 It is now time for oral questions. The Leader of Her Majesty's Royal Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Financial Accountability Officer released another damning report this week, this time about your government's promise to balance the budget by 2017-2018. His conclusion was this, if revenue and spending continue as they have been for the past four years, your government will run a deficit of $3.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, they've backed themselves into a corner. They have no way out other than to raise taxes or cut services. Will the Minister of Finance tell us exactly what taxes he's going to raise and what services he is going to cut? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to first acknowledge and thank the Financial Accountability Officer for his report. We have a strong working relationship, recognizing that we want full transparency and integrity of the work that we're doing, and that is being recognized and acknowledged by the FAO. He further says the following, Mr. Speaker. The province would appear to be on track to be the 2015-16 deficit target, and that is what he says. He says in the last three years, following the recession on tears, been able to achieve steady improvements in his fiscal position. We are exceeding our targets. We have, for the past six years running, will continue to do what's necessary in light of the challenges that face us as we have every year, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary? Mr. Speaker, again, the Minister of Finance, really you're thanking the Financial Accountability Officer for saying that your numbers don't add up. What is more remarkable is this government's call, what they call the plan for Ontario. Health funding has grown by 3% on average in the past, but the government will now have to cut that in half. How? The Financial Accountability Officer says through measures to reduce physician fees. Education funding is projected to be cut in half as well. How? The FAO says through measures to accommodate school space. Other programs are supposed to decline by 6.1%. How? The Financial Accountability Officer says through the elimination of Ontario's clean energy benefit. Mr. Speaker, they want to cut funding to doctors, close needed schools, and raise hydroids all because of their incompetence. Is this acceptable? Thank you. Minister of Finance? Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, if I recall, comes from the Harper Holdovers. This is the man that did not respect the parliamentary officers' reports and their work, Mr. Speaker. We do. He further goes on to talk about all the work that's necessary to recalibrate our spending. The things that we have achieved and are continuing to do, and we're being targeted and we're being strategic, what they've offered in the past was a cross-the-board cut, harmed our recovery. If it's any more than this, I'll move as quickly as I can to an area that I don't like to do, but I will use. Please finish. And I understand he doesn't like to talk about the past because the past doesn't suit his needs. But the fact of the matter is, he was the federal governor, they had tremendous surprises that were left over, they squandered it, they went through multiple deficits, doubled their debt, and we still today are looking for that. Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, against the Minister of Finance, dodge, deny, deflect, blame everyone else, defend your own ideas if you believe in your plan, defend it. Don't blame and attack others. Mr. Speaker, the FAO says the government won't meet their revenue projections this year and they'll come up short on revenue every year until 2017-18. Even if you continue to gut health and education, you won't achieve balance. Even if you continue to raise hydro rates to record heights, you won't achieve balance. Mr. Speaker, when you think about it, 1.1 billion wasted on the gas plants, 2 billion on smart meters, 1.1 billion on e-health, and another billion on orange. If you combine all the scandals, that's over $4 billion, that's your deficit right there. Is this acceptable? And mentioned in the House, we're in this situation. Thank you. Please. Thank you. Good choice. I just want to remind the member, third person to the chair, and I will remind all members that the debate is better controlled and has more substance when you use third person, tested and true, to the chair. Both answer and question. Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, the mess that was left was a $5.6 billion hidden deficit when he took order. The member also- Again, I'll remind you that you don't know when I'm going to decide to talk to somebody. I also want to say that it's not helpful when all sides yell back and forth. It's not productive. And the gesture doesn't work. Finish please. Mr. Speaker, the F.E.O. goes on to say that he expects us that we will meet our deficit targets, that we are exceeding our balance year-over-year, that we have achieved tremendous results in face of challenging times. The member from Renfrew and Nipissing, Pembroke, come to order. And that requires determination and a balanced approach in achieving those results. And that's exactly what we have been doing, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what they've done in the past. Thank you. New question. The member from Nipissing. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Finance Minister. This morning, the Financial Accountability Officer confirmed what the Ontario P.C. Caucus has been saying for nearly two years. You have a multi-billion dollar hole in your budget. The F.E.O. expects a $3.5 billion deficit in 2017-18, the year you told Ontarians you'd balance. In fact, he said it could be $7.4 billion if the numbers are even more wrong than current. He also affirmed, quote, economic growth in 2015 is expected to be significantly lower than projected and will result in up to $1 billion less in revenue than expected this year. So, Speaker, is the Minister raising taxes or can we expect more taxes to healthcare? Thank you. Minister of Finance. Well, the member obviously wants a vote from the Financial Accountability Officer, so allow me to do so. It says on page two, the government's history of managing program spending below budget protection should be more than offset by the impact of lower revenue. Well, there you go. He further says it appears that the province is on track to beat its deficit targets. He also says in the three years following the recession, Ontario was able to achieve steady improvements in its fiscal position, reducing the deficit. He goes on to explain that there are times that are challenging. We recognize that. We've been saying that all along. And as a result, we have that to recoup and recalibrate our spending. That is why we have a line by line program review of all that we do in a strategic way, not across the board cuts as proposed by the opposition, but ensuring that we stimulate the economy, ensuring that we protect those programs, and ensuring that we balance the books by 2017-18 as we are doing. And we're on target to do just that. Thank you. I don't know what book the minister read, but in the book that we were given, his numbers are wrong. The FAO expects a $3.5 billion deficit. We've been telling them they're wrong. And today, the FAO confirmed that. In order to balance, he said you have to reduce the deficit, quote, at a rate of improvement nearly four times greater than the pace of the last four years. It's clear that this repeated pattern of scandal and mismanagement is now coming home to roost for the people of Ontario. Ontario is at real risk of being stuck in a perpetual deficit under their watch. Speaker, will the fall economic statement recognize the fiscal risks pointed out by the officer this morning and provide realistic numbers, unlike the fluffy projections we've been getting for the past two years? Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada has consistently year over year reaffirmed that Ontario's representation integrity of our numbers outpaced the rest of Canada. We have been very open. We have, in all economic statements and in our budget, been very clear what those challenges are, what it is that we must do in order to achieve our balance. We have also been clear that we must invest in those initiatives that make us competitive long term. The member opposite would rather us fill in those very holes that Edmonton crossed down, which the Minister of Transport only today recognized the importance of making those investments under budget, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the people of Ontario. They didn't want to do that. They don't want to invest. They don't want to provide for economic stimulus. They would rather us go back in time and, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to do that. We are looking forward to promoting more growth in the province of Ontario and balancing our books at the same time. Back to the Minister. Speaker, last week, the officer told us that the Hydro One sale will make Ontario's books look better this year and then fall off the cliff in the years ahead. He's basically now reconfirmed that in his forecast today. This is important because he stated Ontario's revenue would be reduced by $2 billion in 2016-17 and reduced by a further $2.8 billion in 2017-18. So we know that their own law puts the asset proceeds into general revenues, not directly into the trillion trust. So now we know that they're going to pay for this fiscal mismanagement with the Hydro sale instead of infrastructure, Speaker. So I asked the minister to come clean. Isn't the Hydro One sale really just a way to get one-time cash to cover over your record of waste, scandal, and mismanagement before the next election? Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the critic for finance hasn't really read the report. He's making assumptions on Hydro One's asset, which is not even baked into these conditions, Mr. Speaker. He references the member from Prince Edward Hastings come to order, the member from Barry come to order. Thank you. Carry on, please. And Mr. Speaker, we've been very clear that dollar for dollar all of those proceeds are being reinvested into infrastructure, and that has been stated and reaffirmed by the financial accountability officer in his first report, nonetheless. What the member opposite fails to see or wishes not to is in fact that we have taken steps necessary to control our spending. We have become the lowest cost government anywhere in Canada as a result of those initiatives that we've taken. The FAO report has also affirmed that to be so. We must do more to promote revenue, and we must do more to control our spending. We're doing all of that, and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question, the leader of the third party. Thank you very much, Speaker. My questions for the acting Premier. Today, Ontario's financial accountability officer showed that the only way the Liberals can keep their promise to balance the budget is with more cuts. The 2015 budget froze hospital budgets. We've seen what that looks like, Speaker. Firing nurses, closed beds, and hospitals in gridlock. The FAO says the only way the government can meet its targets is to cut even more, Speaker. So how many more doctors and nurses will the Liberals be firing? How many more hospital beds will they close, Speaker? Thank you, acting Premier. Actually, the FAO report noted that, in fact, control spending has occurred in its province. He has indicated that we've had to do some tough decisions. The member from Renfrews, second time. Member from Leeds, Granville, first. Please finish. And he further noted that we have increased funding for healthcare and for education, and for social programs that are so critical in our society. But we're doing it in a very controlled manner, and we're ensuring that we don't compromise the services that are important to Ontarians, while ensuring also we balance the books and take the necessary steps to be financially viable for the long term, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, supplementary. The 2015 budget froze education spending, and we've seen the chaos that this has created, Speaker. But the FAO says to keep the promise to balance the books, the government will have to further slash education funding and close even more schools, Speaker. We've already seen education workers fired, and schools closed in communities across this province. How much more chaos will children and families have to endure as this government continues to fire education workers and close schools? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party, the NDP, seems her favorite word of all time is can't, right? She can't. She says we can't balance. She says we can't maximize value of public assets. She says we can't make investments in public transit in her own community, no less. It's so obvious that she's so negative that she can't even keep her team happy, Mr. Speaker, and I can't blame them either. Just a, excuse me. I am. Let's make sure the tone stays the way it should be in this place. Final supplement. Speaker, in the last budget, the government planned to slash over $3 billion in services over the next three years. Now the FAO says the Liberals will have to cut even deeper in order to keep their promise. We've already seen nurses fired, Speaker. Education workers fired, hospital beds closed, schools closed. What other services are families in Ontario going to be losing with this government? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the FAO said the following. In the three years following the recession, Ontario has able to achieve steady improvements in its fiscal position. That was on page eight. He said healthcare spending increased by 1.8%. Well, below the previous average pace of 3%. However, it's increasing as opposed to decreasing. And education spending projected to grow by 1.3% nearly half the pace of previous years, but increasing still, Mr. Speaker. Spending and other programs are declining as necessary to ensure that we provide the appropriate services while still balancing the books. And we are doing just that. We are increasing and providing support where it's necessary, ensuring that we provide the services that people of Ontario depend upon. We'll continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question is also to the Acting Premier. When the Premier first announced her scheme to sell off Hydro One, Ed Clark said it was worth $15 billion. But the FAO showed that as of October, it's only worth $11.9 billion. That's a gap that will have to be filled if the Premier is gonna keep her promise to build transit. Will this government be slashing from other areas, putting another revenue-generating public asset on the auction block? Or will they be breaking their promise to build transit and infrastructure? Will this Acting Premier tell us how exactly the Liberals are gonna make up the difference? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the market has priced the deal. And it's at the high end. So the gap that you speak of isn't the case. But notwithstanding, what's important to note is that the tremendous amount of capital infusion into the Trillium Trust is being dedicated dollar for dollar for public transit and for the projects of priority in our municipalities to ensure that we reinvest it so that we can get greater returns. Conference Board of Canada estimates that for every dollar we invest in infrastructure and in these programs, it produces about $1.43 back. That's much more than the current rate of return on Hydro-1. And at the same time, we own Hydro-1 and we'll get the benefit of those appreciation of values as well, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, supplementary. Mr. Speaker, when the Premier announced the plan to sell off Hydro-1, she claimed that it would reduce the provincial debt. In fact, the sell-off will increase the debt, Speaker. People won't pay less for electricity, Speaker. They're going to be paying more. In the long term, it will mean less money, not more for services that Ontarians rely on like healthcare and education. And it barely scratches the surface of what this province needs to invest in infrastructure and transit. Will the acting Premier and the Liberal government admit that Ontarians and the independent watchdogs are right that the government is wrong and stop the sell-off of Hydro-1? Thank you. Thank you, Premier. Mr. Speaker, the FEO, even this morning, reaffirmed the fact that while he was evaluating the Hydro-1, he did so on a standalone basis. He didn't look at the merits and he said so specifically that he wasn't going to. But others have independent writers from the Globe and Mail and the Post and others have noted that the returns that will accrue to the province are much greater. The net benefit will be better for the province after we do this transaction. And he says the following, this report does not seek to assess the merits of the decision of Hydro-1. He fully states that the results of this analysis are sensitive to the timing of subsequent activity, recognizing that there is more to be done in replacement of that foregone revenue. He says that the forecasts are subject to changes in the financial performance of Hydro-1, which is obvious, because we know Hydro-1 can do better. And the impact on the balanced budget would depend on market conditions and policy decisions around the repayment of the sector and that. And I can assure everyone in this House that the transaction that's going to follow the next few days, one billion of that goes to pay down debt. Thank you. Final supplementary. The financial accountability officer said that Hydro-1 sell-off won't raise the money that the Premier promised. It won't lower debt, like the Premier promised. Every time we learn something new about the Hydro-1 sell-off, the deal gets worse and worse for Ontarians. How bad does this deal have to get for the people of Ontario before this Liberal government does the right thing, steps up to the plate, and pulls the plug on this terrible deal? Minister? Mr. Speaker, in the post today, it talks about Hydro-1 in the upside of the sale. Maybe I can refer the member opposite to review and look at what other experts are saying in regards to this transaction. She's only harping on the foregone revenue, which we acknowledge would be the case as we provide our prospectus and the report. But it is being mitigated and replaced by greater revenue and greater returns to the province on the other side, Mr. Speaker. The transaction pays down substantive debt, lowers costs, lowers interest, and lowers risk to the government. It retains ownership of Hydro-1 to benefit us from those appreciation and value and possible dividends. We're also the government who will tax the system on an ongoing basis in the future, Mr. Speaker. All of that is being retained, is being protected, and the people and the ratepayers will still have the benefit of the OEB to control any exposure to the consumers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No question, a member from Leeds, Grenville? Thanks, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Speaker, it's clear the minister intends to amend the Municipal Act to allow all municipalities to create a land transfer tax. This will double the amount of land taxes, do it closing on the average home in Ontario to over $10,000. For many Ontarians, this will crush their dreams of owning their own home. That's why yesterday I tabled my motion calling on this House to take a stand against any new municipal land transfer taxes. Speaker, is the minister so out of touch with the struggles of Ontario families that he thinks they have an extra $10,000 under the mattress to pay his double-dipping land tax? Here you go, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, I take no advice from the party that downloaded billions of dollars in services to the property tax base. And the member opposite knows very well that we are currently reviewing the Municipal Act and listening to input. Excuse me. Again, I comment on the conversation that seems to be deteriorating. And against what I've asked for in terms of names, highly inappropriate, guys. Let's finish, please. Thanks, Speaker. What this is about, Mr. Speaker, and what I'm asking myself and asking Ontarians to think about is this, do our municipalities have the tools they need to provide for the services their citizens want? And what options can municipalities have to get the job done? Thank you. The member from Sturmont, second time. Supplementary. Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Speaker, Ontarians are sick and tired that the answer to every single question facing this government is to invent a new tax, a carbon tax, commuter tax, beer tax, pension tax. It all adds up to tax increases of $30 billion on their watch. Now they want to tax the dream of home ownership. My motion says enough is enough. Just because the minister has no plan to manage the issues raised by municipalities doesn't give him the right to download the burden onto the backs of hardworking young families. Either the minister believes they should have the same ability as their parents and grandparents to save for their own home, or he doesn't. Speaker, will he prove it? If he does, by supporting my motion on December 3. Can you see it, please? Thank you. Any decisions yet? We're listening carefully. But at the end of the day, it's municipalities who need to decide what works best for their communities. That's their job as responsible leaders. But I think it's time my friend came clean about his real motives here. His party has always stood for downloading more and more responsibilities to municipalities without any thought about how they're supposed to deliver those services. As a former mayor of a small municipality, I am keenly aware of the damage caused by the previous PC government that burdened Ontario's 444 municipalities when they downloaded. Remember from Leeds, Grenville, second time. Wrap up, please? Yes. The way his party treated municipalities when they were in power, they didn't have a ministry of municipal affairs. They had a ministry of downloads. Thank you. You see it? New question? Remember from Kitchener on the roof. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Finance. Today's FAO report shows that this government plans to balance its books by deeply cutting and slashing program spending because this minister's revenue projections were way off, Mr. Speaker. The 2015 budget showed Ontarians that the government is cutting program spending in real terms 5.5% in other programs. Now we have learned from the FAO that programs that are extremely important to the people of this province, Ontario families, like health and education, are going to be cut even further. Yesterday, we learned that there are 16,000 children who have autism who are in a wait list, Mr. Speaker. Minister, can you shed some light for Ontarians and tell them what program cuts are in store for them? Thank you, Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. And again, I appreciate the work done by the FAO in recognizing that there are challenges that the provinces faces as does Canada, for that matter, as does other parts and other economies around the world. In Ontario, notwithstanding, the FAO has reaffirmed this, has exceeded its targets. In fact, our ability to gain greater employment was at a faster pace in the United States. Our ability to control spending also outpaced the rest of Canada, but Mr. Speaker, he noted that we are supporting health care and education and social programs. And when it comes to autism, we all recognize the great need that exists in our community. The province of Ontario has invested over $140 million in supporting autism. We'll continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. That is not being sacrificed as we proceed to balance. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister, you will not balance your books by 2017-18 because your revenue projections, for some reason, you built them into the economic forecasting using the wrong GDP levels. And the only way that you're going to balance your budget in 2017-18 is by hurting the people of this province. Mr. Speaker, since this Liberal government took power, Ontarians have seen hospital budgets frozen, nurses fired, heartbreaking wait lists growing for services like autism therapy, all of which have had a significant impact on the people of this province. Now with today's FAO report showing such significant risk in this government's fiscal plan, I have to ask the minister what cuts are coming. Will more nurses be fired? Will more schools be closed? Will poverty be funding be cut again? The people of this province have a right to know. That's the store for them. Thank you very much. Thank you. Minister? Mr. Speaker, the comments made are just untrue. The fact of the matter is, no, I'd say the fact is, we have based our assumptions and our forecasts on economists from across Canada. We've taken their projections, and we pared them down by an additional point. And we did so every year. In fact, last year, revenues were down by $2.2 billion. And still, we exceeded our targets because of what we had to do to recalibrate and control our spending. So we'll continue to do that even now. Contrary to what the member just said, the FAO very clearly stated that we're on track, that we're able to meet our targets, notwithstanding some of the challenges before us. Furthermore, it is questionable how it is, and it's why it's so difficult, that the member opposite only sees it from one point of view. We must take a balance point, Mr. Speaker, and that's to ensure that we look at the benefits and the work that's necessary to support the people. Before we move on, let's make something clear. On the edge, there are always insinuations, whether they are that we can't say it if we say it right out. And if you try to say it in another way, I'm just going to ask all members, including the minister, that it's pretty obvious that there could be an insinuation of what was just said. So I'm going to caution all members to stop trying to find words that you think you can say. So if you don't mind, I'd like to rule. So I'm asking the minister to withdraw. I'm asking the minister to withdraw under the premise that I did think that it was an inappropriate comment. I would draw. I'm using this as a moment for all members to make an attempt to try to elevate the debate no matter what. That should be your first focus. Thank you. New question, the member from Etobicoke Center. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the minister of finance. Speaker, something that I have heard consistently from my constituents in Etobicoke Center is how important it is that we manage taxpayer dollars wisely and that we balance the budget so that we can continue to invest in the services that the people of Ontario need and rely on. And that's why I'm so proud to work with the president of the Treasury Board, the minister of finance, and other members of caucus to make sure we do just that. I'm someone who's a management consultant and someone who's taught at York University in the business school. And I share the view of my constituents that this is truly important. On that note, minister, I understand that this morning the financial accountability officer released a report titled, Assessment of Ontario's Medium Term Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Providing independent analysis is on the state of Ontario's economy, is a key component of Mr. Leclerc's mandate. And I know that our government first established this office in 2013 to further our commitment to fiscal transparency, to accountability. And I believe that Ontario is the only province in Canada to appoint such an officer. So Mr. Speaker, to the minister, could you please provide my constituents and the people of Ontario with your update on the report released this morning by the financial accountability officer? Yeah. Minister? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the member for the question. I first want to thank Stephen Leclerc, Ontario's financial accountability officer, for his report. The FAO serves an important public service in providing independent analysis to the assembly about the state that promises finances. I enjoy a positive working relationship with Mr. Leclerc, and I welcome and value his independent analysis of our province's finances. The FAO's report released today affirms our 2015-16 deficit target. This is the lowest deficit projection in Ontario since the onset of the global recession. Mr. Leclerc further acknowledges in his analysis that eliminating the deficit by 1718 is achievable and highlights that the province will be on track to beat its deficit target yet again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Two supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the minister of finance. So I'm pleased to hear that our government has established a good working relationship with Mr. Leclerc's office. And I'm glad that Mr. Leclerc has affirmed a few things. One is our ability to balance the budget. One of the scenarios agree that we will meet our deficit target of 8.5 billion for 2015-16 and acknowledge that we have managed program spending below budget projections. However, I'm sure, minister, that the people I represent in Etobicoke Center would like to hear a little bit more about the specifics of the report. I understand that Mr. Leclerc's report focuses on Ontario's fiscal and economic situation, taking into account projections in our 2015 budget. The report also examines certain economic trends over the past 15 years to provide historical context for the province's fiscal outlook. So minister, could you please comment on Ontario's progress both on an economic and on a fiscal basis? Thank you, minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you again to the member for the question. Ontario's economy continues to grow at a modest pace despite a challenging and changing global landscape. In his report, the FAO points to several external factors over the last decade that have had an impact on Ontario's economy. However, the FAO states that following the recession, employment rebounded relatively quickly in Ontario. He also pointed out that the pace of Ontario's job recovery following the global recession was much quicker than in the United States or other G7 countries. From a fiscal perspective, the FAO also applauds our ability to manage program spending. In his report, he points out on page 12 that in 2013-14 and 14-15, program spending was $1.2 billion lower each year than the original budget plan projection. As a result, he says it is reasonable to expect the government will continue to be able to manage program spending for 2015-16 below the original budget plan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the FAO once again for his hard work and I look forward to continuing our positive relationship. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Yesterday, Speaker, we heard from Ontario's Acting Environmental Commissioner that this Liberal government has been ignoring the small things that matter. And, Speaker, we all know why. They're so busy being preoccupied managing its blunders like the sell-off of Hydro-1 and scandals like the Sudbury by-election than being busy with the environment. In her report, the commissioner highlighted several areas the government is failing our environment, one being, and I quote, the many gaps in knowledge that still exist on the subject of neonicotinoids need to be addressed promptly. She goes on to state, the ECO encourages the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to fund independent research examining neonicotinoids and their effects on food chains and ecosystems from an Ontario perspective. Research not in. My question for the Minister should have a straightforward answer. Does he agree with the environmental commissioners and that there needs to be more Ontario-focused science-based research conducted with regards to neonics? Thank you. Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker and to the member opposite. It's a peculiar question since the Environmental Commissioner's report last year demanded that the government take action to reduce neonicotinoids based on the large volume of evidence globally. In the intervening year, Mr. Speaker, from Harvard University, University of Mississauga, Sussex University of Toronto, there is a larger body of research on neonicotinoids. As a matter of fact, we're doing research on our water systems and Quebec is in the middle of a major research where they found systemic neurotoxic pesticides in all 20 of their rivers, Mr. Speaker. We have said that we're applying the precautionary principle. We continue to monitor and support and work with the best research centres in the world. And the evidence is on the side of the prudent action we are taking, which is to start to reduce annually the amount of this very dangerous toxin, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the minister's puffed up rhetoric is showing that he is continuing to ignore the Environmental Commissioner. She specifically asked the minister to conduct Ontario-based science-based research. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? We need to see this minister focusing in on the policies regarding neonicotinoids here in Ontario. But this Liberal government is moving ahead without the facts and they're banning them in the agricultural sector. So, Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this. Will he heed the advice and the recommendation from the Environmental Commissioner and will he agree to halt the ban on neonicotinoids until Ontario-based research is completed? That is what the commissioner's asking for. Will he do it? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the member opposite been. There have been several studies published on Ontario, including by Purdue University. And the member should read some of the things I sent her because of the 19 studies done by Purdue University, one of the leading agriculture universe, five of them were done in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Five of them were done in Ontario. Sussex University. The member knows better to do that and I would like to hear the answer. Sussex University, Mr. Speaker. Guelph University, University of Minnesota, Dr. Marla Spivak, one of the world's leading experts. And, Mr. Speaker, we're not banning them. That is completely not true. I have visited about three dozen farms. I talked to farmers. There are many farmers that are using it. But, Mr. Speaker, what the opposition is proposing is that we should use pesticides prophylactically where there are not wireworms and there are not straws. Could the member explain why we should use pesticides where the very, very pests that they're supposed to address are not even present? Thank you. Because that's the position of her party, Mr. Speaker. Good question, Mr. Member from Hamilton Mountain. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the acting Premier. Speaker, let's take a trip down memory lane on this government's record for wait lists, for autism services. In 2004, the Deputy Premier said, and I quote, the waiting lists are simply too long. There are too many kids who aren't getting what they need. End of quote. Five years later, the Deputy Premier said, and I quote, clearly the wait list is not acceptable. End of quote. Yesterday, the same Deputy Premier suggested that 16,000 kids on a wait list for autism service was government progress. The government could not plead ignorance. They have known for years about the devastating impacts of these wait lists. Will the acting Premier admit that this government has failed kids with autism and their families? Thank you. And Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the question and the concerns that we all share in this House. I understand that families caring for young people with autism indeed face unique challenges. We recognize that wait lists for services remain a concern. In recent years, the prevalence of autism has increased from 1 to 100 to 1 in 68 children. We're working hard to address this issue because we know that we need to make further progress for these children, especially for their families. Our government has introduced a range of programs as the member knows to help children and youth with autism, to build system capacity, to improve supports in schools and support families. This year, we're investing over 190 million in autism services and an increase of over 100 million since 2004, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. Back to the acting Premier. Yesterday, Minister of Children Youth Services said she didn't think there was a decrease in the number of spots available for ABA and IBI services, but the estimates show that the number of spaces has decreased for ABA services. Families have made plea after plea to this minister to deal with the wait list to ensure that kids are getting the supports they need. Parents and kids have had enough. They've had enough excuses. They've had enough talk. They've had enough studies. They've had enough panels. Now is the time for action. Will the acting Premier instruct the minister to immediately end wait lists for children with autism? Thank you. Thank you. You say it, please. You say it, please. Thank you. You, Mr. Speaker. Mr. of Education. Thank you, and I think one of the things we need to recognize that there are a variety of ways in which children with autism are supported. So one of the things that we have done is we've actually invested in ABA specialists in each school board. And those ABA specialists at each school board are able to work with the teachers and the EAs and the spec ed consultants to make sure that that can be incorporated into the programs, into the specialized support that each student has. Order. There are more than one way to support the needs of a child with autism. They actually have quite different needs. And that's how the school system deals with the school age kids, is to look at the needs of the individual child and provide appropriate. New question, a member from Glengarie Crosscut Russell. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the best minister to Francophone Affairs. This week in Canada and in Ontario, we celebrate the third week of French immigration. We can showcase the realizations of our government. Mr. Speaker, can the minister can update the House concerning the services offered to promote French immigration in Ontario? I wish to thank the good MPP of London, Prescott Russell, who defends the Francophone. I wish to congratulate John McKinnon, who has just been nominated as immigration minister in not one of government. It works very hard to promote French Francophone immigration in Ontario. That anywhere else outside the Quebec, we accept 16 more Francophone than New Brunswick and six more immigrants than in Manitouma. We count on the federal government and the minister McKinnon to help us to achieve our goal of Francophone immigration outside Quebec to reach a level of 4%. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To minister responsible for Francophone Affairs, immigration is an important issue for the Francophones in Ontario. We have an objective of 5% of Francophone immigration in Ontario. I wish that the minister explain to the House we are going to achieve this objective, this goal of 5%. Mr. Speaker, we have a target of 5%. We work with immigration services. We have also developed a promotion strategy in Europe and in Africa. We work with Immigration Canada and a new electronic system called Entry Express to manage all requests. And we found a website to promote French immigration immigration in Ontario. We work very hard to make sure that we reach our goal. I was in France to invite the French and they don't know that we can work in French and Ontario and to open to start a business in Ontario or to immigrate to Ontario. Just for the Attorney General, there's a quote that I'd like to read. Ontario communities must remain safe because every child in this province should be able to walk home without fear and no parent should face an unthinkable loss. That was the promise that the Premier made in the Throne Speech in 2013. Anastasia Kuzak, Natalie Warmerdan, and Carol Colton had families, families that have suffered an unthinkable loss. Despite this province, the fact is crown attorneys aren't even notified when convicted offenders refuse to sign their probation orders. Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney General explain why crown attorneys are not being told when offenders refuse to sign their probation orders? Thank you, Attorney General. Hello, Mr. Speaker. And I'll say this again. This is a real tragedy. And our taught continue to be with the family. As this matter is before the court, you will understand that I cannot comment on it. And domestic violence is of concern to all the community. It is a serious issue that cross every social boundary and will not be tolerated in Ontario. Our government is committed to continuing to work with violence against women organization and professional health education and justice sector to find ways to prevent domestic violence, to support victim, and to address the justice system response. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And back to the Attorney General. Ontarians do deserve a criminal justice system that is robust. A system is far more vigilant and responsive in monitoring dangerous offenders. After what happened in Renfrew County, Ontarians are left with unanswered questions. The truth is that there were so many things that this government could have done to prevent the tragedy in Renfrew County. The government is adamant that the probation orders are enforceable. But Mr. Borotsky thumbed his nose at our criminal justice system, and he refused to sign the order. You have an opportunity to make the system better. So Mr. Speaker, my question only needs a simple yes or a no. Will the Attorney General issue a directive to the Crown Attorneys to bring offenders to court when they refuse to sign their probation orders? Thank you very much, Attorney General. This is a great question. And again, yesterday, I had the three ministry involved. We had a meeting to address exactly this question. And the signature of the condition to release someone on probation is not a condition to keep someone or not release them on probation. So it's the probation. It's the decision of the court. And there is the condition. Also, some are prescribed. Some are not prescribed, are added by the judge. And again, the signature of this condition is not a condition to release someone or not. Thank you. Question, the member from Parkdale High Park. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Today, we're visited in the legislature by Mr. Daryl Frimmer, a resident from the constituency of Parkdale High Park, who owns a home near the UP Express tracks. During the construction of the UPX, significant damage, $27,000 was done to his home. This homeowner, like many others living near the rail line, did his due diligence in attaining three quotes from contractors to assess how much repairs will cost. He submitted those quotes to his claim with Metrolinx. However, like in other similar cases, Metrolinx is pressuring Mr. Frimmer to accept a settlement that is half of what the quotes have said the repairs will cost. Why is Metrolinx refusing to pay people what its own process has determined they are owed? Thank you. Mr. Transportation. Well, thank you very much, Speaker. I do think the member from Parkdale High Park for raising this particular question. I respect the fact that the constituent from Parkdale High Park is here today. While I personally don't know the details specifically of this individual case, I do understand that there has been correspondence that's gone back and forth between the member and Metrolinx regarding this particular case. And I think it's also important, and every member in this legislature would recognize the importance of making sure that while provincial agencies are responsive to these kinds of requests that we ensure for the sake of protecting taxpayers that the scope of work that's required or result of something that might have occurred is in fact accurate. My understanding, Speaker, is that this is a process that's still ongoing, but I do appreciate the member standing up for her community and for asking this question today. Could you supplementary? Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Frimmer is a taxpayer, by the way, and has submitted over 100 emails to Metrolinx at this point. Metrolinx has also known that the construction of the UP Express would damage nearby homes, yet has refused to take responsibility and adequately compensate all homeowners living near the line. What we've consistently seen since the first pile driving started along the line is that any claim put forward by a homeowner ends up being an absolute nightmare. The homeowner is not only expected to prove the damage happened as a result of the construction, arranged for three independent quotes from contractors to assess what the damage will cost to fix, then whatever that amount ends up being Metrolinx consistently offers a fraction of that price. This is absolutely unacceptable. When will Metrolinx start adequately compensating homeowners like Mr. Frimmer for damage caused by the construction of the UP Express, which, by the way, runs empty? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, thanks very much, Speaker. I mean, in my follow-up answer to the member from Parkdale, my answer essentially remains the same, which is that what I believe in this case is the most important, along with making sure that all provincial agencies, including Metrolinx, are responsive to these kinds of matters that get raised, Speaker, and very respectful of the challenges that some homeowners in your community and perhaps others are facing is that we get it right, which, from my perspective, would also mean that the scope of work that's required as a result of something that Metrolinx might have done is actually reflective of the damage itself. There needs to be a very direct correlation between the two, Speaker, so I respect the fact that some constituents in Parkdale High Park have provided quotes. My understanding is that Metrolinx continues to work itself through the process. I don't know of the answers that you're raising in this particular case, Speaker, but to the member's final point about the UP Express, let's just remember that's an infrastructure project delivered on time and on budget by this government. Thanks very much. Thank you. Question to the member from the political lake short. Excuse me, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question this morning is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Mr. Speaker, the agri-food industry is an important contributor to our economy and continues to be a priority of our government. Through our government's targeted investments in the agri-food sector, we've been able to foster growth and help companies boost productivity, expand capacity and grow market access for processed goods. In a fiercely competitive global economy, it's important that producers in Ontario have a dynamic and innovative business climate in which they can afford to invest and grow their operations. We know from our stakeholders that one key to expanding production in the province is through processing capacity. In Ontario is already one of the North America's leading agri-food processing regions. Questions? Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister, what is our government doing to support the food and beverage processing sector in Ontario? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, to the Food and Rural Affairs. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to give my sincere congratulations to the new Federal Member of Parliament for Peterborough. Marion Massev has been named to Prime Minister Trudeau's cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the hardworking member from Etobicoke Lakeshore asked a very important question to Ontario today. The agri-food sector contributes $34 billion to Ontario's GDP. Every morning that people get up in Ontario, 780,000 Ontarians are employed in this very important sector. The agri-food processing sector represents 23% of Ontario's manufacturing capacity, and the Premier has given this sector a great challenge to create 120,000 new jobs by 2020, and Mr. Speaker, we're on target to make that happen. Thank you, supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his excellent answer and the excellent work that he and his ministry are doing. Mr. Speaker, it's clear that this government believes in partnering with business to create jobs. And I understand that in the last year alone, our government has been able to leverage nearly $330 million of investment in the provinces food processing industry. And through those partnerships, we've also been able to create and retain some 2,200 jobs. With investments like the Food and Beverage Growth Fund in place for the industry, food processors are even better poised to make a greater contribution to the economy. Mr. Speaker, Etobicoke is one of the largest clusters of agri-food production in North America. And recently, the Minister made an announcement at LaSonde Industries in Etobicoke. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs tell this House what the government is doing to support companies like LaSonde? Thank you, Minister. Good question, excellent. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Etobicoke Lakeshore for the supplementary. Indeed, people should know that the Greater Toronto Hamilton area is the second largest food distribution hub in North America. Recently, I had the opportunity to be in the wonderful part of Toronto at Etobicoke to announce an investment of $1.5 million from the Food and Beverage Growth Fund into LaSonde Industries. They'll be using those investment dollars to create a new high-speed packaging line for Tetra repackaging. This will allow them to fill, Mr. Speaker, an amazing 24,000 juice packages per hour. That's 18,000 more than what they're currently doing. This investment will help to create 15 new jobs, retain 114 jobs. And Mr. Speaker, did I talk about their impact on the apple growers in Ontario? My good friend, Charlie Stevens, who operates Willbott Orchards in Clarington, Ontario, will be able to sell his apples to LaSonde, a very important measure. Any questions? And I'll just hand them over to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, a year ago today, work stopped on the Provincial Highway 3 bridge in Kyrgyz due to a protest from the Confederacy Chiefs and their Hadanisoni Development Institute. Traffic from a main provincial highway is being rerouted on a temporary bridge. We know this government has a history of throwing money at problems. A couple of questions. How much money has been sanctioned by the interior government? How much has been paid to the Hadanisoni Development Institute to allow construction projects to continue in Haldeman County? And why have protesters shut down this bridge? Do they have an expectation of payment or further payment from this government? Is the minister planning on paying them to get this bridge finished? Thank you. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Well, thank you for that question. It's an important issue. It's an important safety issue for all the residents using Highway 3, over which the Kuga Bridge is the Grand River. We are in negotiations and exercising consultation process efforts with the Six Nations, with the Hadanisoni, with the contractor involved, and indeed with the local citizens. We are working very hard to find a solution to this problem. In the meantime, the bridge does remain open. It is monitored by the contractor involved, Dufferin Construction. There are no immediate safety issues because the bridge is being closely monitored by the contract. In the meantime, we are continuing our efforts to resolve this issue with all of the interested parties. Thank you. Supplementary. So, the minister knows over the past year, I've formally asked for updates six times on construction. We haven't seen the solution yet, obviously. Also in Haldeman County, work on another bridge. The Caledonia Bridge is planned for next year. Haldeman County Council wants the province to postpone work on the Caledonia Bridge before it gets started, as they fear a repeat of what is presently happening down in Kuga. If the Haldeman County Councilor sees potential conflict, can the minister tell this House how he thinks there won't be conflict when construction starts on the Caledonia Bridge? What is he doing to prevent protesters from blocking construction in Caledonia? Again, will he be arranging payment to the protesters to allow construction of this other bridge, the Caledonia Bridge? Thank you. Good question, minister. Minister of Transportation? Transportation. Thanks very much, Speaker. And I thank the minister of Aboriginal Affairs for his first answer, and also to the member opposite for this question. I know that this question was asked here in the chamber. I believe it was a couple of weeks ago by the same member. And as I said at that time, just to echo what the minister of Aboriginal Affairs did say, of course, this government, the Ministry of Transportation, and all of us on this side of the House take our responsibilities with respect to the duty to consult with First Nations extremely seriously, Speaker. At the same time, of course, we do understand the importance of making sure that these connections, these bridges, not only Cayuga, but also the other one that the member opposite referenced remain in good working condition, and that we can continue to do work to make sure that we're providing the residents of that part of Ontario with safe transportation, root speaker. We'll continue to do the work that's required with respect to our duty to consult. We'll continue to make sure that these structures remain safe, Speaker. And as I said a couple of weeks ago, happy to provide an update once we're in a position to do so. Thanks very much. New question, the member from Marshall. Thank you, Speaker. And my question is to the acting Premier. Waypoint Center for Mental Health Care is the province's new cutting edge psychiatric correctional facility built using the government's favored model of public-private partnerships or P3s. Unfortunately, when I say cutting edge, I'm also referring to the recent story of a patient brandishing a sword he crafted using materials found in his cell. Since opening in 2014, Waypoint has experienced the same cost overruns, crumbling infrastructure, and dangerous work environments that have plagued other P3 correctional facilities, such as the Toronto South Detention Center. Speaker, we know from the Auditor General's report last December that public-private partnerships have cost Ontarians more than $8 billion. And as we are discovering, new problems arise every day. And who will have to pay for those? Will the acting Premier please explain why this government thinks that projects that cost fall apart and put employees at risk are a good investment for Ontarians? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I appreciate the notion of looking at alternate financing and procurement practices to promote very critical investments into our community, like mental health, like our health care system, like our transportation system, like our education, in order to provide those capital structures to enable us to have greater services. We have, I believe, over 44 out of 45 projects already completed under budget, Mr. Speaker, and enabling us to have those very necessary investments to support mental health, which is something that we want to continue to do. And Mr. Speaker, we'll continue to look at other forms besides just borrowing. That's what the member opposite suggests that we should do. We want to find the long-term benefit that has the greatest positive impact for our economy and for our services. Mr. Speaker, we'll proceed to do just that. Can the Associate Minister of Health, and I think there are plenty of work. Thank you, Speaker. I just want to take the opportunity to welcome the Canadian Diabetes Association Advocates who are joining us from across Ontario. They're having a reception in the legislative dining room and I ask everybody to please join us. Thank you. All those who are left. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to introduce Robin Dillon here. He's here with Take Your Kid to workday for NPP for Brampton West, Dillon. So welcome, Robin. Thank you, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Speaker, and for me as well with the Canadian Diabetes Association and old family friend, a great friend of my father's here today in the members East Gallery, Jimmy Colossimo. Jimmy, great to see you. Thank you, Nafidin Carlson. Thank you very much, Speaker. I'd like to wish a happy birthday a few days early to my colleague, Mr. Steve Clark of Leeds, Grenville. I won't divulge his age, but it is Saturday and he is going to the nation's capital this evening to attend an event. So on behalf of all members, happy birthday, Steve. Well, she did it with somebody else. There are no deferred votes. This house stands recess until 3 p.m. this afternoon.