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

April 19, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Apr-19 (PDF)

L163 - Tue 19 Apr 2016 / Mar 19 avr 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 19 April 2016 Mardi 19 avril 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Gary Leadston

Earthquakes in Ecuador and Japan

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Hydro rates

Electoral reform

Electoral reform

Health care funding

Electoral reform

Aboriginal programs and services

Post-secondary education

Pay equity

Pay equity

Climate change / Changement climatique

Autism treatment

Agri-food industry

Electricity supply

Notice of dissatisfaction

Visitors

Deferred Votes

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

Members’ Statements

Go Transit

Mental health and addictions services

Earthquake in Ecuador

Waterloo-Wellington Science and Engineering Fair

Hydro rates

Events in Newmarket–Aurora

Barbara Horner

Cambridge Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards

Joseph Brant Hospital

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Equal Pay Day / Journée de l’équité salariale

Petitions

Special-needs students

Guide and service animals

Hospital funding

Autism treatment

Child care

Ontario Trillium Foundation

Workplace safety

Health care funding

Way-finding signs

Tenant protection

Privatization of public assets

Health care funding

Visitor

Opposition Day

Electoral reform

Private members’ public business

Adjournment Debate

Post-secondary education

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): During the next two days, the House will be paying tribute to deceased members Gary Leadston and Peter Kormos. I ask all members to have their memories in their minds during prayers this week.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 14, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 181,

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

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: Good morning, everyone. I’m pleased to be with you this morning to further debate Bill 181, the Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016. The bill is proposing, as it stands now, to implement a ranked ballot system starting in 2018. There are a few details that are missing, so we’re a little concerned about that.

My colleague from Oxford is our critic for municipal affairs and housing. He did a great hour leadoff speech, which is sometimes difficult to do on topics, but there’s always lots to speak about in regard to municipalities. He highlighted—and this is repeated constantly in the Legislature; certainly by members of the opposition it is—the lack of public consultation that was required before municipalities can change to a ranked ballot election.

What worries me is that the minister has made comments on this issue that actually overlook the concerns of a lot of our municipalities. He said on record that “any municipality can hold a referendum on any issue. Some may choose this route. So be it.” How can that be it? If we’re going to be redesigning our local democratic process, we need more protection than “so be it.” I think it’s pretty naive and, I will say, a tad condescending, and it certainly runs contrary to what the Premier has said herself. She has said before that the Liberal Party was the one that championed open discussions on our municipal elections.

When this bill goes to committee, I certainly look forward to the government waking up and realizing that this Legislature should work with municipal officials to ensure that the bill reflects what they need to run modern, accessible, democratic and effective municipal elections. How can we have sections of the legislation be overruled by regulation despite going through this entire process in this chamber?

I’m also concerned that the bill currently contains no requirement for a referendum before changing the electoral system. I think there’s a bit of a déjà vu there with what’s going on federally and what they propose also.

But back to the provincial here: In 2007, the minister responsible for democratic renewal said that when it comes to the issue of provincial referendums, “Our democracy belongs to its citizens, and it is the voters of this province that should decide how their representatives should be elected.” I remember that election campaign because the referendum question of changing how we elect members was on that ballot, and there were a lot of long discussions at doorsteps explaining the mixed-member proportional representation alternative, especially in rural Ontario, where they actually want to directly elect their representatives and know who they are.

That I remember as being a long campaign. Other issues were involved, but that was a long one that was quite a discussion at the doorstep. In fact, I know that Toronto city council passed a resolution, in October 2015, recommending that the province not proceed with amending the Municipal Elections Act to provide for ranked choice voting, and that if the province did proceed with this change, it should only be permitted after holding public consultations and a referendum.

I’ve come across several research papers that rightly point out that neither our Constitution Acts of 1867 nor 1982 recognize municipal governments as an order of government; that our towns, cities, villages and hamlets are simply creatures of the province. I get that a lot in my communities, and it is true; and I explain a lot that municipalities are the product of the provincial Legislature.

But times have changed, and now municipalities are taking on more and more responsibilities, even within the limited capacity of their small budgets. Scholars and academics have argued repeatedly that municipalities should be recognized as a competent and mature level of government. Now we see this government making unilateral changes without any sense of comprehensive or adequate consultation, and without putting this issue directly to the people it will affect.

On the issue of third-party advertising, the bill proposes to have third-party advertisers register with a municipality, display their name and contact information on signs, and be subject to contribution and spending limits. Campaign contribution restrictions, including municipal bylaws to prohibit contributions from trade unions and corporations, would also apply to third-party advertising.

In order to register as a third-party advertiser, an individual, trade union or corporation must be an eligible contributor in that municipality. This means that when those parties are prohibited from contributing, they are also prohibited from registering as third-party candidates. Registered candidates and political parties are prohibited from registering as third-party advertisers. That’s a lot to say so early in the morning, Mr. Speaker.

Although Bill 181 touches on third-party advertising, it does not prevent campaign contributions from unions and corporations. It simply gives municipalities the authority to pass a bylaw restricting these contributions. Also, donations up to $25 will now not be considered contributions. There will also be a new spending limit on holding parties and other expressions of appreciation after voting closes.

The registration for municipal elections will now begin on May 1 instead of January 1. I know that, certainly in the big cities, everyone is waiting to see who is actually going to put their name forward on the first day of January. Now, that’s going to be moved to May 1. That does address concerns that the municipal campaign is too long.

The nomination cut-off on the fourth Friday in July could have a very negative impact on people who want to run for council and will actually result in a longer writ period. For those watching at home, that means a longer period for the official campaign—usually those who are watching at 9-something in the morning on a Tuesday would know what a writ period is.

Anyway, municipal employees who want to run for local office will now have to be off the job and without pay for 13 weeks, up from the previous six weeks. That creates a huge barrier to running for office, and I don’t think the government or anybody in the Legislature really wants more barriers to running for office.

Having municipal elections for a minimum of 13 weeks, which is more than three months, makes it difficult for people who have to take such a long leave of absence. Unfortunately, this hurts so many local leaders, and I will bring up volunteer firefighters as an example. Bill 181 will remove the leave of absence exemption for volunteer firefighters, meaning that if they run for municipal office, they will be unable to volunteer for that same period of time.

This hurts our local communities. Especially in rural Ontario, we are short of trained people needed to fight fires and save lives, and we rely heavily on volunteer firefighters. This is something that definitely should be addressed. In fact, I was just at one of my many volunteer appreciation dinners on the weekend, and the great number there were the volunteer firefighters that are so praised up in Wilberforce, in my township of Highlands East. This is such a serious issue, and it will have a real effect on our communities and on our people. That’s just one example of the consequences that legislation can have without adequate consultation and input from the public.

I’m going to speak quickly; I have only a minute left here, Mr. Speaker. On the issue of filing financial statements, Bill 181 would see the nomination fee being refunded for candidates once the financial statements and auditor’s report are filed with the clerk. Currently, if a candidate fails to file their financial statements and auditor’s report on time, they are automatically removed from office and unable to stand in the next election. This measure is not strong enough. I’m glad that Bill 181 does address this issue somewhat, so that if someone misses the deadline, they could file in the 30 days after paying the clerk a $500 late fee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that I’ve had this morning—a little shorter than I thought—to speak to Bill 181, and I look forward to comments.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am pleased to be able to rise this fine Tuesday morning and add comments on Bill 181, which is the Municipal Elections Modernization Act. I think that when we see bills come through like this we hope that it encourages engagement. I don’t know how many people are watching this morning, on a Tuesday morning, but they are already the engaged. So this conversation really is for those in the broader public.

To the comments from my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, she had made the point that if we are going to be protecting our democracy, we need more from the government than—I think the words were, “So be it.” We need full investment and commitment. We talk a lot about consultation in this House, whether we’re saying that there isn’t enough and the government promises that there will be—and then there isn’t and it isn’t significant enough or it isn’t widespread enough.

But when we’re talking about “modernizing” or maybe “optimizing” or whatever the buzzwords are—but improving and strengthening our democracy, we need everyone involved. Our municipalities should be having full input.

I didn’t quite catch the comment from the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock about municipalities being treated like—you didn’t say “treated like grown-ups,” but given the full credit that they deserve for the important level of government that they are and really bringing them in, because this is about them, about their communities, how to make democracy more accessible.

I know that my colleagues will be talking a lot about the third-party advertising and that piece. I’m out of time.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I listened with great interest to the comments by the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. She wasn’t part of the former government when in her own riding I remember people were crying. Faye McGee from Fenelon Falls said, “Why are you forcing amalgamation on the people of Fenelon Falls?” Your former government created this megacity that nobody wanted. All of the rural municipalities said, “We don’t want the megacity of Kawartha Mistakes,” as they used to call it. They wanted independent, small municipalities, and you didn’t listen to all the people in your area.

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Colle: Excuse me. You weren’t part of the government.

The same thing happened in Hamilton. They made this megacity of Hamilton through into Aldershot and Dundas. The people in those communities said, “Please, we don’t want this megacity. Government, please listen.”

In Toronto, we had a massive referendum; thousands voted. They all said no megacity; the former government said, “We don’t care what you say, local municipalities—East York, York, North York—we’re making the megacity.”

In Ottawa, the same thing: They made the biggest municipality in the world in Ottawa and the people said, “Wow. This is too big a city. How are we going to get real local democracy when you create this mega monster city of Ottawa?”

This legislation is not perfect, but I just want to give a bit of history about people who preach about local democracy, respecting municipalities, when I know full well—I was in this chamber when small municipalities, rural municipalities, came here and pleaded to be heard and the former government said, “No. We know what’s best. You’re getting your megacities. Just be quiet. We know what’s best.” And they moved on.

So, please, just a little bit of historical perspective here. This bill at least tries to open it up a bit for some more input.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s always a pleasure to rise to debate in the assembly, particularly when my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has provided us with, I think, a sound debate with good ideas on the floor of the assembly.

Of course, I’m very disappointed in the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. He wants to talk about a government decision from four governments ago. At some point, this Liberal government has to take responsibility for its own actions and the way it treats municipalities across this province.

In defence of my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, she’s got a beautiful riding. She has a riding that has been attacked by this Liberal government with respect to horse racing, with respect to casinos and modernization. They’re also talking about hydro rates, which is very important because she also comes from a community, not dissimilar to mine, where local decision-making was stripped from municipalities by the Green Energy Act and they were forced to deal with unwanted wind turbines in her community.

If we want to talk about local government and respect for local government, I think the member opposite might want to be aware of what his government has done to rural municipalities, and even urban municipalities like mine in Ottawa, across this province.

I’m also getting very disappointed with this Liberal government each and every day I stand here. When a Progressive Conservative or a New Democrat comes up with an idea, it is immediately panned by the members opposite. They don’t take any criticism seriously. They don’t think the thoughtful points that we bring forward on behalf of our constituents and our stakeholders are relevant.

I’m here to say, Speaker, that my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes actually did bring forward some valid points and I think that the Liberal government would be best suited and well-informed if they would work with her, work with our leader, work with our critic on some of these matters of the day, particularly as it pertains to Bill 181, but there are a number of other issues where they could learn a little bit from this side of the House.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s a pleasure to rise, as always, to bring the voice of my constituents from Windsor West and to speak about Bill 181, which I had an opportunity to speak a little more in depth to last week, during debate. I think that there have been a lot of great points brought forward from the two parties on this side, the two opposition parties. The member from Nepean–Carlton really summed it up nicely when she said that perhaps the Liberal side of the House needs to be listening to this side of the House, because as I’ve pointed out in previous debate, we are here to bring the concerns of our constituents—

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

I would ask the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke—you’re in direct line with the Speaker. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s the job of all MPPs, regardless of what party you are from, whether it’s New Democrats, whether it’s Conservatives or whether it’s Liberals, to represent your constituents and bring the voice of your constituents to the chamber. It’s unfortunate because we’ve seen over and over and over again more frequently that the government side is not listening to this side of the House.

Not only are they not listening to this side of the House, but when we do have constituents come forward and speak to the government, they’re not listening to the constituents—the stakeholders—when they come to them directly. That’s one of my concerns about this bill: They are ramming it through without fulsome consultation. How much time have the stakeholders actually had to have a say in this legislation?

I seem to recall that last week, when I was up for debate, they were saying, “We consulted beforehand.” That’s great: Get some ideas beforehand. But once you’ve actually drafted the legislation, it’s important to go back to the stakeholders and say, “This is what we’ve come up with. Is this what you were thinking of? What concerns do you have about it? What good things do you see in this bill?”

I think that it would serve the government well to actually listen to those of us on this side of the House and the stakeholders who come forward when they want to be part of consultation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now back to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments from the members from Oshawa, Nepean–Carleton and Windsor West.

The member from Eglinton–Lawrence: There’s lots of history to be learned in the last 13 years that you’ve been here in government. You had an opportunity to do some things in my riding, but you chose not to—or your minister over there, and I won’t get into names; the minister is not here anymore—on municipal affairs when you first got elected there in 2003.

My colleagues have made good points about not listening to our municipalities, and that is our obligation here in the Legislature: to bring forward the concerns of our municipalities. The member for Nepean–Carleton listed off a long list of things that they have done in rural municipalities—taking out our horse racing, and taking out our slots at racetracks and giving them to the bright lights of the city of Peterborough and the possible new casino. We’re still going to fight that.

Industrial wind turbines: My goodness, how much do we have to continue to fight at that—

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m getting a signal here. Through the Speaker, I say to the Legislature: Industrial wind turbines are being forced upon rural municipalities, in environmentally protected areas and beside airports. I know that Peterborough Airport, which actually is in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock—proposed industrial wind turbines by airports that have flight schools.

None of this makes sense, and this government has heard from us on all these topics. As per what has been going on for several bills, not just for Bill 181 today, they have not listened to either the opposition parties or the people in our municipalities. And guess what? We’re citizens of Ontario too, and we deserve to be listened to.

I end on that, Mr. Speaker, and hope they make changes to this bill at least.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s my turn now. Be quiet, you.

Mr. Speaker, good morning to you. It’s a beautiful morning outside. I enjoyed my walk into Queen’s Park this morning.

Just think about it: Two years from now, we’re going to be potentially putting this piece of legislation into action.

Over the weekend, I met with the Algoma municipal leadership across Algoma-Manitoulin. In my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, we have 37 municipalities. I can tell you with pretty good certainty, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 181, the Municipal Elections Modernization Act, was not discussed with many of them, because—

Mr. Mike Colle: Why not?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m going to tell you.

I was standing with them. We talked about various other pieces of legislation that were going through the House, which they were aware of. When I talked to them, I looked at them all. There were roughly about, I would say, 15 to 20 municipalities in one room. I asked everybody, “How familiar are you with Bill 181?”

I don’t know if you’ve ever had this drive, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes, when you’re driving through my riding late in the evening, your lights will hit a whole bunch of eyes, and they’re deer eyes. They don’t know where to go, and that’s what happened during that discussion: A lot of those mayors or even councillors were not aware of what this was going to do. They’re very much in favour of having some reform. They know that it’s coming. But some of the suggestions that have come through this piece of legislation are quite concerning, particularly in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, and for other members across the north and within smaller municipality structures.

One of the things that is really concerning is the potential impact that this might have on community firefighters. We wear various hats within our communities. I see my friend across the way, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. You know what I’m talking about. Many of these individuals are not only your volunteer firefighters. Some of them are the mayors. Some of them are your councillors. Some of them are your individuals that are sitting on the school boards. Some of them are your recreational-activity individuals.

This is somewhat concerning in this bill. We need to make sure that those community leaders are extremely well consulted about the negative impact that this might bring to their communities, because we have limited resources in our communities. It’s not that our resources are any better or any worse. It’s just that our resources, and the individuals that are there, we rely on them on a regular basis to step up and take care of those communities.

I want to try and cover a few other things within my short time that I have here this morning, Mr. Speaker.

This bill was greeted with some enthusiasm by people in my community and by progressives everywhere in this province, who do see some of the benefit of ranked balloting. New Democrats support reform that strengthens local democracy and removes the influence that comes with big money in municipal elections. However, ranked ballot provisions are packaged in Bill 181 with a number of other initiatives that do raise concerns.

In particular, we are very concerned about the third-party advertising provision. Also, the general public has not been given enough information on this bill. We certainly want to make sure that that third-party advertising is not intended to silence individuals or organizations within our community. That’s what we want to make sure doesn’t happen, and that’s why this needs to be a greater discussion. Everyone who sits here knows well that the Liberal track record on respect for democracy has been poor.

Whether it is one of their past large scandals or recent revelations of big-ticket fundraising—even in events in order to meet fundraising quotas—it is clear how they don’t hold much regard for transparency and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I’m only giving this from a perspective of individuals across my riding. When I go into the Tim Hortons and I sit down and have a coffee with Mrs. Tremblay or Mr. Paquette, this is what they’re telling me. They are completely frustrated when they’re listening to the legislation that is being brought forward, but also by the lack of thoughtfulness by this government when they’re making decisions.

The government’s stripping away of the advertising act last year has resulted in taxpayers now paying for partisan commercials. Governments in provinces across the country, like BC, have used third-party advertising restrictions as a way to give candidates and well-resourced third parties a de facto monopoly on free speech during elections. We see this too often. Those well-financed lobby groups have more power to influence decisions, due to the fact that they are able to purchase access to those very decision-makers.

How it is currently written, this bill places serious restrictions on the ability of NGOs, charities and community groups to advocate for their issues during an election. I know that in the north, in my communities, many of these groups have very few resources and already have so much difficulty being heard. Usually it’s once or twice a year that many of these municipalities have the opportunity, during ROMA/OGRA conferences, to discuss many of their issues. Many of the smaller organizations in Algoma–Manitoulin simply don’t have the funds or access to speak to the government nor have their issues heard during an election.

Many of the mayors I’ve spoken to over the weekend shared my concerns. We want to strengthen local democracy, but not at the expense of having many of our communities’ interests heard, especially during an election. When we talk about trust and it being a two-way street—other members have raised similar concerns.

On many occasions, the government has made funding announcements in my riding and they have failed to notify me or invite me to these events. Many of these projects are ones that I have been working on for significant amounts of time; however, the government uses these announcements to toot their own horn without acknowledging the hard work of opposition members on these files.

There are certainly some good pieces of this bill. I haven’t had an opportunity to read all 65 pages of it yet, but I have to agree with many people who have actually spoken to this bill over the past few days to say that, yes, although the government did announce that they were going out to consult on the municipal act one year ago, they only tabled it a few days ago. Actually, I think it was April 4.

It is a big piece of legislation, and we need to make sure that we give it the focus that it needs. We need to get this right. We need to get it out in the public and really engage our municipalities. In having the discussions with the mayors that I’ve had across Algoma–Manitoulin, I’m glad that we will be engaging in that discussion. They’re looking forward to engaging in the discussion.

My time is running out. How fast it is when you’re having fun, Mr. Speaker.

In other areas of the province, it may not be much of an issue. Some of the municipal elections in my communities could have over a dozen people running for office at one time. This may not be such a big issue where other municipal elections would be held, such as here in Toronto.

As I’ve mentioned before, this is a very large bill. It was just tabled recently, and I am concerned that not enough due diligence was done in the duty to consult.

I want to remind you of the weekend that I had with the Algoma District Municipal Association over the course of the weekend, where some of those mayors were caught off guard with Bill 181.

I look forward to the coming weeks, when I can go home and do some of the consulting, speak with the northern mayors and councils and hear what their concerns are. Issues of concern in northern Ontario communities don’t generally reflect those of larger urban areas—so we need to ensure that we do that. I will commit to those communities in Algoma–Manitoulin, to reach out to them and make sure that I get their feedback so their views are reflected here and we can bring a complement to this piece of legislation, to make sure that it doesn’t create barriers or disadvantages either in northern communities or other communities across Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time this morning.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I appreciated the comments from the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. I think he is very sincere when he says that he does listen to his local representatives and his local constituents. I commend him for that. I’m sure you’re the same, Mr. Speaker. When you go to the local Timmy’s in Chatham, they’re not talking about municipal election reform; in your riding they’re talking about the wonderful interest there is in locally grown products in Chatham-Kent, like the great soybeans you have and the tomatoes you have. That’s what they’re talking about.

I think we’ve got to somehow remember that the average person spends five minutes a month thinking about politics. What we need to do here is put this in perspective. There are interested parties, there are municipal leaders, there are associations like AMO and ROMA, and I think we need to bring them here to Queen’s Park to hear their deputations on this because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, there are varying opinions on different parts of this bill. Some people like ranked ballots; some people don’t even know what ranked ballots are.

I don’t know what they’re saying in Chatham–Kent about ranked ballots; here in Toronto, one council said, “We love ranked ballots,” and then as soon as the election took place they changed their mind and said, “We don’t like ranked ballots.” We don’t really know where they stand here in Toronto on this issue.

I’m not sure where the NDP stands on ranked ballots, to tell you the truth. Are you in favour of ranked ballots or are you not? I haven’t heard that. I’m not a great fan of ranked ballots; I’ll tell you the truth. I think there are some issues with them. I think you should come forward and tell us what you think of ranked ballots, because there are some issues with them.

Anyway, this is a good discussion. This is what the core of this bill is: to get people thinking about the importance of some of these changes.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his presentation on Bill 181. I just wanted to say—and it relates too to what the member from Eglinton–Lawrence just mentioned about the fact that people don’t seem to understand what ranked ballots even are. I think that’s one of the most important things in this bill and the challenge we face with it. The fact is that municipalities are going to be allowed to implement ranked balloting for their municipal elections in 2018 when there’s absolutely nothing in the bill that requires consultation with the public so they understand what ranked balloting is.

I mentioned this in my opening remarks, and the parliamentary assistant in his paper at home suggested, “No, no, the member from Oxford is wrong, because in fact, it’s right in there that they must hold a public meeting.” I checked the bill, and I would advise the member to read the bill because there is not a mention of a single public meeting about this issue in the bill. I think it’s very important that that happens, because when you change the way you elect your council and the administration of your municipality—that in fact, people understand how that’s being done.

I don’t think that the local municipalities, just because it affects them in a positive way, should be allowed to implement a new balloting system.

When the province decided that we needed to look at a new balloting system, we went to the people. We did a referendum on it. Guess what? Even though the government of the day decided that maybe this was a good thing to put in the referendum, the people of Ontario said, “No, let’s stick with the tried-and-true system that we presently have.” It may be the worst system in the world—except for all the others. I think that we should at least do that for the people in municipalities so they can have a say in whether we change the way they get elected or not.

And again, in the final wrap-up, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to read the bill.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s a pleasure to rise again today to speak to Bill 181, the Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016, and to add comments to what my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin said.

I just want to say the member from Algoma–Manitoulin is probably one of the most community-engaged MPPs that I know. All you have to do is look on his Facebook to see that he is all over his riding—and it’s a large riding. It’s not like Windsor West; it’s a large riding. There’s a great expanse of land, and he manages to get to every single corner of his riding. He does a lot for his communities. He’s always talking to people. He’s always engaged.

I think that’s important to note because he does talk about legislation with his community, with his constituents. The problem is that when his constituents don’t know about the legislation to begin with, it’s the member from Algoma–Manitoulin who’s highlighting it for them. It shows a failure on the government’s side to actually get the legislation and the information out to the different ridings, to the constituencies.

A member from the opposite side was kind of alluding to how it was him dropping the ball, by the mayors and councillors not knowing about the legislation. But in fact, it is the government side that has failed to get the information out.

On that, I’d like to talk about what the member from Eglinton–Lawrence said, when he admitted that a lot of people don’t know about the legislation. They don’t know. The government side doesn’t know where people stand, and that’s the point. I’d like to thank him for making my point: The government side doesn’t know because they’re not consulting. They’re not giving people enough time to have input. That’s a problem—and it’s not just on this legislation; it’s on everything. All we have to do is look at the budget and how the finance committee hadn’t even tabled a report before the budget came out.

This is an ongoing problem, and I really think the government side needs to listen to communities and listen to the people on this side of the House.

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

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I had the great pleasure to speak on this bill. I was in the House for a lot of the debates that took place on this bill. I think we’re close to nine and a half hours on this very important bill.

Certainly, for me, having been part of the consultation, let’s say, for Ottawa, and throughout the province—we know this is something that municipalities have asked for at various levels. We want to make sure the municipalities are ready for 2018.

I thank all members of this House for sharing their very valuable thoughts with us. Some thoughts need clarification. I think, on the opposite side, there were questions. I know that will be maybe be part of regulations. Having said this, I think it’s time that we look at —throughout this process that I’ve had the pleasure of learning in the past two years is—I think it’s time to refer the bill to committee. I would ask the House to consider it. I think when we talk about consultation—we did consult. We did go through the province.

But from the valuable insight that we received from the opposition—now I think it’s time to look at bringing it to committee, having the real work take place, the next part of our real work take place, and then bring it back to this House.

So I ask the members to consider referring this bill to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member for Algoma–Manitoulin for final comments.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Mr. Speaker, I’m somewhat disappointed with the last speaker, because that is exactly what frustrates constituents from my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin and across this province: when we hear words like, “We’ve had enough discussions.” No, we have not. We have not had an opportunity—each and every one of us here in this House—to bring those views forward and engage with our communities. This has just come to the House.

I want to thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for having participated in the debate this morning.

To my colleague here from Windsor West: Yes, I do engage quite a bit with my communities, because that’s how we can actually get more people engaged in our election process.

As the member from Eglinton–Lawrence said, the perspective from individuals is that we’re in a bubble here. We think that everything we’re doing here is out there. We fail to recognize that it’s not getting out there because people are frustrated with what’s happening here and have disengaged with this process. That’s what our role is: When we go back to our communities, we go to each and every one of those corners and actually sit down and engage with someone to explain, “This is what’s happening and this is why it’s happening. This is what they’re looking at. These are the good decisions. These are the bad decisions.” I believe that’s our role as far as what we need to do.

We’ve always been in favour of proportional representation, my friend from Eglinton–Lawrence; that has always been there. We know that modernizations or changes to the elections act have been asked for. That’s what we see coming.

Also, the member from Oxford: You’re absolutely right—

Mr. Mike Colle: What’s your position on ranked ballots?

Mr. Michael Mantha: On ranked ballots? People don’t understand, like you just finished saying. You don’t understand it yourself. You stood here and said the people didn’t understand it. That’s the point.

Hearing the member from Ottawa–Orléans indicating that it’s time to send this to committee—it is not time to send this to committee. We need to have further discussion. So let’s have that discussion. Don’t shut down debate, like you’ve always done on other pieces of legislation. Allow me, on behalf of Algoma–Manitoulin, to bring those views forward, like every other MPP in this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Interjections.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I really appreciate the welcome, and that members are that excited for me to speak and use my 10 minutes to talk about a very important bill.

Speaker, I’m pleased, and thank you for recognizing me to speak on Bill 181, the Municipal Elections Modernization Act.

I never had an opportunity to serve at the municipal level. I’ve been very privileged to be elected as a member of provincial Parliament. As all members in this House will recognize, in our jobs we engage and interact with our municipal leaders on a regular basis, and it’s a very important part of our job to work on municipal issues that are important to our local communities, and I’m no exception, Speaker.

I’ve got four wards within my riding of Ottawa Centre. Within my community, I’ve got four city councillors who I have a very good working relationship with. We work very closely together, and our staff work very closely together as well, not to mention the mayor, who is actually a former member of this Legislature and who is a close friend and somebody who works extremely hard in representing our city. I have a great opportunity to work along with them.

I want to make a couple of points on this bill, but I will start with a very important premise that is very much an important part of this bill—on two key elements: the issue of ranked ballots, which has been heavily debated in this Legislature, and the issue around campaign financing. On both of those points, it is quite clear in this legislation, the onus to make decisions on behalf of their citizens, the primacy of elected representatives, is set to be on our local councillors.

There is a recognition that the municipal governments are duly elected, that they are elected by our citizens in the communities that we represent, and they have a very important role in deciding what kind of municipal system they have in place.

There’s a strong element of respect that is very much part of Bill 181. We have this discussion often that we have three orders of government in Canada; we don’t have three levels of government. There is no hierarchy between the three governments, between federal, provincial and municipal. What we have is three orders of government with their equal responsibilities and jurisdictions. A very important aspect in those three orders of government—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Actually, there is something called the Constitution.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I hear references to the Constitution, and I will ask members opposite to actually look at the Constitution. It speak of orders of government; it doesn’t speak of levels of government. So I know what I’m speaking about in that regard.

When you look at the orders of government, Speaker, in order for those orders of government to work in a way that they represent the interests of citizens, there has to be respect and there has to be recognition that all three orders of government are duly elected. That principle, in my view, is very much part and parcel of this legislation, both on ranked ballots, for example, and on the issue of campaign financing, around placing a ban on corporate and union donations.

The authority to take those steps is not ordained in this legislation. The only thing this legislation does is give that opportunity to the municipal councils to make that decision on behalf of their citizens, because they are duly elected and they have the capacity to make those decisions. I think that’s the right approach, that’s the respectful way to take, as opposed to the provincial government telling municipal governments to do X, Y or Z.

We’re saying, “If you want to introduce ranked balloting in your community, in your municipality, then we’re giving you the authority to do so, but the decision is yours.” The same thing with putting a ban on corporate and union donations: “You have the capacity, just like we’ve given to the city of Toronto through their legislation, to make that particular decision.” Because then you have got a robust, organic process within the local communities between elected representatives—the mayor and the city councillors—and the community who make those decisions.

So I very much respect that fundamental notion in this legislation.

I want to quickly speak to ranked balloting. This is an issue that I have heard regularly about in my community. There’s an organization called Ottawa123 who have been very active in this regard. I have received correspondence and have held meetings with constituents who have advocated in support of ranked balloting, and I’m happy to see that it’s part of this legislation, giving, again, in the case of my city—the city of Ottawa and the city of Ottawa council—to make the determination whether they want to introduce ranked balloting or not. Of course, they would be required to go through a public consultation process as we all consult with the public and do so.

Speaker, I think that is a very important part of this legislation. I think if municipalities like Ottawa choose ranked balloting, it has a great potential of increasing voter participation, getting more people engaged in local decision-making which has a huge impact on our lives.

There are many other important aspects in this bill and I’ve been quite heartened to see the kind of passionate debate that has taken place on this issue and others.

I am very surprised to hear that the NDP somehow is against ranked balloting. I think that comes as a big surprise. I would think the NDP would be supportive of ranked ballots. At least that was my impression. I’ll leave it up to them to answer to their constituents as to how they feel, because I think people who I’ve spoken to very much support the notion of ranked balloting as something that is an important step that we’re taking to foster democracy in our province.

This is an important debate. There is a lot in this bill, as I’ve mentioned before. There have been about 10 hours of debate that have taken place in this Legislature. Almost half of the members have spoken on this, and I think it will be very important—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. The minister has had the opportunity to speak to this bill, and I see where he’s going, where others haven’t.

Democracy is not a hockey game. It doesn’t have a time limit. It’s not 60 minutes. The clock doesn’t run out on democracy, and never will. But I can see where this minister is going: He’s about to bring down the guillotine on this—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. That is not a point of order.

Back to the minister.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, Speaker, thank you very much.

As I was saying, clearly there is a lot of passion and clearly there is a lot of interest from all sides that we should be doing more consultations in the committee process and listen to people.

I think it’s an appropriate time to move this bill forward so municipalities have ample time to prepare as well for the next municipal election if this bill is passed. Speaker, I sincerely believe it’s time that we put this bill to vote for second reading, and hopefully it will be referred to committee where important work takes place. There are many other important bills that we need to also debate in this House. Therefore, I move that the question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Naqvi has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question be put to the House.

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

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day. I recognize the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: No further business, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please. Since there is no further business this morning, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0954 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Toby Barrett: We’re welcoming chicken farmers today—and wings tonight. I know that Henry Zantingh, the chair of CFO, is here, and Ed Benjamins, Rob Dougans—and Michael Burrows, representing the chicken processors.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: We’re delighted, of course, to have Zachary Gan as a page, but we’re equally blessed today to have his mother in the gallery, Patricia Gan, and family friend Robert Baker. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I would like to introduce Tim Klompmaker and Murray Booy, who are both on the board of directors with the Chicken Farmers of Ontario. They’re here with Team Ontario today for their annual Queen’s Park day. They’re meeting with members of the Legislature all day to talk about the chicken industry in our province—I met with them this morning—along with a new kosher chicken processing plant that will be opening soon in Ontario.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Fran and Ian MacFarlane, grandparents of page MacFarlane Benham. Welcome to question period.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I would also like to welcome the chicken farmers and processors here today. It’s a great industry.

We have some friends from MPAC here as well.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s chicken day at Queen’s Park. I’d like to welcome representatives from Ontario’s chicken industry. Welcome to the board members, district committee representatives and staff from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, including Henry Zantingh, who is the CFO board chair, and Michael Burrows, who is the board chairman for the association of chicken producers for the province of Ontario. I’d like to recognize Tim Klompmaker, who is the director and resides in my riding of Peterborough.

I encourage all of you to come out to the chicken farmers’ reception this evening in the Legislature dining room from 5 to 7. It’ll be a wingding of a time.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d love to take this opportunity to introduce Adrian Rehorst. He’s a great ambassador for the Chicken Farmers of Ontario and a proud farmer from Bruce county.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce, in the members’ gallery—we have page Ariel Wendling with us. Her grandmother Denise Lafontaine is here, and her mom, Rosanne Wendling, with her daughters Kyara, Mia and Matteya, who have been pages formerly. Welcome.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to introduce a school from my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood: grade 12 students from Cedarbrae Collegiate. Welcome.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to introduce individuals from the great riding of Oxford: Marty Graf, the chief executive officer of Community Living Tillsonburg, and my constituents Fran and Ian MacFarlane, who are visiting today to watch their grandson, page MacFarlane Benham. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have some friends from the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. here today: Dave Setterington is here from Leamington; the mayor of Stratford, Dan Mathieson, is here; and I believe the mayor of Thunder Bay, Keith Hobbs, is in the building or expected soon.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to introduce a very good friend of mine, Kelly Dunn, who brought her grade 12 class from Cedarbrae Collegiate to the Legislature today.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ve got to introduce as well Henry Zantingh, the chair of the Chicken Farmers, because he’s the chair and he’s from my riding, in Smithville, and if I don’t recognize him he cuts off my chicken supply. Adrian Rehorst is also here from the Chicken Farmers; and Rick Kaptein, Murray Booy, Henk Lise, Murray Opsteen, Mark Hermann, Michael Edmonds and Kathryn Goodish.

My last introduction, to save you some time: I also want to recognize a former mayor of Dryden and the premier of the north, Craig Nuttall. Craig, it’s good to see you here as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chicken for everybody.

Further introductions?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I have two introductions, if I may. I’d like to welcome representatives from MPAC who are here today, and Dan Mathieson, board chair of MPAC. They’ll be hosting their second annual Queen’s Park day today and will be hosting a reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230. Welcome, all members from MPAC.

I would also like to introduce visitors: Carlos Morgadinho, who is the president of the 25th of April Cultural Association—Toronto’s 25 de Abril—which is a Carnation Revolution honour from Portugal, as well as board members Manuel Martins and Tomas Ferreira. Their guests from Portugal include Kernel Rui Guimarães and his wife, Adalberta Loureiro. Bem-vindo ao Ontario.

Remarks in Portuguese.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m really excited to welcome, from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex today, Wade Milliken, Rick Collier and Bill Rayburn.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m proud to welcome today, from my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Grand Chief Abram Benedict and Chief Ryan Jacobs. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome a good friend of mine to the House today: the mayor of St. Catharines, Mr. Walter Sendzik.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome Alf Chaiton, who is a constituent and lives in my riding of Ottawa Centre and is a member of the MPAC board, who are visiting here at Queen’s Park. Welcome, Alf.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Would members please join me in welcoming the family and friends of the late Gary Leadston, MPP for Kitchener–Wilmot during the 36th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: his wife, Anna, and friends Bonnie Devries, Paul and Wendy Pickett, and Dave Cannon. Mr. Leadston is survived—

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You got ahead of me. Mr. Leadston is survived by his four sons and their families, who could not be here with us today: Sean Leadston and his wife, Lee; David Leadston and his wife, Jessica; Steven Evoy and his wife, Kari; and Christopher Evoy and his wife, Tanya; and grandchildren Ethan, Violet, Hudson, Lincoln, Isaac and Parker. Welcome.

Also with us in the gallery is Mr. Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments. Welcome and thank you very much.

Gary Leadston

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe you will find we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Gary Leadston, former member for Kitchener–Wilmot, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

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

I think we have arranged tributes. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’m honoured to rise today to offer tribute to former MPP for Kitchener–Wilmot Gary Leadston.

Gary was a lifelong servant of the public. He served as a police officer, as a municipal councillor, as a member of provincial Parliament, and he served with a smile on his face and a door always open to the public. Gary’s contributions to his community will be dearly missed.

We are joined here today by some of Gary’s friends—his wife, Anna; and his four friends Bonnie Devries, Dave Cannon and Paul and Wendy Pickett. Welcome. I want to say thank you for being with us here today to celebrate Gary’s life and public service.

Gary had two children, Sean and David Leadston; two stepchildren, Steve and Chris Evoy; and four grandchildren, Ethan, Hudson, Lincoln and Isaac.

Gary was born in Guelph and moved to Kitchener in 1960. He started his career as a police officer in the old Kitchener city police force. Wearing a uniform was something that ran in his family. His father was a police officer before him, and two of his brothers were a firefighter and a warrant officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, respectively.

When I learned that this tribute to Gary was coming up, I reached out to some people in Kitchener–Waterloo who knew Gary and who worked with him, to get their sense of what he was like. The overall sentiment I heard was that Gary was open, always friendly, social, and a real people person who worked hard to represent the community he represented.

Former member of Parliament for Waterloo Walter McLean told me, “Gary had a strong sense of community. He was a leader who understood the larger issues of safety and security but was not captive by them. He was open to different perspectives, and he was an open listener.” Those are valuable skills for anyone in public life to have. And while no one I spoke to told me this, he must have been very punctual because, in 1968, Gary left the police force to work for the Waterloo County Board of Education as a truant officer.

He first ran for office in 1978, winning a seat on Kitchener city council, where he served with distinction as a bridge builder and a booster of the city.

A few years later, Gary added regional council to his list of responsibilities, sitting on both regional and city council until 1994, when he ran for mayor of Kitchener. While he wasn’t successful in that bid, he quickly won the nomination for the riding of Kitchener–Wilmot for the PCs, who swept the region’s four seats in the 1995 provincial election. Gary sat in this Legislature from 1995 to 1999.

Even though Gary wasn’t here at Queen’s Park for a long time, he made his name known. His former seatmate in the Legislature and former MPP for Cambridge, Gerry Martiniuk, recalled how Gary’s office on the fourth floor became the “party floor,” as other MPPs came by to hang out and eat his food. Apparently, he had a slow cooker in there. I would have stopped by as well.

While he was here at Queen’s Park, Gary advocated for issues that mattered in his riding, always with an eye towards public safety. The former basket-weave interchange on Highway 7/8 in Kitchener was a traffic hazard that Gary recognized needed to be improved. In 1996, there were 116 accidents close to this interchange. He invited the then Minister of Transportation, Al Palladini, to come visit the site and witness the havoc first-hand. To his credit, he got the minister to visit the riding, and in 1998 the changes were announced.

On behalf of New Democrats, I want to thank Anna and Gary’s family and friends for sharing Gary with us and his community. Our community is stronger for his service. He left us too soon, but his life was well lived.

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

Ms. Daiene Vernile: It is a great honour, as the member for Kitchener Centre, to pay tribute today to Gary Leadston, who served in this Legislature from 1995 to 1999. Gary’s family and friends are here today as we pay tribute to his service to the province of Ontario. They know him as a selfless public servant who served his community as a volunteer on many organizations and as an elected representative locally and in the province.

But in preparing this tribute, Mr. Speaker, I did my homework to get the inside story on Gary Leadston, the things you won’t find in a newspaper obituary or on Wikipedia. This background, I believe, gives fuller insight into the true person, and I want to share that with you, to offer a deeper appreciation of former MPP Gary Leadston.

Gary was born in 1941 in Guelph, Ontario. He was educated at the Ontario Police College and at Wilfrid Laurier University. He worked as a beat cop in Kitchener. This experience taught him a great deal about dealing with people.

As a civic-minded champion of the community, Gary was a founding member of the Big Brothers Association of K-W and served as its president in 1975.

Gary decided to enter local politics, winning a seat on Kitchener city council, and served from 1978 to 1994. He also sat as a member of our regional government from 1981 to 1994. In 1987, he was named chair of the Waterloo Regional Police Commission.

A councillor who served with him told me that one of his greatest feats was that he voted in favour of the new Kitchener city hall. In the early 1990s, construction of this modern, costly new building was a hotly debated issue in my community. There were those who thought it was a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. But in a final intense debate, Gary sided with those who saw the broader good in building what is now the focal point of downtown Kitchener. Mr. Speaker, he had the courage of his convictions in the face of opposition because he knew it was the right thing to do.

Those who served with him on Kitchener city council told me that you couldn’t find a more fun-loving, likeable guy. In fact, at city council meetings, Gary was the one who always had a joke to tell that made the long hours during those council meetings bearable. He was very good at making people laugh.

At community events where he’d be asked to speak publicly, it was said that Gary was on par with any professional comedian. One colleague told me he laughed so hard one night at Gary’s string of hilarious jokes that his face actually ached for hours after the event. This was a politician who knew how to please a crowd.

After serving locally, Gary decided to take a run at provincial politics in the riding of Kitchener–Wilmot. One of his close colleagues told me that he actually thought Gary was quite liberal in his politics, so why run for the Conservative Party? Well, they were the ones who came knocking, and, in 1995, Gary Leadston was swept to power with the Conservative wave led by Mike Harris.

During the four years that he served at Queen’s Park, Gary was committed to representing the people of his riding. Here at the Legislature, he was committed to supporting and even entertaining his colleagues. As you heard, on his fourth-floor office, he had a slow cooker. It was known for feeding anyone who came by.

This is when I came to know Gary Leadston. Anchoring and producing a weekly news and current affairs program for CKCO-TV in Kitchener, I remember the times that I interviewed our local MPP on various issues. He was always forthcoming and friendly.

But when the Harris government decided to reduce the number of provincial ridings from 130 to 103, Gary found himself pitted in a nomination battle for the riding of Kitchener Centre, which, unfortunately, he lost. He and his family later moved to Rideau Ferry, and he went on to serve for many years on the Ontario Parole Board.

Gary Leadston died at home on December 2, 2013, of pancreatic cancer at the age of 72, but his legacy in my community will long be remembered. He fought for and won the construction of Lackner Boulevard, a new indoor pool at Stanley Park, and the erection of the old clock tower at Victoria Park, the new city hall and regional headquarters.

To his family: Anna, you have a great deal of which to be proud. Gary was a husband, father and grandfather who made his mark as a community leader. He cared, he was committed and he made us laugh. He was a people person who made a difference.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Today, I’m proud to stand here and speak of the life and legacy of a community leader in my region: a long-time local municipal councillor and a former PC MPP from Kitchener–Wilmot, Gary Leadston.

I’m very honoured to share this House today with MPP Leadston’s friends who are joining us in the Speaker’s gallery: Bonnie Devries, Dave Cannon, and Paul and Wendy Pickett. Thank you for being here.

Unfortunately, the long commute has meant that many of his family could not make it: his sons, Sean and David, his two stepsons and his four grandchildren. To his family who are unable to be here with us today, know that this Legislature and our community have you in our thoughts.

To Gary’s wife, Anna, who is with us in the Speaker’s gallery: Thank you for being here today to help share Gary’s stories.

Although I’ve never had the pleasure, unfortunately, of knowing Gary personally, I’ve had the opportunity to hear stories recounted to me by those who knew him best. Speaker, when you ask anyone about Gary, their immediate response is the same: Gary was a true people person who cared deeply about his community and, by all accounts, was a great guy.

City councillor Geoff Lorentz, who remembers Gary as a mentor when Lorentz first came to city hall, humbly said, “He was always proud of his job and proud of the people he represented.... He was a great guy. He knew everybody in his ward, and everybody knew him.”

It’s with this love of his community that, in 1995, Gary easily secured his place here in the Ontario Legislature. The veteran municipal politician won his campaign by more than 7,000 votes against the runner-up. Gary, 53 at the time, walked into his victory party to thank his supporters, simply stating, “I can’t say enough, from the bottom of my heart, how much I love each and every one of you. And I love winning.”

My caucus colleagues, both former and present, remember Gary as a social, fun-loving guy who had an affinity for storytelling and could get a room full of people laughing until they cried. Everyone loved being around him.

Former MPP Marcel Beaubien said, “Just like with everyone in life, there were good times and bad—we just had a lot of good times.” He said this as he recounted a story that is famous in my neck of the woods in this Ontario Legislature: the fourth floor, which Gary referred to as the “fun floor,” and where many members’ offices still reside today, in fact.

This story takes place after Gary’s colleagues had returned from a successful moose hunting trip. Gary loved cooking, but more importantly, like any of the current PC members, Gary loved to eat. In order to bring everyone together, Gary hosted a moose meat cookout right above us, here in the House, on the fourth floor. For those of you who have been on the fourth floor, you know this Legislature is simply not conducive to a wild game cookout, but that didn’t stop Gary. The smell of meat filled the halls and many began to make their way toward the delicious smell.

There must have been at least 40 people in attendance, everyone from MPPs to cleaning staff. As the cookout went on, Gary entertained everyone with his charismatic sense of humour. No one knew how he could remember so many jokes, but that’s what he loved doing, and he did it very well.

As history shows, Gary truly was the life of the party. Gary loved life. He loved his job and he loved to spend time with his colleagues at the end of a busy day here at Queen’s Park. A large group of PC MPPs would gather almost daily, after the House wound up, in Morley Kells’s office on—you guessed it—that same fourth floor.

Gary would always be discussing the issues of the day with his colleagues. No matter what the issues were, they were problems worth solving, and Gary always worked hard toward a solution. His roots never digressed from the constituency-based politician that he was when he walked through these doors.

Just like Gary said when he first arrived, “I enter the legislative building with a tremendous sense of pride and humility.” His colleagues knew, and know, this is exactly how he served during his time here at the assembly. Gary was the kind of MPP this place absolutely needs: reliable, professional, thoughtful, caring, courageous and, above all, dedicated to the needs of his riding and to the province of Ontario.

Through sickness and health, Gary’s sense of humour and love of life was as strong as ever. Former colleague Gerry Martiniuk visited Gary in the hospital bearing, of course, a St. Jacobs summer sausage. He remembers that Gary kept him in stitches for the hour they were there, in circumstances which would break most people.

Gary unfortunately passed at the age of 72 after a hard-fought battle with pancreatic cancer, in his home of Rideau Ferry, Ontario, where he lived with Anna. It is with great sadness that he has left us.

On behalf of the Ontario Legislature, I want to thank MPP Gary Leadston for his contributions he has made to this province and to the community and the region of Waterloo. We will all fondly remember the proud legacy that he leaves behind.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank all the members for their very thoughtful and heartfelt tributes to Gary.

To the family and friends, as is the tradition of our House, we will make sure that you receive a DVD and a copy of Hansard, of these tributes for your keepsake. Finally, we thank you for the gift of Gary.

Earthquakes in Ecuador and Japan

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence before question period as a sign of this House’s condolences to the people of Ecuador and Japan, and those who have lost loved ones in the recent earthquakes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence for the House to pay tribute to those who lost their lives in the recent earthquakes. Do we agree? Agreed.

Could I ask everyone in the House to please rise for a moment of silence?

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Pray be seated.

It’s now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Ross MacLean from Barrie wrote to me to share his family’s story. His daughter recently turned five and waited three and a half years for IBI treatment. She has now been receiving treatment for just three weeks. The family has already seen a marked improvement.

Mr. MacLean knows autism doesn’t end at five. His son actually benefitted from IBI until the age of 12. Clearly, autism doesn’t end at five, and neither should IBI treatment.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why her government thinks it’s okay to kick Mr. MacLean’s daughter out of treatment after just three weeks?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to answer the question and I will do that, but first I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on completing the Boston Marathon. It’s no mean feat to complete a marathon, so congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, of course what we want is for that child, and every child in Ontario who has autism, to get the service that they need. So we want that child—I’m sorry, I’ve lost her name in the moment—to get the intensive treatment that she needs, which is why the transition into the new program will include service in those intensive services.

We understand that the $8,000 that will be for the initial transition is not enough; we understand that. That’s why we’re setting up the program that will allow her to continue with intensive services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: I also received an email from Tia Riopel from Uxbridge. She is the mom of Jolie-Anne Jones. I want to read to you the impact IBI had for Jolie-Anne. To quote the family, IBI “gave her a voice, words, the ability to make eye contact and make friends.”

“IBI opened her eyes to her family....”

“After six months of IBI, she acknowledged the presence of her grandfather for the first time and gave him a hug.”

That’s how the family describes it. Listening to that, how can you take away IBI treatment from Jolie-Anne’s family?

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier think as a parent and a grandparent and explain how she can take IBI treatment away from all these children and families? We don’t need political talking points. Will the Premier do the right thing and not take these kids off the wait-list?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The opposition party wants to frame this as though we’re taking something away from people. What we’re doing is we are providing services that are tailored to the children, and those will be intensive.

I need us to hear from some of the people who have been advocating for these changes, people who are experts in the field and are working with the very children that the member is talking about.

Peter Szatmari is the chief of the child and youth mental health collaborative between CAMH, SickKids and U of T. Peter Szatmari has been working—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: He has been working in this field for decades. What he says is that it is so important to personalize intervention services for children with ASD. This funding opportunity is a significant step in that direction. Early intervention for all, but different interventions at different times, is an essential step in the right direction. That is what we are doing.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: No matter how you slice it, thousands and thousands of kids have been taken off the wait-list for help—not through being provided IBI, but simply abandoned. These children can’t be abandoned.

I’m going to tell you another story, this one from the Saunders family. On March 28, their daughter Sloane came off the IBI waiting list after two long years of waiting. One week later, they were told Sloane was now too old to receive treatment, and her IBI would end in September. As the Saunders family said, this is “life-changing therapy.”

Autism does not end at five. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing? Hearing the overwhelming response from families in Ontario, from those with a loved one with autism, will she do the right thing and stop these cuts to the IBI therapy? Will the Premier do the right thing: yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The 333 million new dollars that are going in to create the program and to provide a transition—we know that autism doesn’t end at five. We also know that sitting on a waiting list and not getting any service is wrong. I am actually quite shocked that the opposition parties—both of them—would be advocating for keeping children on a waiting list and not getting them service. So—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Labour is not helping.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want Sloane to have the service that she needs—to get that intensive service. As importantly, I want all of the children who are on that waiting list who are not getting service to get the intensive service that they need in the same way that Sloane is getting that service. That’s the change that we’re making.

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Since I can’t get anything but political spin on the autism cuts, let’s talk about something else. I came across a—

Interjections.

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

Question, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: I came across a photo of a Hydro One bill the other day. It was dated April 13, 2016. It read: “On-peak: zero kilowatts per hour used. Mid-peak: zero kilowatts per hour used. Off-peak: zero kilowatts per hour used. Total cost of electricity: $113.”

Why is it acceptable for Hydro One to charge this family $113 for not using any electricity?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: As recognized, Hydro One needed to be improved. We’ve made the changes necessary to provide greater consumer experience; that has been done. We’ve modernized the electricity system. That needed to be improved, and we’ve done so.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to use that line as well.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We continue to advance on those improvements so that consumers have the ability to get the services they need—

Interjections.

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

If you think that this is some kind of game, that as soon as I sit down you start up again, you’re sadly mistaken. If that happens again, I’ll nail you.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Throughout this process that’s necessary to be competitive—I appreciate the member’s question. That’s one of the very reasons why Hydro One has made the changes they’ve made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: I didn’t hear something remotely to be an answer in that response, so I’ll ask the Premier again.

As CityNews puts it:

“The math doesn’t seem to add up.

“Despite a mild winter which saw Ontarians conserve electricity, hydro rates are set to increase next month because we saved too much energy.

“It defies logic but that’s the reason given” by the government: that you use less and you get charged more—only in Ontario. The family got charged $113, and now has to pay more. It’s unbelievable.

Does the Premier find it acceptable to charge hydro customers more to use less? Simple question: yes or no?

Hon. Charles Sousa: When it comes to pricing, the member has just reinforced the necessity for us to make these enhancements and these improvements to Hydro One, which is exactly what we’ve done.

In 2013, in our long-term energy plan, the average projected payment was about $167 on a monthly bill. What the opposition fails to acknowledge is that prices are, in fact, coming down well below those very projections. What we must do is continue to provide the services necessary to improve—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, come to order. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Even when we take into account the OEB’s most recent rate decision, the average household bill will be under $150 per month. That’s about $200 per year less than the projections that were given publicly more than two years ago. We have made improvements.

I recognize the member’s question toward a specific individual, and those are all the reasons we put forward an ombudsman, which is necessary to address her issue directly. That is why, again, we’ve made those appropriate changes at Hydro One.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Once again back to the Premier: It’s unbelievable that the Minister of Finance can actually say in this House that hydro rates are going down. No one in Ontario believes that, not even for a second.

Let’s examine the problem: Brady Yauch, the executive director of the Consumer Policy Institute, explained the rise in hydro rates by saying this: “This province has overbuilt the electricity sector significantly and it has to pass on those costs.” In fact, Ontario is now procuring an additional 900 more megawatts of costly energy, much of that from costly wind projects. It’s not just that it’s overbuilt; it’s that they continue to overbuild. The question is, why? Maybe we could ask the wind companies that attended the $6,000-a-plate dinner with the Premier and energy minister: “Why?” Is this about rewarding your friends or is this about affordable hydro rates?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’ve been very clear in our long-term strategy, in our budgets and in our regard to providing a prudent plan on Ontario’s energy, and we’ve shared those investments, substantive investments, to introduce new, clean power plants and eliminate coal completely from our system. I’d also highlight that in the last two elections, the opposition have made no plans and have not identified any publication of what those electricity costs would be going forward—they keep those details secret.

Mr. Speaker, eliminating dirty coal generation from Ontario, from our electricity system, now enables us to be 90% emissions-free. There were 53 smog days in Ontario in 2005; in 2014, the smog days were zero—none—because of the efforts and investments that we’ve made to improve emissions and a cleaner environment, something the opposition does not support. That’s unfortunate for future generations. We—

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

Electoral reform

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Earlier today, I stood with the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Green Party of Ontario, and, together, we called on the Premier to form an independent panel that will recommend changes to how election campaigns are funded so that we can bring about real change in a way that is transparent, in a way that is open and in a way that is trustworthy.

Will this Premier agree to appointing a non-partisan panel to bring fairness to Ontario’s election rules?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m committed to changing political donation rules in Ontario. We have put forward a proposal in terms of bringing in draft legislation in the spring. We have said that there is already a broad consensus on the direction that we need to go. I had a meeting with the leaders of the opposition parties to get their input on some of the questions, because there are questions. Even though there is a consensus on, for example, banning union and corporate donations, there are questions around a public subsidy, for example. I have no idea where the leaders of the opposition parties stand on the details around that. I look forward to hearing from them.

It’s interesting, because my understanding from the press conference this morning is that there was a desire to have input into the draft legislation. I have asked for that input from the opposition leaders, and I will come back to that in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, apparently the Premier didn’t listen at that meeting that she had with the leaders of the opposition parties. We told her, quite clearly, that she should not be changing Ontario’s election laws unilaterally, because that puts us on a very slippery slope.

Today I, along with the leaders of the official opposition and the Green Party of Ontario, set our partisan interests aside, and together we are asking the Premier to do the right thing and put her partisan interests aside. It’s not just political parties. Democracy Watch has said, “The unilateral decision by the Liberals on changes that will be made goes against their own commitment to consult with Ontarians.”

Will the Premier listen to Democracy Watch and the leaders of three of Ontario’s four major parties, and agree to meaningful public consultation through an independent panel before changing Ontario’s election laws?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s quite remarkable that the leader of the third party is basically saying that there is no democratic process that we follow in this Legislature. It’s quite remarkable. What we have said—

Mr. Randy Hillier: You don’t follow it very well.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —is that we bring forward draft legislation and, in an unusual process, send the legislation out for consultation after first reading and then allow for that consultation to take place between now and the fall; then, allow the legislation and send the legislation out for consultation again after second reading.

Mr. Randy Hillier: . This morning, you had a closure motion on Bill 181.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That would mean the opposition parties can call whatever witnesses they want to speak to the committee.

What’s also interesting is that, right now, the House leaders are having a conversation about how the opposition parties might give input into the legislation before it’s drafted. That seems to run counter to what the leader of the third party said this morning.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What is remarkable is that this Premier is clinging to her power instead of doing the right thing by the people of Ontario. That’s what’s remarkable, Speaker, and it is very unseemly in a democratic province.

Today’s press conference wasn’t about me, nor was it about the leader of the official opposition, nor was it about the leader of the Green Party—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Leader.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It is actually about Ontarians, and perhaps this Premier needs to think about them when she’s thinking about this issue. We came together in the spirit of co-operation and consensus to call on this Premier to do the right thing.

For nearly 30 years, election laws were updated with consensus and non-partisan input. We are calling on this Premier to build on that the tradition, instead of putting Ontario on a slippery slope where any political party with a majority can change election laws whenever they want.

Will this Premier agree to establishing a non-partisan panel that will make recommendations on how to ensure election laws are fair for all Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not willing to delay the process. I’m not willing to slow it down. I’m not willing to buy into the stalling tactics of the opposition parties.

As I said, right now, my understanding is that the government House leader is having a conversation with the other House leaders about how the opposition parties might have input into the legislation, if they choose, before the legislation is drafted, but that obviously starts with the opposition parties actually coming forward with some substantive opinions about some of the issues that have to be grappled with in order to write the legislation. Then that legislation can go out and the opposition parties can call whomever they choose to come and speak to the legislation across the province.

That’s the definition of the democratic process as it works in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and as it works in the province of Ontario. I look forward to their participation in that.

Electoral reform

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question’s also for the Premier. The leaders of three of Ontario’s major political parties joined to say that our elections should be fair and Ontarians themselves should be involved at every step of the way if changes are going to be made. None of us is asking to be in charge, but we are saying that the Liberal Party shouldn’t be in charge of making the rules either. The rules that govern our democracy should be built fairly and they should be built to last, not made according to the whims of any one political party.

Will this Premier agree to create a panel, chaired by a neutral party, outside of this Legislature, with members from political parties, Ontarians and civil society, like business, labour and academia?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am quite confident that business and labour and academia—folks from each one of those sectors and beyond—will come to speak to the committee, to speak to the legislation after first reading. The whole point—

Mr. Randy Hillier: And be ignored, all of them.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hear the heckling on the other side. The point, just to inform the member opposite—

Mr. Randy Hillier: You ignore them all.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The point of sending the legislation out after first reading would be to hear that input, in order to be able to amend the legislation in ways that would be appropriate, given the remarks that will be heard at committee. That’s the whole point of sending it out after first reading. So I look forward to that debate, as the legislation comes forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, those of us on this side of the House are confident that regardless of what anybody says in a committee process that’s run by the Liberals, the Liberals will do whatever the heck they want at the end of the day. We see it over and over and over again.

Ontarians deserve to know—no matter who they are, how deep their pockets are or where they come from—that their voice will actually be heard. That’s why we need to make election laws with a process that is fair and that is open. Three of Ontario’s major political parties have set partisanship aside and agreed on the ground rules for a process that is fair, that is open, that is transparent and, most importantly, that is a process that Ontarians can have faith in.

Will this Premier do the right thing and agree to that process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the leader of the third party is preoccupied with the process, but there are some things we actually don’t need to consult on, and I’d be interested to know what they think about that.

For example, we don’t need to consult on whether or not we should move to a ban on union donations. We don’t believe we need to consult on a ban on corporate donations. We don’t think we need to consult on issues around reforming third-party advertising and putting maximum spending limits on third-party advertising. We don’t think we need to consult on the issue of whether we should reduce the maximum donations.

We have put forward our proposal. We really do hope—we really sincerely hope—that the opposition parties will participate in the legislation discussion. The Premier has welcomed your input. You are just focused on the process; we’re focused on action.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier of this province has an extremely important decision to make: She can agree with the growing consensus of political parties and civil society that changes to our election laws should be made based on fairness, consensus and with the approval of Ontarians, and establish a non-partisan advisory panel on political finance reform and election participation. Or she can go it alone, making all the decisions in the backrooms of the Premier’s office and ramming things through a Liberal-dominated committee, giving Ontarians more reason to be cynical about politics and this Liberal government.

Speaker, the question is very simple: Which is it going to be?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Can we have one idea from you? Just a little one?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, come to order.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: No ideas?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, in case you didn’t hear me, come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, he was late, so he probably didn’t get the—

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It is surprising and interesting that the leader of the third party is opposed to changes that the NDP government has made in Alberta. In Alberta, the NDP introduced

an Act to Renew Democracy in Alberta. The Premier introduced legislation, and then it was sent to committee for public consultations.

In fact, as you heard from the Premier, we’re adding an extra round of public consultations after first reading, which is a very unusual step—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask all members to come to order, because it’s not one side.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Here in Ontario, we’re consulting before we introduce the legislation. We believe it’s important to get this right. But we also believe it’s important that we get this done. We are moving forward because we think that this kind of reform needs to be made, and it needs to be made now.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Every week, we’re hearing about the crisis in health care, the rationing of our system that leaves many without health care services. Now we’re hearing that people will die due to the government’s mismanagement of the health care system.

Allo stem cell transplant is the only treatment for patients with acute leukemia, MDS or other life-threatening diseases. The Princess Margaret hospital is rejecting new patients requiring stem cell transplants because they’ve run out of money. The option now given to patients is to seek treatment in United States.

Ontarians expect our health care system to be better than that. Speaker, will the minister ensure that emergency funding is available so that Ontarians can receive the life-saving treatment they require in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question.

Mr. Speaker, our government has increased funding for stem cell transplants in this province by over 600% in the last four years. We’ve done this to meet increasing demands; I know the member opposite knows this as well.

This is a good thing. Recent advances, technological advances, and pharmaceutical advances in care have actually made stem cell transplants—particularly the allogeneic type; which is a transplant from a different donor into the individual—a safer and more effective option for more patients than ever before. We’re seeing the result of that technological advance in the increased opportunity for Ontarians to benefit from that procedure.

The increase in eligible patients: It is true and accurate that the wait times for stem cell transplants have grown in this province. That’s why our government is working to make sure that we meet that growing demand.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, you’re not meeting the growing demand. In fact, I find it insulting to the people of Ontario that the Ministry of Health has money to run radio ads promoting how great they are and not enough money for people needing cancer treatment.

Mr. Speaker, back to the minister: How many funding emergencies must Ontarians face before this government acts? Lack of funding for life-saving treatment is unacceptable.

For a treatment where time is of the essence, current patients at Princess Margaret must wait, on average, 200 days, which increases the chance of treatment failure. For new patients needing treatment, there is no viable option for transplants in the province. They must travel to another country.

Speaker, we have seen the rationing of care for mental health and dementia patients, and the rationing of care through postponement or complete cancellation of knee and hip surgeries across the province. But to ration life-saving treatment? Has the government’s mismanagement of health care reached a new low?

Speaker, will the minister stop the rationing and act now to ensure life-saving stem transplant is accessible—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, it’s somewhat hypocritical, because that member—

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s somewhat surprising, then, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite would take this particular approach. In fact, the entire opposition have voted against our budget that actually allocated nearly 30 million new dollars for stem cell transplants in this province. That money is flowing.

We’re aware of the operational concerns. There are six hospitals across this province that will benefit from that increased funding, but we’re also aware that we need to deal with these wait times immediately. That’s why Cancer Care Ontario is working with the patients and the hospitals currently on the wait-list to ensure that that out-of-country option is available for them if they choose it.

But it’s that $30-million investment that they voted against that will really make the difference, Mr. Speaker.

Electoral reform

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. In the past, the Premier has created expert panels to study everything from reports by other expert panels to what should be sold in grocery stores. But the Premier is dragging her feet on creating an independent panel that will make sure Ontarians can trust that new election rules that are developed are actually fair and put democratic values first. This is very different from other bills; this is a democratic bill that will address the way our elections are governed.

Will the Premier join with Democracy Watch, the NDP, the Greens and the PCs, and agree to establish a transparent, fast-moving, non-partisan panel willing to meet any deadline set to make sure that the new election rules are fair in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I will say to the member opposite: What’s more democratic than taking a bill to the democratic institution that is represented by people who have—elected those representatives? Speaker, there is nothing more democratic than this House.

I think the rhetoric coming from the NDP is very dangerous when they start arguing that somehow this place and the members who are elected in this House are not democratic and do not have the expertise, do not have the credentials and do not have the validity to work on issues such as reforming our campaign finance rules.

I ask the NDP to come forward with their substantive ideas so that we can work together, listen to experts within the legislative process and pass this very important piece of legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: What’s dangerous is when one party uses its majority to rewrite election rules in the province. That’s what is dangerous.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada said: “Electoral fairness is key. Where Canadians perceive election rules to be unfair, voter apathy follows shortly thereafter.” We want to ensure that people have trust in the process to ensure that the results are also very fair.

The Premier can show leadership today. She can agree to ensure that our election rules are made in an impartial manner through an independent panel that’s non-partisan and, most importantly, is based on consensus decision-making. In an open process, Ontarians can trust the results.

The question is simple: Will the Premier do the right thing? Will she ensure that an independent panel is struck that abides by the principles of consensus-based decisions, or will she go it alone and keep the process entirely under the control of the Liberal majority?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Basically, what the NDP process does is it prolongs this process and undermines bringing in new campaign financing rules in preparation for the next election. This side of the House—the government and the Premier—is not interested in prolonging this matter. We want to bring in the legislation this spring and, as a result, what we want to do is have very robust consultation both after the first reading and after the second reading in the Legislature.

I understand that the member opposite may be a little confused because we haven’t used that process where we can take a bill after first reading—but we have an amazing opportunity, through our rules, to take a bill right after first reading. We want to have those consultations throughout the summer, listen to the Chief Electoral Officer, listen to the leader of the Green Party and experts and Ontarians, and get their views so we can work together collaboratively and pass a piece of legislation that will foster democracy in Ontario.

Aboriginal programs and services

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We were all deeply saddened to hear about the tragic news at Attawapiskat last week. It’s important to note that our government took urgent steps to respond to their call for help. We’ve learned that Ontario is providing $2 million in immediate support and is addressing long-term assistance to the community at this time of need. It is the right thing to do. But Attawapiskat is just one of many communities in Ontario facing these sorts of challenges.

Could the minister please tell us how the government is working with indigenous communities to address the everyday challenges that they face?

Hon. David Zimmer: The health and well-being of all First Nations people is a priority for this government, especially those in communities like Attawapiskat and other remote First Nations.

I want to start by commending my colleagues the Minister of Health and the Minister of Children and Youth for their very swift response to the crisis in Attawapiskat.

Our government recognizes that more work needs to be done to improve the health status and overall well-being of people living in remote communities. That’s why our 2016 budget included greater investments in indigenous health services, access to education and northern infrastructure.

We also now have a federal partner that is willing to work with First Nations and provincial governments to maximize investments and to complement our work in addressing these issues. That was not the case with the previous federal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to thank the minister and his staff for all of their hard work on this very important issue.

The challenges these communities face are systemic: inadequate housing, risk of flooding, limited access to clean drinking water, and insufficient educational supports. These are issues affecting indigenous communities right across Ontario.

While we are now fortunate to have a federal government that is committed to working with our indigenous partners, Ontario does have a role to play. It’s very encouraging to see that in the 2016 budget we have included a number of very significant investments for indigenous people, such as funding our long-term strategy to combat violence against indigenous women.

Speaker, could the minister please tell us what our government is doing to help remote communities address the issues that they face?

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, in the 2016 budget we set out a number of commitments that benefit remote communities. Some of them are:

—$13 million to support indigenous communities’ fight to adapt to climate change and to develop microgrids and energy storage options;

—$100 million over three years for our long-term strategy to end violence against indigenous women and girls. This includes funding for additional front-line service workers to provide access to family services and $80 million for a new family well-being program to help families in crisis and support communities;

—other investments in indigenous health, such as additional funding for the Aboriginal Health and Wellness Strategy to address the very high costs of program delivery in remote communities, $1.3 million annually for Ontario’s Aboriginal Health Access Centres and $2 million for engagement on public mental health.

This government is very serious about addressing these issues, Speaker.

Post-secondary education

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is to the Premier. Laurentian University has made the decision to close its Barrie campus, in large measure because it was turned down by the government in its bid to expand to an independent campus, and in part because it was being forced by the government to restrict where and how it educated its student body. Ultimately, it all comes back to funding. Without transitional dollars, hundreds of students will be displaced from the Barrie campus of Laurentian before they finish their degrees.

Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing? Will she and her government provide transitional funding for these students to remain in Barrie to finish their degrees?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think it’s important to note on this issue that our government has been committed to trying to figure out how to make sure that students who are in Simcoe county do have good access to post-secondary education.

In fact, we worked extensively with Georgian College, with Laurentian and with Lakehead, who all have a presence in Barrie, to figure out how we can expand that access to high-quality, degree-level education in Barrie and Orillia and other communities in Simcoe county. In fact, we went so far as to have John Gerretsen work with them all last summer.

However, as the member has noted, Laurentian has decided to close its campus in Barrie, and they are working with—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Again to the Premier: Students thought they were entering a contractual relationship when they signed into their university programs in Barrie. One of the terms was rightly assumed to be, “The school will be here while I’m finishing my degree.” Now it won’t be for so many of them. Speaker, why can’t students at Laurentian in Barrie finish their degrees the way they started: in Barrie?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, I want to assure you that we have been working with Laurentian and working with students who, understandably, want to complete their degrees. Of the 220 students that have been affected, 105 have already chosen to continue their degree on the Sudbury campus of Laurentian. I understand that half of them have actually already started classes recently or will very soon.

But the students will have a range of options: As I’ve noted, some of them will be completing their degrees at the Sudbury campus; some of the students will be able to complete a three-year bachelor of arts degree in Barrie, at the Georgian-Lakehead campus; and some of them are opting to transfer to another university with a letter of permission from the faculty to take courses at another university.

Pay equity

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. In 2008, the Equal Pay Coalition released detailed recommendations on how to eliminate the gender wage gap by 2025. Eight years later, the gap remains stuck at around 30%, and Ontarians have yet to see specific, concrete actions to close the gap from the Premier or her government.

How can Ontarians have confidence in the Premier’s commitment to eliminate the gender wage gap when her 2016 budget did not include any of the key strategies recognized as essential to achieve equal pay, such as investments in child care, and the Liberal government has consistently failed to enforce its own pay equity and employment standards laws?

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank my critic for this very important question and for asking it today, on Equal Pay Day.

As the critic knows, it’s in my mandate letter as well as the Minister of Labour’s mandate letter to develop a wage gap strategy to ensure that we close that gap.

We want women to achieve their full economic potential. We want fairness. We want equitable treatment in workforces. Closing that gap is important to families as well, not just to women themselves.

We appointed a steering committee last year to lead the development of that wage gap strategy, and the minister and I met with the panel just this morning. A number of consultations were held throughout the province, and a

summary of what was heard is made public on the Ministry of Labour’s website.

We know there’s more to do, Speaker. The Minister of Labour and I are deeply committed to addressing this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Women in Ontario have waited too long for the Premier to make the changes that are necessary to close the gap. The Premier has ignored the actions that can be taken right now, like child care funding and enforcing labour laws—actions that do not require the report of the gender wage gap steering committee. And despite the gender lens mandate that was given to the minister responsible for women’s issues, it is clear that no effort was made to apply a gender and equity lens to the 2016 budget.

Once the final report of the gender wage gap steering committee is received in May, will the Premier make the report public and will she move immediately to implement the recommendations? Or will Ontarians have to wait another eight years or longer to see any concrete action?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for the question.

I want to thank the steering committee for the tremendous work they’ve done on behalf of this House, travelling throughout the province of Ontario, talking to people, getting advice from those people, getting ideas as to how we can close the gender wage gap. These are our mothers, our granddaughters, our sisters, our aunts. There’s nobody in this House who agrees that a gender wage gap should still exist in 2016.

These people are bringing forward their ideas. There’s a process that’s been put in place. I want to thank everybody that’s taken

part in this process to date: 530 people came forward; almost 1,500 people sent in their ideas.

A report was received today; the recommendations will follow very shortly; the implementation phase comes after that. I look forward to the support of all members of the House in the implementation phase.

Pay equity

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Today is Equal Pay Day, a day to raise awareness of the earnings gap between men and women in Ontario. Members of this House may not know, but the day is calculated each year to mark the extra time it takes a woman to earn as much as a man.

Men in Ontario earned an average of $50,000 while it took women until April 20 the following year to earn the same amount.

Based on the most recent Statistics Canada data, Ontario’s gender wage gap ranges from 14% to 32%. The Royal Bank of Canada estimated that personal incomes would be $168 billion higher each year if women in Canada had the same labour market opportunities as men.

More must be done in the province of Ontario to level the playing field. Speaker, through you to the minister: How is Ontario helping to end the gender wage gap?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to thank the honourable member for that important question following up on the other one.

Many people have talked about this issue over the years. This government is doing something about it. What we’ve done is, we’ve got people from around this province who have an expertise in this issue. They’ve gone around this province. They’ve spoken to people. They’ve consulted with experts in the field. They’re bringing us back their best advice.

It’s unacceptable that women still don’t get paid as well, or have the same opportunities, as men in our society. We, as a group, need to change that by demolishing the barriers that have held us back from progress in the past.

Others have talked about it in the past. This is a government that’s acting on it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to thank the minister for his answer.

I understand that the gender wage gap is a complex issue caused by many factors. We know that all women across the economic spectrum are affected by the wage gap, but the gap is more pronounced for women who are minorities, aboriginal, newcomers or living with disabilities. I also know that other factors intersect with gender to compound the wage gap. This is something I heard that the steering committee no doubt addresses, but more must be done.

Can the minister please share steps the government has taken to ensure equality in the workplace for women?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I agree with the member and I agree with the opposition that there’s much more work to do. But let’s not lose sight of what we have done and what we’re continuing to do, including significant investments in child care, continuing to implement full-day kindergarten, and helping low-income women learn new skills, change careers and secure better-paying jobs through the Women in Skilled Trades and Information Technology Training program. The Women’s Directorate funds programs for women who have experienced abuse, or who are at risk, to develop new skills and have those opportunities to find employment and achieve that economic security.

These are just a few of the many programs that our government invests in. I’m very proud of these investments, as we continue to take meaningful steps towards equality for women.

Climate change / Changement climatique

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Premier.

Since the Premier failed to answer my question yesterday, I think we can assume that she did in fact write the Liberals’ cap-and-trade bill at her kitchen table over the weekend. Unfortunately, the result has been a shoddy piece of legislation that the government is now rewriting on the fly.

To hide the mess she has created with this bill, the Premier has now ordered her members to stop government lawyers and officials from answering serious questions in committee.

So I have to ask, Speaker: Does the Premier think it’s appropriate to muzzle government lawyers and officials when elected representatives ask tough questions about the cap-and-trade scheme?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: First of all, we have had four discussion papers on cap-and-trade and carbon pricing over the last 10 years.

Second, in the last year, we’ve spent an entire year consulting on what approach to take. The broad consensus from industry—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We’ve been a member of the Western Climate Initiative for a decade and worked on designing this with experts from across North America. In our one-year consultation, which was purely on whether we would use a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, we listened—

Mr. John Yakabuski: No more Twitter for you, Glen, if that code of conduct passes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right, I’ve a good memory. The member from Renfrew, the member from Stormont and the member from Huron–Bruce—who asked the question—come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The strong consensus from experts, from the business environmental community, was to go with the cap-and-trade system, and that it not be revenue-neutral, that there was money to invest in the transformation of industry.

But the member has been talking over me, as she did—20-minute breaks, three times every committee, filibustering and destroying the entire committee process.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: You know what, Speaker? No matter how they spin this, this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Lisa, could you take some Kleenex to Glen for committee?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re not helping. I’m trying to get them to be quiet.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s two for you.

Finish, please.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: No matter how they spin this, this government owns some of the worst legislation ever to hit this floor. Cap-and-trade is no different.

Again, back to the Premier: The environment minister admitted yesterday that the Liberals’ cap-and-trade bill is “one of the most complex pieces of legislation ever introduced into the Legislature.” A part of the complexity is the result of poor drafting. The Liberals have more than 70 amendments to their own bill, and now they’re attempting to strong-arm committee members into rubber-stamping each of their changes. They are now even muzzling government lawyers and officials in committee to prevent these people from speaking the truth about the cap-and-trade system that they’ve devised. These tactics are not acceptable.

Will the Premier for once do the right thing, withdraw 172—Bill 172, to be specific—and begin developing a revenue-neutral plan?

It’s not complicated. These are lawyer, technical amendments that come with every bill. Why doesn’t the opposition agree to quickly pass all of the legal, technical and translation matters and we’d be down to a couple of matters? Because they’re trying to obstruct the bill and they’ve said that.

I want to thank the member for Toronto–Danforth—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I tried. The member from Huron–Bruce, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for Toronto–Danforth and the third party, who have been incredibly constructive, have worked to improve this legislation and have been extremely facilitative.

The member for Huron–Bruce and her party have done nothing but delay, call breaks and prevent other members from actually discussing the bill.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Last Friday, parents, along with opposition MPPs, held protests across the province against the government’s decision to remove children five and over from essential autism therapy. While most Liberal MPPs refused to make contact with parents and defend themselves, some made factually incorrect statements, claiming the creation of 16,000 new IBI spaces. When it comes to our most vulnerable kids, you would think that the government members would at least understand the devastating impacts of their decisions.

The minister is about to get up and claim that, in the name of science, she had to remove children five and over from the list. That’s simply not true. Can the minister tell me on what page the clinical expert committee recommends kicking children with ASD over five off the list?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very proud of the changes we’re making to the autism service program in the name of children in this province. I’m also very proud of all of the MPPs on this side of the House.

If others on the other side of the House actually met with their constituents and actually received people in their offices on Friday—I did the same thing. I continued to talk to families about the changes to this program. It’s very important that we have those conversations so that the facts are clear and so that the new investment of $333 million—it’s understood how that will be used and it is understood that there will be 16,000 new therapy spaces for children going forward.

It’s very important to note that we are not removing children from services; we’re moving them from wait-lists and putting them into immediate service. It’s very important that kids get continuity of service.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Since the minister did not answer my question, I guess that the report did not say what she’s claiming that it does. If the report doesn’t recommend removing children five and over with ASD from the list, then this must be about money. Children with ASD should not be paying the price for this government’s failure to invest properly in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Finish, please.

Miss Monique Taylor: This government has already failed children with autism, forcing them to wait years on a list, and is now telling them that they will never get access to that therapy just so that this government could make a good-news PR announcement about reducing the wait-list. That’s shameful.

This is leaving lives hanging in the balance. Speaker, will the minister do the right thing and immediately reverse her decision to remove children five and over with ASD from the list of essential therapy?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yes, of course I’ve read the clinical expert committee. Anyone who’s read it will understand that their advice is that there are better outcomes to be achieved for children in those early developmental windows. We’re acknowledging that. But at the same time, Speaker—

Miss Monique Taylor: Right, but it doesn’t say they can’t g