bay, and out in areas like Cochrane. We’re talking about the investments that we’re making in this province that are creating jobs and growth. That’s what the people of Ontario want.

When you’re talking about—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When you’re talking about the three-point plan, the Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act—the permanent rebate that we’re putting in—is going to help families, with an 8% rebate to five million families in Ontario, residential consumers, along with small businesses and farms.

Mr. Speaker, we’re getting the job done and we’re working for Ontario families.

Ministry grants

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Minister, in December 2015, Ontario’s Auditor General released a report into the billions of dollars’ worth of corporate grants doled out to Ontario companies over the past 10 years by this Liberal government. As you know, the report stated, “The Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure ... has not attempted to measure whether the $1.4 billion it provided to Ontario businesses since 2004 actually strengthened the economy or made recipients more competitive.”

As a result of this scathing report, I wrote to you 250 days ago, asking you to release the information on the grants your office has funded and the companies your office has funded since 2004.

Minister, I still haven’t heard back from you on this important matter. Why won’t you share with Ontario’s taxpayers what it is they’re paying for?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, the member might want to check the website of the Treasury Board, because he’ll find information that outlines the investments we’ve made since January 2013. It has just been recently posted and outlines, in a report on our Jobs and Prosperity Fund, that 68,501 jobs have been created in this province in the last three years alone, through the investments we’ve made.

The question I have is, is this member in line with his leader? Because this party has denigrated the investments we’ve made that created 160,000 jobs since 2003, yet their leader supported some of those investments when he was in Ottawa. Is the leader sending out letters to some people in the province saying he supports their business investments and, at the same time, authorizing his critic to get up and denigrate them?

I think we’ve got a case of the scarecrow situation from the Wizard of Oz. He doesn’t know what direction he’s going in. The critic probably doesn’t—

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Minister of Economic Development and Growth: Minister, this is about accountability, transparency and standing up for the taxpayers of this province.

Of the billions per year in business support programs flowing from your Liberal government, we know that the minister is making no real effort to ensure taxpayers are getting value for money. Much of that money was spent with no public application process or criteria. Instead, the minister and the Premier hand-picked the companies that would receive the payouts behind closed doors, by invitation only.

All of this leaves taxpayers wondering: Will the minister come clean and finally release this information, or is there something that this Liberal government is trying to hide from the taxpayers of this province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, the information of 2013 is now available. I told the member that in the original question. Go online and you’ll find the information you’re looking for. Information before 2013 will be made available. It’s part of our open data process, where we open up this information.

But Mr. Speaker, that party continues to denigrate the important investments we’re making with our business community. Just yesterday, we had a great announcement coming out of Oshawa GM: 3,000 workers in this province will be retaining their jobs in the auto sector—something he said wasn’t going to happen.

That party wanted us to close those plants. We’re going to keep them open. We’re going to keep fighting for the auto sector. We’re going to keep fighting, with our business supports, to create jobs right across this province.

Mercury poisoning

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. A report released yesterday shamefully shows that 90% of the residents, including the children, of Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong First Nations show signs of mercury poisoning. It took Japanese researchers, not this government, to provide the only public data on the health effects of mercury poisoning on the people of Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong.

In May, you committed $300,000 to immediately begin fieldwork. Will the Premier show the local people what has been done, how much has been spent and what samples have been taken so far? Because we can find none.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: I want to emphasize that we in Ontario are listening to Grassy Narrows. We take their concerns very, very carefully. We just received this report yesterday, September 20, from the Japanese team, headed up by Professor Hanada. We will continue working with the community and the federal government on this important issue.

I can tell you, by way of background, that earlier this summer the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and I visited Grassy Narrows. We met with Chief Fobister. We set in place a plan to review these issues broadly. We sent in a political team, consisting of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and myself and Chief Fobister, to review the technical work of the team. The report from the Japanese scientific team was received yesterday. Our government is reviewing it carefully today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: The environment minister, amazingly, stood in this House last week and told me, “I can’t imagine we could be doing more,” when questioned about Grassy Narrows.

Chief Fobister certainly seems to think Ontario could be doing way more. The people of Grassy Narrows think we could be doing way more. The people of Wabaseemoong think we could be doing way more. World-renowned scientists and Ontarians all think this Premier and this government could be doing way more.

Hon. David Zimmer: We all want to fix this problem. In yesterday’s report from the Japanese scientists headed by Dr. Hanada, he himself said in the report—and this goes to the issue of conflicting scientific and engineering approaches to the problem—“It is possible that things get worse because of the turning of the soil and the water. Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to this problem: (1) to disturb the sediment on the bottom of the river and remove the mercury that is settled to a depth below the silt level.” There are other approaches also. Dr.

Hanada himself has said, following his report that, we have to do more work to review and get the best scientific and the best engineering solution to this problem.

Automotive industry

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Growth. There was absolutely wonderful news on Monday night with regard to a tentative agreement between Unifor and General Motors. The news was warmly welcomed in my riding of Durham. I’ve heard from countless constituents about the importance of this to them, especially with regard to jobs staying in Ontario.

We have seen positive growth in our economy over the past two years, but Minister, what does this deal specifically mean for Ontarians and our economy?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This is fantastic news for the people of Durham and people right across this province. It’s a tremendous endorsement of Ontario’s competitive advantage. We’re very pleased with this tentative agreement, enabling new product investments to be made at GM facilities across Ontario. GM’s Oshawa plant will be getting a new product mandate, something that we’ve been seeking for some time. There will also be extended mandates for the engine plant in St. Catharines and the distribution facility as well in Woodstock.

This government has been a fierce advocate for our auto sector. Ontario has significant competitive advantages: a highly skilled, educated workforce; the most advanced technology in North America; and a govern-

ment willing to be a champion for advanced manu-

facturing and innovation.

We’re working together with GM and Unifor to build Ontario up. This is a terrific example of what can happen when companies, unions and governments work together to build this province up, build our sector up and create jobs across—

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

Mr. Granville Anderson: This is wonderful news, Minister, and shows that Ontario’s truly leading the way when it comes to advanced manufacturing in the auto sector. With almost 4,000 jobs protected, this deal means a lot to our workers, for their job security and for their local communities. Investments like the one outlined in the tentative agreement mean a lot to the workers and families in my riding, as well as all across Ontario. Can you tell us more about how this news will impact auto workers, their families and all Ontarians?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, unlike some of the opposition, we’re incredibly pleased with the positive news for thousands of General Motors workers and their families, especially in Oshawa, St. Catharines and Woodstock. This investment also secures tens of thousands of jobs in our burgeoning auto parts sector, and well beyond. The tentative deal between Unifor and GM is about ensuring that our high-skilled workers have high-quality, well-paying jobs and job security in the coming years.

But this does stand in dark contrast to the opposition, who would have let that auto sector die on the vine. Unlike the opposition, our government has stood and continues to stand with the auto sector. Unlike the PCs, who said, “Just let those plants close,” this government supports this auto sector. We will continue to support them going forward. We’re pleased with the steady growth of our manufacturing sector. We’re thrilled with these increasing investments in the auto sector, and we’re very excited by the jobs that they’re sustaining and creating.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Michael Harris: To the Premier: This is the second time in as many weeks that I’ve had to question the Liberal government for dragging its heels on openness and transparency. Last week, the Minister of Transportation refused to name a secret panel on the GTA West highway. Today, he sits on test results on the largest bridge failure in Ontario’s history.

January’s $106-million Nipigon bridge failure 42 days after opening tore up a vital trade conduit between east and west, and split Canada in two. While the minister quickly pointed to bolt testing to find the cause of the failure, it’s now nine months later. The National Research Council and Western University completed their testing in July, and the minister has results, but he has refused to make them public. Will the Premier tell us why she has allowed her Minister of Transportation to keep the vital Nipigon bridge failure test results secret from the public for months?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Trans-

portation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. A couple of things I wanted to point out: I’ve said from day one that the most important thing for people—not just in northern Ontario, but for people right across Ontario—is to have the entirety of the information flowing back to them with respect to what took place on Nipigon River Bridge.

We all recognize that it was a very challenging situation a number of months ago when the bridge malfunctioned. I’m happy to report, as I did at that time, that the Ministry of Transportation, working very closely with the affected communities and our First Nations partners, moved very quickly to make sure that a temporary repair was put back in place, so that both lanes of the bridge at that point in time could be reopened. Both of those lanes have remained open since that point in time.

I’ve also committed in the past, and I’ll reiterate it today, that when we are in a position to release all of the findings with respect to all of the tests and analysis, we’ll be happy to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Harris: Well, there you have it, Speaker. Instead of releasing the results, the government continues to stonewall public requests. That’s because they know, like those in northern Ontario know, that this was not only the largest bridge failure in Ontario’s history; it’s their government’s failure, a $106-million failure. The minister has sat on these results all summer, and his silence does nothing to answer questions as to how, after spending $106 million on a vanity bridge project, it could have failed so quickly. Were there other options? Did the government rush the design before an election?

Was there any oversight on this project? And can motorists trust that the first bridge failure will in fact be the last? The people of Ontario are owed an explanation today. Will the Premier lift the veil of secrecy and order the release of test results on the Nipigon bridge failure immediately? Yes or no?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for the follow-up question. I’ve had the chance to be up in the Nipigon area, Speaker, and let me take a quick moment to pay tribute to my colleague the member from Thunder Bay, who represents that community, the minister who has stood alongside me and has been a strong champion for his community on this file and so many others.

I’ve had the chance, along with many of those on this side of the House, to be in Nipigon and to be in com-

munities around Nipigon. I’m not quite certain that the people who live in that part of our beautiful province would take kindly to that Conservative member calling this a vanity project—I think that was the term that he just used a second ago. On this side of the House, this Premier and our team recognize that in every corner of Ontario there is a requirement, there is an obligation, to continue to build up the infrastructure that we need for a brighter future and for a stronger economy. This is work that we take seriously. We don’t consider building up northern Ontario an exercise in vanity; we consider it the right thing to do for the people of this province.

Hydro rates

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Rural Ontarians now pay the highest hydro rates in all of Canada and the continental United States. I think the Premier heard some disappointment at the plowing match on this issue.

Over the summer, Francesca Dobbyn, the executive director of the United Way of Bruce Grey, declared rural energy poverty to be a crisis, but the Minister of Energy refused to call this a crisis. In fact, he said he didn’t know how many Ontarians were behind on their electricity bills or even if the province collects such data. Well, it does. About 567,000 households were behind on their bills as of December 31, 2015, up by about 94,000 households from 2013.

How many families are in arrears right now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the member for the question. I think the important thing to recognize is that there are 330,000 families in this province who live in the rural areas that are going to be getting this benefit that we introduced in our three-pillar plan: $110 million in additional funding and support for rural and northern customers, as well as increasing access for these families. We’re seeing their bills drop, on average, by $45 a month, or over $500 a year.

That’s on top of—it is so important to emphasize that we’ve got the OESP program in place. We’ve got many other things for families in northern Ontario and rural areas. I understand that some of them are having difficulty. I live in the north. I hear from them. We ensured that we put this in place because we heard what they’re saying and we’re continuing to act and help these families.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Minister of Energy: About 60,000 Ontario families were cut off from their electricity in 2015. The minister doesn’t blame rising hydro rates; he blames the families. In rural Ontario, when you lose your electricity, you don’t just lose your lights. You could also lose power to your well pump. It means you lose drinking water. It means you lose your shower and your toilet. This happened to a 74-year-old pensioner in McArthur Mills this summer. She was not the only one.

Instead of blaming families, will the minister guarantee that rural Ontarians who can’t pay their skyrocketing hydro bills don’t lose access to the basic necessities of life?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We’re continuing to work with the OEB on finding ways that we can continue to help, looking at distribution costs and many things to help rural families. I know that as a government, we are well aware that rural families are paying disproportionately more for the supply of electricity into the areas. That’s why we’ve brought forward this 20% reduction. That’s why I had the opportunity to meet with the United Way executive director in Bruce county. We had a very good meeting to ensure that we could talk about all the programs that are benefitting and helping rural families.

I find it interesting that we’re doing everything we possibly can to ensure that the aggressive timeline to pass this legislation that I introduced last week—we want to get this done so we can ensure families get this rebate. Unfortunately, when I asked for unanimous consent to pass it, the opposition voted against it.

Steel industry

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I have an important question for the Minister of Finance. Minister, today it was announced that the Ontario government has signed a memorandum of understanding—an MOU—to facilitate the restructuring of U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

Mr. Paul Miller: Let’s get the details.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Well, that’s interesting. That’s my question, actually.

It’s no secret that the government has continued to support the best possible outcome for pension members and other stakeholders under very difficult circumstances. Minister, can you confirm the signing of this MOU and, if so, can you provide specific details related to the proposed deal?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question from the member. I know it’s a question that also pertains to all of us in the House, especially those from Hamilton, who are paying close attention. I’ve been working closely with this side of the House to try to find a way to come to a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it’s indeed true that the government of Ontario and Bedrock Industries Group today announced that they have signed a memorandum of understanding. The MOU is an important step forward with the completion of restructuring intended to protect jobs, the ongoing operation of US Steel’s Hamilton and Lake Erie facilities, pensions and post-employment benefits for active and retired US Steel employees.

The terms of the MOU remain confidential until they can be released pursuant to the court process. We’ve also agreed to support the development of the industrial lands in an effort to promote the economic development of the Hamilton region while ensuring that the environment continues to be protected.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I’m pleased to hear that this memorandum of understanding has been reached between Bedrock and the government. I’m also pleased to hear of the government’s ongoing commitment to protect jobs, pensions and post-employment benefits for active and retired US Steel employees.

Interjection.

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

Finish, please.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: This is good news, Mr. Speaker. I’m just trying to be helpful.

Can the Minister of Finance please share details of Bedrock’s commitment to offering well-paying, long-term jobs and benefits to US Steel employees?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Again, I appreciate the question from the member. I appreciate the engagement by the member opposite, who has also been leading in terms of trying to put us in a position where we can start finding ways to restructure the situation in Hamilton.

Bedrock’s principals have a strong track record of owning and successfully operating businesses in the metals, mining, and manufacturing and distribution sectors worldwide, including Canada. And Bedrock has been committed to working with all stakeholders, including organized labour, salaried workers, governments and affected communities to provide well-paying, long-term jobs and benefits, as well as pursuing continuous improvement and ongoing financial strength.

I’m pleased to note that the MOU and the contemplated restructuring remain subject to many, many conditions, so we’re hopeful that this will clear the way for a restructuring process that results in a viable, healthy company that supports continued operations in Ontario and in our local economy.

Pesticides

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday at the International Plowing Match, the Premier spoke of the importance of Ontario’s agri-food industry. She spoke of how we need to support our farmers.

The Premier has an opportunity to do just that. She can direct her caucus to support my private member’s bill, which has received unanimous acknowledgement from provincial stakeholders that the regulations associated with the restricted use of neonicotinoids are not workable. My PMB is the result of consultations with people who know best, people who would rather invest their money into growing their business rather than pay the high price of admission to a Liberal pay-to-play dinner.

I ask the Premier, will she support Bill 4 tomorrow?

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the honourable mem-

ber from Huron–Bruce for her question this morning. I did take the opportunity just last week to meet with the honourable member regarding Bill 4, Supporting Agricultural Experts in their Field Act, 2016.

Our government, of course, at this particular time, is actively reviewing this bill. I always want to make clear, as I did to my good friends at the GFO just yesterday—I had a great conversation with Mark Brock—that Ontario farmers can, when we demonstrate the need, continue to have access to neonicotinoids in the province of Ontario. We all know that in order to maintain an agricultural food sector in Ontario—$36.6 billion to Ontario’s GDP each and every year—healthy pollinators are an essential part of that agricultural economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the Premier: They’re reviewing these regulations because they know they’re not workable. My private member’s bill fixes it.

Just yesterday, the Premier told the massive audience at the IPM that she does not condone divisive politics. But some very close to this particular issue would sug-

gest that that is exactly what she has done with the neonic regulations.

Speaker, tomorrow the Premier has an opportunity to walk her talk. She has an opportunity to actually support her own challenge to create more jobs in the agri-food industry. She has the opportunity to recognize the great strides the industry itself has taken to remedy this very issue, and she has the opportunity to reduce red tape. Most importantly, she has the opportunity to support Ontario’s agri-food industry. Or will the Premier continue to ignore farmers throughout this province?

Speaker, will the Premier support Bill 4 tomorrow?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the honourable mem-

ber for her supplementary question. When you look at the success we’re achieving to date with the Premier’s Agri-Food Challenge—120,000 new jobs by the year 2020—we’re well on track to achieve that goal.

I want to thank the Schneider family for their warm hospitality yesterday at the IPM.

Mr. Speaker, I want to re-emphasize that having a healthy pollinator aspect in Ontario’s agricultural economy is so very important to our 52,000 family farms and the 780,000 people who work in this sector to make agri-

culture one of Canada’s leading agricultural drivers in this province today.

School transportation

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Education. Parents and students began this school year with hope that things would be better, but September isn’t even over and the government is letting them down yet again. Three weeks in and thousands of students still don’t have a school bus to get them to and from school. Those who do make it to school sit in rooms that are sweltering in the summer and exceptionally cold in the winter.

People know that Conservatives cut and privatize, but that’s not what Ontarians voted for. Is the minister ready to stop pointing fingers and start taking action so that young people can get the education that they need?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’ve been out in the last few weeks visiting our excellent schools across this province. I’ve been to schools in Hamilton, I’ve been to schools in Barrie and I’ve been to schools in Guelph. I’ve been to schools right across, Speaker, and I know that our teachers and all of our education workers are working together to make sure that students in Ontario get the best education possible.

I want to see kids in schools in classrooms learning, not waiting at bus stops. I have been in touch with the chairs of the school boards and with the directors, and they are working with the consortiums and with the school bus operators to resolve this issue.

Yes, we are three weeks into the school year and yes, there are still some students who have a delay in their pickup, but we’re working together to ensure that we resolve this issue on behalf of our students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Minister, you had all summer to get the busing issue sorted out.

Families and education workers feel overwhelmed by an education system that is reaching a tipping point. Students in Mississauga and Peterborough are being taught French and music from a cart when it should be done in a classroom. Three weeks after the school year began, students are starting their school days late or in some cases—and not just a few students, Minister—not starting the school day at all because there aren’t enough school buses to get them to school.

The minister says that she is focused on and monitoring the situation. People need to see changes now. When will parents and students see the minister step up and stop talking about the problem and start fixing it?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I just want to thank the member opposite for that question. There was a lot in there to unpack.

I want to focus on French and what we’re doing, because we’re very committed to ensuring that we have the supports in our classroom for all of our students. We’re very dedicated to French. In fact, either the teacher goes to the students or the students go to the teacher. Some boards and some schools have decided that it’s best that the teacher come to the students because it is all about focusing on the well-being of our students and ensuring that they get the supports.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take lessons from that party opposite. In your platform, you were proposing to cut $600 million from education and from health care in this province. You had no plan for education at all. We are focused—

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

Interjections.

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

The minister would have known that I was standing had she addressed the Chair. Those are the two things I want to remind the minister of—and everybody.

New question.

Highway tolls

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Our government has often stressed the importance of providing transportation options that help Ontarians get to where they need to be sooner. I know that the traffic on Ontario’s highways is a struggle for many people across the province, and while I know that we are working hard to get Ontarians off the road with investments in transit, it seems to me that we could still be doing more to ease gridlock for those travelling by car.

We must recognize the different ways Ontarians choose to get around and make those options work for them. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transportation please let members of this House know how our government is working to reduce gridlock on Ontario’s highways?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Brampton–Springdale for asking such an important question, as she always does.

As the Minister of Transportation, I know how important it is for us as a government to make transportation investments that make it easier for Ontarians to get around. As the member said, this includes investments in transit, but also innovation and creativity with respect to Ontario’s highways.

That is why I am pleased to announce that, as of last Thursday, high-occupancy toll lanes are now open in both directions on the QEW between Trafalgar Road in Oakville and Guelph Line in Burlington. Vehicles with a HOT lane permit will now be able to use this stretch of highway for a small fee, while vehicles with two or more occupants can still drive in the lane for free. We are taking this step forward without removing any general-purpose lanes.

Ontario has always been a leader, and we are continuing that tradition now as the first province in Canada to implement HOT lanes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Thank you to the minister for the answer. This is an exciting day in Ontario, and not only for those who currently have HOT permits. I know that HOT lanes have been a point of interest for your ministry and that many Ontarians were happy to see the success of high-occupancy vehicle lanes during the Pan/Parapan Am Games last summer.

I’m aware that in this phase of the pilot, there were 500 permits issued. I know there has been a lot of interest, including amongst those who did not obtain a permit this round. That is why I am sure that many in the GTHA are eager to know about the future of this pilot.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please inform the House as to how commuters can apply for an HOT permit in the future?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for her follow-up question. I am pleased to announce that our government received more than 3,400 applications for the HOT lanes pilot. Through a randomized draw, we awarded 500 permits this term.

I understand that there is incredible interest in the pilot, but I also know that there are individuals who were unable to get a permit this time around. I say to those commuters, do not despair. Permits last for three months and drivers will be able to apply for next term’s permits as early as November 1.

Those interested in participating should also know that future permit draws could award up to 1,000 HOT permits. I strongly encourage all commuters who are interested to reapply in November to our exciting new pilot.

Speaker, our government is truly committed to increasing travel options for Ontarians. We are pleased to see that people across the province are as excited about the HOT lanes pilot as we are.

Human trafficking

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Premier. Fighting the war on human sex trafficking is more needed now than ever before. This summer I travelled to North Bay, Sudbury, Belleville, Peterborough, Kenora, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge and Windsor to hear and share information with police, service providers and concerned citizens about the continued uncovering and alarming growth rate of this not-so-underground criminal activity.

The volume of media coverage on this issue should alarm this government, but it goes far beyond that. I continually hear from parents and grandparents scared out of their minds, worried it could be their child or grandchild next.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why victims and service providers are still waiting on meaningful details of a comprehensive plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the important question and the work she has done this summer on addressing this very serious issue, human trafficking. I too spent my summer very focused on this issue, further to our announcement of our human trafficking strategy in June of this year.

As I shared with the member opposite last week, just last week I was in Edmonton at a federal-provincial-territorial conference, and I put human trafficking on the agenda, to talk about what we’re doing here in Ontario in terms of our strategy and to learn from other provinces that have done some good work in this area as well. As the member knows, our strategy is focused on four pillars: provincial coordination and leadership, prevention and community supports, enhanced justice sector initiatives, and indigenous-led supports.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, Manitoba, having one tenth the population of Ontario, spends over $10 million a year battling human sex trafficking because they get it.

Mr. Speaker, to the Premier again: It’s clear this government is not serious about human sex trafficking legislation when they continue to drive the agenda for their own gain. This gamesmanship has to stop. Front-line service providers and workers are exasperated, and there is still nothing advancing the law to support them in fighting this horrific crime.

Will the Premier commit now to passing the Saving the Girl Next Door Act, which I’m reintroducing today, so Ontario will finally have legislation that will make a difference?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m not sure if her House leader has called that bill back up, but I just want to say that this government takes human trafficking very seriously. We are working very hard on this issue.

Our strategy focuses first and foremost on supporting survivors. That’s critically important to us.

We need to raise awareness of the issue of human trafficking because we know a lot of people don’t recognize that it happens right here in our province and in our country.

Secondly, we need to hold those traffickers accountable for this deplorable crime. Our strategy addresses that.

We need to work across our government, with the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the Attorney General, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and we need to work with our municipal leaders and police forces as well as the federal government to combat this terrible crime.

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: La ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones.

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Je veux remercier la députée de Nickel Belt pour son travail sur son dossier. Mais je veux aussi réaffirmer fermement à la communauté franco-ontarienne que les choses a