 So we now will entertain question period. The member from Leeds, Greenville. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Before we start on behalf of our party, we just want to express to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure our wish for a speedy recovery. We're thinking of him and his family. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Why is the Premier allowing the Minister of Government and Consumer Services to appoint liberal friends and donors from his own riding to government boards within his ministry? Mr. Speaker, there is an absolutely arms-length process whereby public appointments take place, Mr. Speaker. I'm Order Police, Order Police Minister, be helpful, please. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, since we've been in office, we have actually depoliticized those processes much more than when we came into office. So there's arms-length decision-making that takes place, Mr. Speaker. And I think if the member office that looks across all of the boards and agencies and commissions, Mr. Speaker, he will see that there are representatives, first of all, from across the province and from all political stripes and no political stripes, Mr. Speaker. People who have been appointed because of their skill base, because of their ability to do the job at hand, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, supplementary. Well, back to the Premier. I have a briefing note from the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services dated last Thursday. It's entitled Public Appointments Historical Advice to Minister and Minister's Office. It was prepared by an acting senior policy advisor, and it was approved by a director and an assistant deputy minister. And it's clear that ministry officials are concerned that the minister is overriding their advice and recommendations and making public appointments that run against the ministry's directive. Mr. Speaker, how long has the Premier allowed her ministers to appoint their friends and donors to government boards against the advice of senior civil servants? Thank you, Lady. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not how appointments are made. As I say, there is a process in place. And I suggest that if the member has that memo, he would look at what the process is because the process would be laid out in that memo, Mr. Speaker. The process has been depoliticized, Mr. Speaker. There are, there's a skills-based process that is undertaken. And as I say, if the member opposite looks across the boards and agencies and commissions, he will see representatives from many, many different backgrounds, from many different parts of the province, people who have, who have had connections to all parties and to no parties, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Final supplementary. Again, again, back to the Premier. The briefing note was written because the minister is seeking to appoint a real estate agent from Sault Ste. Marie to the Real Estate Council of Ontario. The note says, and I quote, there is concern within the ministry that appointment of an additional regulated professional to the board, rather than someone outside of the industry, is contrary to the practice of balancing interests on the board. The issue note continued. Candidate selection package prepared, identified four suitable candidates. However, the minister's office has advised that they will be seeking to appoint a member outside of the recommendations. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why the minister is being allowed to ignore the advice of senior civil servants and appoint someone not appropriate for the Real Estate Council of Ontario? Mr. Speaker, you know, I think that, I think, and I haven't, I haven't seen this memo. I'm sure that the member opposite will, will send it across the floor to me, Mr. Speaker. But I think from what he has said, it's quite clear that the process is in place. My understanding is that this person that he's referencing has not been appointed, will not be appointed. And I think that the process that is laid out, that the process that is laid out in the note confirms the fact. Please finish, Premier. Well, Mr. Speaker, as, again, as I said earlier, if you look across the appointments made by this government, you will see members from all different party stripes, Mr. Speaker, people who have no connection with political parties because there is a process in place that assesses the abilities of potential appointees and makes decisions based on those recommendations, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Questions? The member from Stormont-Bundas, self-employed. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. It appears that senior ministry officials are the opinion that her Minister of Government and Consumer Services is acting in a conflict of interest. An email from the Assistant Deputy Minister, Ren. We all know, and it has been until very recently, a long-standing government practice and policy to appoint people from outside the regulated professions to boards. The Assistant Deputy Minister added, and I quote, I believe the Minister of Government and Consumer Services needs to give the best advice on why this practice is not optimal. Mr. Speaker, is the reason why it is not optimal? Because it appears the Minister is breaching practice and ignoring consumer interests by appointing individuals with ties to him and the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, you know, I think that it's... I've answered this question a couple of times now. There is a process in place, Mr. Speaker, that assesses the merits of people who come forward for potential appointments. You know, the fact that civil service will from time to time lay out a process, remind us what a process is, Mr. Speaker, make it clear what the process is. From my perspective, that's the job of the civil service, Mr. Speaker. The job of the civil service is to give us advice and for us to act on that advice. But we set up the processes. We set up the arms length process, Mr. Speaker. Look across Government. You will see appointments from all political stripes, Mr. Speaker, and no political stripes because there is an arms length de-politicized process. You supplementary. Back to the Premier. Of the five new appointments made by her Minister during his mandate, four were against public service advice. How do those four, three of them are his constituents and the fourth, and the fourth happens to be a former Liberal candidate. Now the Minister is at it again about to override extensive advice, break with the practice of appointing consumer advocates to public boards and pass on four qualified candidates in an attempt to appoint another constituent of his. Mr. Speaker, this is simply not acceptable. Order. Why is the Premier allowed her Ministers to create a culture of unacceptable public appointment pages? Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, the public appointments process is open. It's accessible. It's transparent. All applicants apply through the public appointments. Secretary, Mr. Speaker, that is that is the practice and that is what everyone has to do. Mr. Speaker, they can apply online. They can get information from the process. They can see upcoming vacancies. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that this level of transparency is is has been introduced as a result of changes that we have made, Mr. Speaker, because we believe that the that the practices that have gone on in the past where the where patronage was the rule, that is not what we support. Mr. Speaker, we support a merit-based process. And that's why that's why there are people from all across the political spectrum who have been appointed to agencies, commissions and boards as part of this government's tenure. Mr. Speaker, thank you. Final supplementary. Back to the Premier. It is clear from the memo that senior staff is so concerned about the minister's conflict to interest that they've laid it out in writing. This, that is why today I file a complaint with the integrity commissioner. Until this government's recent slew of scandals, President dictated that ministers would step aside while under investigation. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier ask the minister to temporarily step it? Order. Start the clock. Please finish. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier ask the minister to temporarily step aside and suspend any pending public appointments while until the investigation is complete? Thank you. Thank you. I think she knows I'm staring at her too. Carry on. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I, I'm quite sure as the, as the members opposite look across government and look at the agencies and boards and commissions and see people from many different backgrounds including Mr. Speaker, our recent appointment of the patient ombudsman. I'm sure that, I'm sure that Christine Elliott would, we can all agree is a fine example of someone who is, has the skills, has the background who can do that job in a very good way, Mr. Speaker. Those appointments have nothing to do with partisanship. Mr. Speaker, they have to do with merit. They have to do with ability. That's why the process is that we have been, and we have put in place remove the partisanship from the, from the decisions, Mr. Speaker. And the fact that a civil servant has laid out the process, that's the job of civil servants is to make sure that we continuously remind ourselves about what the processes are and follow those processes. But our government put them in place, Mr. Speaker. And they are arms length from the political process. Thank you very much. Mr. Corsten, the member from Brownlee, Gordon Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. When Mike Harris decided to rewrite election rules without public consultation, without consensus, without public input, the Liberals call that, rightly so, anti-democratic and unfair. Minister of Finance. When the Liberals do it, now, as they're doing, they think it's fine. It's absolutely problem-free. Does the Premier really believe that any leader with a majority can rewrite election rules at their pleasure? Thank you, Premier. So here's what I believe, Mr. Speaker, that last year in June, I said that we needed to make changes to the political donations and the fundraising rules, Mr. Speaker. We are moving on that. I think that there is a fair degree of consensus about the changes that need to be made. I think that there's a degree of consensus around the banning of corporate union donations, Mr. Speaker. I think that there is there's consensus around, at least having a discussion about a public subsidy or a purvote allowance, Mr. Speaker. Those are the kinds of discussions that we will have when the legislation, when the draft legislation goes out for consultation after first reading. There will be ample opportunity during the summer and into the fall after first reading and after second reading, Mr. Speaker. And I think that that is how the democratic process by definition works. And I hope that I hope that the third party and people who they ask to come to committee will do that and give us input, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let's do a little bit and a little bit of compare and contrast, shall we? When Bill Davis wanted to change the election rules, he struck and created a panel. That panel included nominees from political parties. It included non-partisan members from the law society. It included the chief electoral officer and it included an independent chair appointed by Lieutenant Governor. Now, let's contrast that with what Mike Harris did. When Mike Harris wanted to change election rules, he did so from the back rooms of the Premier's office. Now, my question, Mr. Speaker, is this is the Premier seeking to learn from Bill Davis or from Mike Harris? Thank you. So, Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of change since 1975 when the rules were put in place, Mr. Speaker. And I think what we've seen what we've seen is that and I was actually alive in 1975 and I can't get with you, Mr. Speaker, that the rules were very different and in many cases, non-existent. And the fact is that over time, there have been more rules put in place. Mr. Speaker, there has been much brighter light shone on the practices around political donations and as I said, I think that there is a fair degree of consensus about where we need to go now. If we look at where the federal parties have gone, Mr. Speaker, and we look at other jurisdictions in Canada, we can see that there are some templates that we can use. That's what we're doing in terms of drafting the legislation. I still look forward to getting input from the opposition parties, but there will be ample opportunity for consultation, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question was a little bit unfair. With the sell-off of Hydro-1, it's pretty clear that the Liberal government isn't just trying to copy Mike Harris or seeking to outdo him. The Premier is sending a message to Ontarians that it's normal for one party to rewrite election rules. On Thursday, however, the Democracy Watch, a democracy organization that seeks to uphold our democratic process, disagreed with the Premier and instead stated that a process should one in first and foremost be broad and consensus-based. In addition, it should equally involve all political parties and it should draw from the broader civil society. Now, does the Premier realize that her actions are setting a precedent that any leader with the majority can simply rewrite electoral rules at their own pleasure? Which defies our best traditions and traditions elsewhere will say that a election rule should be changed in an open, non-partisan, transparent and above all, consensus-based process? Thank you. Have we have a leader? Have we have a leader? Well, Speaker, thank you very much and I find the comments from the member opposite such a demonstrate such a disregard and lack of understanding of how our parliamentary democratic system works. He's suggesting by the argument he's presenting that somehow the government or the legislator should not be in the business of making laws. I mean, Speaker, it does just defy logic. I would think, given his legal training, that he would know some of the most basic premise of how legislative system works. And in our legislature speaker, as you would know, every member has a voice. There is a very robust committee process that goes where changes to legislation could be made. That's right. And debates are taken. I'm finding very odd speaker that an NDP spending more time talking about the process than the substance of what should be in the legislation. And we'd love to hear from them on that. Thank you. New question. The member from Nicobill. Yes, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the premier. Speaker, today, residents from Wallisburg and Walpole Dolan First Nations are here. They're here to save their local hospital and keep their emergency department open. They've agreed to the 700 kilometers drive to Queen's Park because they refuse to let the liberal close another hospital in southwestern Ontario close their hospital. They know full well that once the emergency department is gone, once the big blue wage is gone from that building, so is their hospital. Why won't the premier do the right thing and stop any plan to close the emergency department and the Synanham District Hospital in Wallisburg. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, and I know the Minister of Health and long-term care is going to want to speak in the supplementary but I understand the concern has been raised by the community because of some rumors about the potential closure of the emergency department at Sydenham District Hospital and I want to assure the community Mr. Speaker and this is important that there are no plans whatsoever to close the hospital's emergency department. So even that contention is not accurate Mr. Speaker and I understand when there are rumors in communities that that can cause some upheaval but there is no truth to that rumor there is no plan to close the hospital's emergency department. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier I said thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier needs to listen to the people of Wallisburg Wallisburg and the people of Walpole Island First Nation. She needs to understand what cuts to healthcare means to families means to family in Western Ontario. Wallisburg Health Coalition is still very worried that those rumors will become reality because this is what we have seen over and over in other community. What that will mean? It will mean 20,000 people don't have access to emergency care without having to drive over an hour to an hour and a half. After all the cuts to Walbur hospital if the emergency was to close so will the hospital question this is not the only community that's facing these decops there are many other will the premier stop cutting hospital services that families and communities depend on. Thank you. Minister of Health and long-term care. Minister of Health and long-term care. Well, Mr. Speaker you know I too want to reassure the community that there are absolutely no plans to alter or close their emergency department. This is an issue which it is a rumor. It's been generated locally. In fact the Linn has never asked for or received any ideas for such closure. The ministry has never been involved in discussions concerning a possible closure. What it is Mr. Speaker it points to the necessity that the local board of the local hospital and the alliance which is comprised of more than one hospital in that area that they work with their community that they're being honest and open and transparent about patient care. Because there has been no discussion. No discussion with the Linn no discussion with the ministry. This is purely a local issue and I hope and I implore the member opposite that she doesn't contribute to this rumor mongering and get the people in the community even more anxious. Thank you. Final supplementary. Speaker you'll have to forgive those good people but when they go around and see that 169 registered nurses was caught in Windsor 130 seats ca staff staff was cut at St. Joseph's in Hamilton. 18 nurses were cut at Bluewater in Sarnia. 68 jobs were gone from hospital in Kitchener. Bedclothes and more than 120 full-time position cuts in London. Deep cuts at St. Thomas Elgin hospital. And that's only since January 1st 2016. It makes people really nervous. The good people of Wallisburg and Wappold Island First Nations are worried that they could close hospital. They're also worried of all of the service cuts happening in southwestern Ontario. Why is the why is the Premier cutting services in southwestern Ontario? Thank you. Minister Mr. Speaker I find it really regrettable that the member opposite would clearly use this local rumour and exploit it for broader political purposes. The truth is Mr. Speaker that we're providing this year an additional $2 million dollars to the Alliance which includes that the Sydenum hospital that's a 2% increase in their funding. All the people in the local community need to do is look down the road to Leamington where we just announced an additional $1.5 million dollars to recruit three obstetricians to keep that local obstetrics unit and that birthing centre open for the local community. That's or to Trenton where I was just in Trenton recently where we are working with the local community. I would suggest that instead of fear mongering she should work with the local community to provide the best patient care. We have no such plans. It's unfortunate that you're exploiting a room where for your own political purposes Mr. Speaker. This is for the Premier. Speaker over the past couple of weeks we have seen the Liberals put forward an almost unprecedented number of amendments to their cap and trade bill. Now with more than 70 Liberal amendments before the committee it's clear the government is rewriting its own bill on the flying. Is it because she's also chose to write the cap and trade bill on the back of an African at her kitchen table over the weekend or is this just how she handles the rules for Ontario's democracy. Minister of the environment of climate change. Thank you Mr. Speaker we've been consulting now for about the better part of two years we've been ever introduced into the legislature. The amendments are largely technical based on input from a variety of industries as you may know this attached this finish please and I've spoken at the London Chamber of Commerce the Guelph Chamber of Commerce the Mississauga Chamber of Commerce there is very great support for a cap and trade a matter of fact there is great concern Mr. Speaker which after every single amendment is causing calling a 20 minute break is causing destabilization in the discussion and their lack of I I stand you sit I've got a list of about four names that I'm going to talk to especially the person asking the question supplementary Thank you Speaker back again to the premier we all agree we need to address climate change but that doesn't mean one must agree on the Liberals flawed cap and trade scheme it's obvious Speaker that bill 172 was slapped together so the premier had a PR document before jetting off to Vancouver for an environmental photo op with Justin Trudeau but the result is haphazard with loopholes big enough to drive a truck through funding decisions will be made in secret taxpayers will receive no relief and the financial accountability speaker will the premier admit she's messed up withdraw bill 172 and begin developing a revenue neutral plan that protects taxpayers Thank you Mr. Speaker I would invite anybody Mr. Speaker the member from here on Bruce I would invite anyone to look at what those amendments are Mr. Speaker their advice and from industry associations on very technical pieces that are not terribly consequential from a public policy perspective but are critical for the actual functioning of that many of those were representations at committees and continue to be why the opposition would filibuster over and over again for days over technical requirements required by industry they don't actually support carbon pricing or climate change Mr. Speaker because the two amendments were then introduced Mr. Speaker would delink us from California and Quebec and undermine investments in critical infrastructure necessary for a successful Thank you Mr. Speaker the member from Thank you Mr. Speaker my question is to the premier in 2010 the premier who was then the minister of trade ordered Metrolinx to take over the Union Pearson Express under the same flawed business model that had just been rejected as a money loser by the private sector instead of building affordable public transit in this quarter the premier ordered Metrolinx to build a luxury airport express service now we know that Metrolinx ignored would actually lose money did the government order Metrolinx to ignore and cover up these studies in order to push ahead with a flawed business model the premier had demanded Thank you Mr. Speaker it's very interesting now that we have actually joined most of the world's major economic capitals in having a premium service to our airport without the support of the opposition Mr. Speaker this is also the same member who actually said only electrify the union Pearson express now the government is electrifying all nine lines providing 15 minute service which they don't support because they can't identify financing and in our debates we said to the third party that if they were just a little patient it made more economic sense to electrify the whole line for all folks which is what we're now doing Mr. Speaker and you know on the ridership issue Mr. Speaker we had an eight percent ridership we expected eight percent ridership we now got thirty percent these things take time to build ridership Mr. Speaker but clearly the party has no patients and no money and no support for infrastructure Mr. Speaker supplementary thank you thank you Mr. Speaker my question is back to the premier quite frankly at no time have we said what the minister just asserted in fact the NDP has always called for the electrification of all lines that we've done got to the premier with the question the NDP has been trying for years to get the UPX ridership studies but we've been blocked at every turn by Metrolinx and this government it's clear to everyone Mr. Speaker that Metrolinx has been covering up for the bad decision made by this premier to build a luxury member from Edlington Harts or Bay Street executives who it turns out don't even use it themselves the diesel train is still inaccessible to most of the people through whose communities it runs but they must help subsidize the train and this is staggering Mr. Speaker at about $46 per rider even at the reduced fares why is Metrolinx building pet projects for the premier and then covering up thank you now I'm going to ask the member to withdraw her last statement as she was seating thank you you don't have a choice the minister of the environment the climate change Mr. Speaker I'm kind of amused by the third party's double standard they were big supporters of transit city as was I very good project Mr. Speaker all the transit city lines would have run at an operating loss for many years through low income neighborhoods until ridership built and land use changed they had no problem subsidizing that Mr. Speaker and yes they actually singularly advocated for advancing the union pierce express electrification ahead of the whole thing now I share the CN go along CN mainline which is completely run on diesel trains that run about every five minutes on that line I think my constituents and the constituents in the south and of her writing have the same right to clean air as the people in the middle of the ride we actually believe in a bigger vision and we actually believe decisions that raise the capital which they also have consistently opposed to pay for massive electrification answer I wish the member opposite would get a plan or at least stick to one line of argument Mr. Speaker thank you Mr. Speaker and good morning my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Speaker last Wednesday the 2006 budget bill job for today and tomorrow was passed in this house in Spain the budget includes investments to support and update the province's long-term affordable housing strategy these investments continue the transformational Ontario's housing and homelessness system there are communities in my writing in Scarborough South West that are very high priority when it comes to housing and my constituents welcome this news as it helps to enforce and reinvigorate the housing community in my writing our government recognizes Mr. Speaker that we need more affordable housing in Ontario and our government took action so my question to the Minister Mr. Speaker is in opposing against the 2006 budget with investments in affordable housing what did the oppositions vote against thank you Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing well thanks Mr. Speaker and I want to thank the member from Scarborough South West I was disappointed Mr. Speaker when the opposition voted against our budget for a number of reasons but being very concerned about social and affordable housing it was an attempt to deny Ontarians the important and very necessary investments our government was and is prepared to make that includes 178 million over three years to provide housing subsidies and benefits the construction of 1500 new supportive housing units and improving access for over 4,000 families to services like counseling and dispensing medication Mr. Speaker our government knows investment and support of housing is important and I was proud to have this commitment endorsed when we passed our budget thank you Mr. Speaker I know my constituents that many across the province welcome this $178 million in new funding for the long-term affordable housing strategy Mr. Speaker supportive housing is certainly an important component of helping Ontarians realize full potential related to this I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing as well as the Minister responsible for poverty reduction are working hard on our government's plan to end chronic homelessness I was pleased to see that the housing investments in the budget will support this plan will make sure everyone has the support they need to succeed Mr. Speaker through you can the minister remind this house how these investments help accelerate our goal to end chronic homelessness thank you Minister I'd be delighted to Mr. Speaker in voting against the budget the opposition parties voted against important steps ending our goal of ending our goal of assisting with chronic homelessness then included voting against a $45 million increase in chippy funding and $17 million to provide a portable housing benefit on a pilot basis to eventually support up to 3,000 survivors of domestic violence Mr. Speaker taking together these investments will make an important difference in our work I'm also encouraged Mr. Speaker that the federal government is now committed in their own budget to working with us and matching some of our investments I know that partnership between all levels of government will help transform our housing system in this province and it's great to see a federal government that finally gets it wants to adopt a universal housing strategy Mr. Speaker any member from the kitchen here at Conestoga Yes, Speaker to the Premier this weekend's Metro Leagues Bombshell took the wraps off countless reports dating back five years warning again and again against the luxury fairs their government chose for what quickly became the up ghost express there was the 2011 North Star study showing half of the GTHA residents wouldn't pay more than $17.50 a 2012 steer Davies Gleeve study showing drastic ridership drops as fairs rise past $20 in 2014 we have Enveronics reporting 50% of respondents considered $12 fair good value Speaker was it the instructions of the Premier or the Minister of Transportation to ignore the advice of governments experts in choosing a $27.50 luxury fair Thank you Mr. Speaker this was the environment climate change Thank you Mr. Speaker it's a great pleasure to answer the question of the member opposite the member may be aware that Metro Leagues is an arms length organization with its own board and its own CEO and part of the reason we created this as we have other basic utilities this is our GTHA to make decisions and to weigh evidence it's not the job of ourselves to second guess them there's a good process in place and you have to have confidence that ridership builds we know Mr. Speaker if they had been in power they would as Dr. Phil says previous behavior is a good indicator of future behavior we would be in the end of cancelling the Eglinton filling in the Vaughn Subway to Vaughn and to the University we would see another 10 years of backfilling holes and cancelling projects Mr. Speaker so I would love one day for the answer stand up and demand we actually build something rather than criticizing what we're doing Mr. Speaker to supplementary right we all believe Metrolinx's arms length to your government we all believe that Speaker these newly revealed numbers further highlight the expensive and avoidable mess their government steered the up express into Speaker the minister told us transport minister that is told us in committee with regard to funding plans quote people expect that we won't make these decisions on the back of a napkin and that there will be evidence based decisions end quote Speaker will the premier explain in the case of the up express fair setting when it came to evidence versus napkins why was it that the napkin one out where do you buy it Mr. Speaker first of all these studies have been up on the website for a couple of years now there are hardly new news I can always predict by picking up my paper in the morning which seems to be the substitute for Tori caucus research work what the questions are going to be you can at least go click click and get the facts yourself Mr. Speaker second of all Mr. Pritchard former chair of the Bank of Montreal former publisher of the Toronto Star former chancellor of the university former head of Tories is a very eminent independent thinking person as is Bruce McQuay our president CEO we have an excellent management team and board there Mr. Speaker who are making very good judgments and supporting the funding that we're putting in and the government's commitment this is the biggest investment in transit and public infrastructure since John Robins was premier of this province Mr. Speaker and I think that if I hope that the member office will be my question is the minister of health minister you had an opportunity to last week to go to out of Wapus Scat and see first hand the situation there as it affects a lot of people in that community when it comes to attempted suicide I think you will agree with me that the response that you put forward is a good step forward as far as the $2 million you've announced but the real in a way that is consistent with the values of First Nations people and being able to make sure that those systems function. Is there a commitment on the part of your government in order to change the way that we deliver health services when it comes to mental health services, when it comes to addiction services and others, so it falls under an organization that is run and led by First Nations so they themselves could be part of the solution? Thank you Mr. Speaker and first of all I want to acknowledge the member from the third party. This is Attawapiskat is a community within his riding and I know for many many years he has been working with the local community in a respectful way in true partnership to ensure that he does his part in ensuring that services are improved. We were in Attawapiskat last week Mr. Speaker and we made the announcement of $2 million which provides, in fact they are already on the ground, 13 healthcare workers, 4 mental health workers, 5 nurses and other personnel that are hard at work. Part of it is providing relief to the overworked frontline healthcare workers in the hospital but providing that response to the immediate crisis and I think as the member alluded to we all agree that that is important at this particular moment in time but it doesn't take away from the necessity and I'm happy to address it in particular question with regards to a changing relationship Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Well I think you will agree with me Minister and you've seen it first hand along with your colleague that the system that's designed by Queen Spark that's designed by the Ministry of Health and led by the lens of the Sudbury is not responding to the needs of that community. So the question is and what the community is asking for and not just Attawapiskat but the entire James Bay that we change the way that we deliver health services on the James Bay so that we actually have an aboriginal organization that is funded by the Ministry of Health that follows our regulation but is designed in such a way to be able to be respectful of who the Muskegwek Kree people are so that they have some control about how we deal with these issues within our community. Are you prepared to engage in that process? Thank you. Minister? So Mr. Speaker there's not a lot of distance between myself and the member opposite on this issue. In fact the Premier is meeting with the political Confederacy this afternoon I'll be joining for a discussion about health concerns and that relationship going forward with regards to the lens who quite frankly our First Nations weren't significantly or substantially involved when we created the lens so we've created a separate process that we're working in partnership with First Nations across the province to make sure that we have a governance model and an approach which respects them and is culturally appropriate and meets their needs Mr. Speaker. But there is also I think the member needs to acknowledge is also a strong federal component to this as well the three levels of government along with the local communities so the federal government, provincial government, First Nations leadership at the political level and of course we all need to make sure that we're focused on providing better health care to our First Nations communities in this province. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question? The member from Berry. Thank you Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister as you know Ontario social assistance programs are critical to our government's poverty reduction goals to support the most vulnerable members of society. Maintaining an effective social safety net is one part of our government's broader efforts to reduce poverty and ensure that we have an inclusive society and economy. However constituents in my riding of Berry know that the system can sometimes be complex to navigate for those who need it. In last week's budget our government announced an income security reform process. Can you tell me more about your ministry's work to reform the income security system for vulnerable Ontarians? Thank you Minister of Community and Social Services. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and to the member from Berry for the question. Part of my mandate as the Minister of Community and Social Services is to reform social assistance and over the past year my ministry has had ongoing discussions with stakeholders, experts and those on the front line and they told us that it's important to expand reform to include aspects of the wider income security system. We listened and we will be engaging stakeholders in the coming year to develop an action plan for more comprehensive reform and the plan will be informed by client experiences and a basic income pilot project among other things. We will also engage with First Nations, Inuit and Meti nations to ensure we have an inclusive process. As we develop this action plan we will continue to take important immediate steps to improve income security such as ending the full clawback of child support from social assistance. Thank you. Thank you Speaker and thank you to the Minister for sharing information about this important action plan to improve our income security system for vulnerable Ontarians. It's important that we reduce barriers to ensure that we have a fair, adequate and accessible income security system that is simpler for Ontarians who are facing challenges in their lives. Mr. Speaker, we know that some of those Ontarians facing challenges are single parents who receive social assistance for their children. Minister, you mentioned ending the clawback of child support for social assistance recipients. Can you please share more information about this important change to social assistance? Thank you. Minister? Mr. Speaker, we know that children in single parent families are disproportionately and more profoundly affected by poverty. As part of our government's commitment to combating child poverty, my ministry will be ending the full clawback of child support for social assistance recipients. If I may remind the House, this is a budget that the Opposition voted against. Currently families receiving child support have their social assistance benefits reduced by the full amount of child support they receive. This means that families on social assistance are no better off when they receive child support and the parent responsible for making payments may feel little incentive to pay. Mr. Speaker, by not supporting our 2016 budget, the Opposition voted to keep these funds from families in need. What we know is that thanks to this budget, families who receive child support will see a positive change by this time next year. Thank you. Thank you. New question to the member for men for Nipissing, Pembroke. A question to the Minister of Energy, Speaker. Here we go again. Electricity rates will rise again May 1st up to 18 cents a kilowatt hour. The fastest rising rates anywhere in North America. And we're being told it's because we conserved too much energy. Just one more liberal excuse after another. The Minister stated he was taking steps to bring rates down. Yet since November, the average bill is up $187 per year. He says he's helping. Well, I have a message to him from consumers. Your idea of help is just too painful. Please stop. Stop helping. The Minister's just catch phrases and fun with numbers. But for people in this province, it's reaching the breaking point. The Minister needs to stop with the rhetoric and commit to action. When will he actually do something concrete to address skyrocketing electricity rates before Ontario reaches the point of no return? Do something. Thank you. So, Speaker, I'll provide some additional comments in the supplementary. But, Speaker, Ontario's residential electricity rates are and will remain competitive with similar jurisdictions in North America. When comparing a cost per kilowatt hour, Ontario's rates are lower than many American cities, are significantly lower than electricity rates in European cities, and competitive with some Canadian provinces. The recent increase, Mr. Speaker, just announced Ontario's 2.5% bill increase is reasonable and stacks very competitively across our comparatives. BC Hydro rates increased by 4% on April 1, 2016. Saskatchewan Power rates increased by 5% in 2015. Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Speaker, applied for a rate increase of 3.95% as of April 1, 2016. And Newfoundland Power Inc. applied for a rate increase of 3.6% for residential customers as of July 1, 2016, compared to Ontario's 2.5%. Mr. Speaker, we're doing quite well. Thank you. Supplementary. You know, answers like that, he just doesn't understand the pain he's inflicting on people across this province. He's going around saying what a bargain people are getting for their electricity. Where did the minister get that idea? He did not get it from the single mother who has to make a choice of whether to eat or eat. He did not get it from the senior couple who freeze in the wintertime and are gasping to get their breath in the summertime because they can't afford the electricity to run their air conditioning. Mr. Speaker, electricity in this province is no bargain. And under this government, it has continued to get worse. The first step the minister needs to take is to stop signing contracts that we clearly don't need. Will he do this or have those developers been just too generous at his Liberal Party fundraisers? Thank you. Minister? Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, our prices are competitive with most jurisdictions. Notwithstanding that we've removed coal burning generation, which all the others, almost all the others are doing, by completely eliminating dirty coal-fired generation in Ontario, our electricity system is now more than 90% emissions free. Small days in Ontario have gone from 53 in 2005 to zero in 2014, and Ontario is already living a cleaner future. We also recognize that the price of electricity can be difficult for those that pay a higher share of their income towards the bill, particularly low-income family speaker and seniors on fixed income. That's why we launched the OESP and removed the debt retirement charge on January 1st of this year, saving the average family more than $430 annually, Speaker. And we also know that bills can be even harder for families and seniors in the rural and remote communities that heat with electricity or use medically assisted devices. That's why we doubled the monthly benefit these families can access up to $100. Thank you. No question. A member from Attico. Chair of Training College and University. Minister, your ministry replaced the Jobs for Youth program with the Youth Jobs Connection program. Over the past seven years, Wabatec Business Development Corporation has successfully been delivering the Jobs for Youth program in the Manitoulin Island region. Now this program change has resulted in youth employment position for at-risk Aboriginal youth being reduced from 50 to 4 positions. Will your government reverse the cancellation of this important Jobs for Youth program, which has done so much to guide Aboriginal youth in a positive, positive direction? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the member from the Angola Manitoulin for forgetting. I apologize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank the member for his advocacy as well as for this question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we believe in the government that all Ontarians, in particular youth, from any backgrounds, they should have access for the best training and education possible. That's why, Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of this premier, we have renewed our youth jobs strategy with $250 million investments. And this strategy, Mr. Speaker, has two components. One of them is the youth job connection, which basically addresses the needs of those youths which faces with multiple barriers, including Aboriginal youths, including newcomers, youth with disabilities, and so on and so forth. And that's why, Mr. Speaker, we have been working very hard to make sure that our youth will have the training they need, education they need, so that they can contribute to our economy and be successful in their lives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, again to the minister. Over the past seven years, this program has enabled 420 Aboriginal youth between the ages of 15 and 18 to be hired, trained, and placed over that period. Their results have been outstanding, minister. Increased in Aboriginal youth and post-secondary from 62% to 91% in seven years. High-risk behaviours are curved. They work with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal employers to bridge gaps of cultural relationships and understanding and contributed to the regional economy after the program ended. Many of the youth were re-employed by their original employers. We know that our First Nations children and youth receive less than equitable services when it comes to education and child welfare compared to other Canadian youth. Will your government take every step to support this programming that redresses these inequities? Thank you, minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I want to thank the member for the question. Mr. Speaker, part of this youth job strategy is youth link program, which includes providing training and education for youth from every background, Mr. Speaker, from the ages of 15 to 29. Mr. Speaker, the employment Ontario services across the province they provide services through 320 locations across the province of Ontario and, of course, Aboriginal youth are not exception. And we will make sure that every youth in the province of Ontario they have access for training and skills which they need to be successful in their lives as well as to contribute to our economy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the question. The member for Beaches East York. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. So, Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the opposition flip-flop on climate change, we on this side of the House were delighted because we thought he was bringing the climate change deniers into the 21st century. However, it would appear that most of his caucus hasn't yet got that memo. Despite telling the media there was practically universal support in the PC caucus, many still are doing their best to delay passage of our bill. The party, the PC critic of the environment, called for an end to our policy. And the policy question is? Sorry? Oh, we called for an end to our cap and trade program. Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we know that cap and trade is an extremely important and the best method for us getting Ontario to reduce its climate, greenhouse gases, while simultaneously growing the economy. We are joining a global movement towards putting a price on carbon and it's most effective to be an early adopter. So, Speaker, would the Minister please inform all members? Time's up. And a reminder, questions are about policy of the government. Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. No, thanks very much. Mr. Speaker, we... The member from Lannard, Pranat and Addington, second time. The member from Prince Edward Hastings, come to order. Carry on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was about a year ago, as members may remember, that we announced that we had decided on cap and trade as the carbon pricing mechanism for Ontario. Matter of fact, I think this week is the first anniversary of that decision. And Mr. Speaker, that was done after very detailed conversations with industry leaders. And it enjoys the support of everyone from the President of Intact Insurance in the financial sector, Ontario Trucking Association to Don McCabe and the Ontario Farming Federation of Agriculture. And why, Mr. Speaker? Because it has three characteristics which the opposition oppose, but business, the community, the government and environmental groups. One, there's a cap and cap decline rate. That means that a small number like $17 or $18 a ton does the same amount in another system which will require a price four or five times higher than that. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for his explanation and for his tireless advocacy on this extraordinary important issue. And his advocacy is so important, Mr. Speaker, because of the filibustering that we're seeing from the other side as it makes its way through clause by clause. They are demonstrating that they are very divided on this file and they're not at all serious about combating climate change. And there are amendments to demonstrate that as well. It is not our government's policy, as their amendment would suggest, that we remove the sections that links cap and trade with other jurisdictions. Ontario firms, as a result, would lose access to low-cost reduction opportunities that may be available in other jurisdictions. It's also not government policy to accept their amendment that would further restrict our investments in renewable energy. So I've come to believe, Speaker, that the parties fundamentally does not understand the threat of climate change and, two, how do property combat it? So, Speaker, would the minister please form the House what experts, stakeholders, and those who are in the know are saying about this bill, specifically, how its revenue can be spent to provide positive... Thank you. Minister? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So it's a good segue into the three characteristics that you'd need in a carbon pricing system to be economically positive and to achieve greenhouse gas reductions, which is the other objective. You need a cap decline rate, Mr. Speaker. In other systems in other parts of the world, none of them are meeting their objectives. Their GHG emissions are going up, and people who are using the model the opposition is advocating for have seen two things, industry leave and GHG emissions going up. So we know they're opposed to our system, but they seem to support a system that doesn't work, Mr. Speaker. The other reason for linking markets is you need a large, stable market to keep prices down. In the opposition's mind, you'd have to have a price-only system which would require a price four to five times higher than it would be in Ontario, Quebec or California or Japan or other places where this is working, Mr. Speaker. And the third piece is, Mr. Speaker, is you need money. The trucking association, the farmers, banking, industry insurance, all need us to provide the funding for low-carbon technology and fueling systems. Thank you. My question this morning is to the Premier. Councillors at the region of Niagara are currently investigating the Burgoyne Bridge replacement project in St. Catharines, an event that led to the escalation of the cost to the project from an original price tag of $45 million to a total cost now well over $90 million. Speaker, the taxpayers of Ontario contributed $18 million to this project through its infrastructure Ontario program. Is the Premier satisfied that the municipalities flowed to this project by her government were properly and appropriately spent and accounted for? Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that as partnerships with municipalities are many in this province, Mr. Speaker, because we are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in our tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure around the province, Mr. Speaker. There are parameters around those partnerships. There are accountability measures in terms of money that flows. I will get the member opposite more information on this particular project. I don't have that information but I'm happy to get it for him. What I can tell the member opposite, Mr. Speaker is that the investments that we are making in infrastructure, which are a fundamental part of our plan for economic growth are critical to the communities around this province that are in need of those investments if they are going to be able to thrive, Mr. Speaker. I know that those investments are not investments that the opposition supports but we know, Mr. Speaker, that investments in infrastructure bring business, they draw jobs to Ontario and they create jobs as that infrastructure is built. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. The Premier should also be aware that concerned Niagara Region councillors have not only ordered Deloitte to do a value for money audit of this bridge project but that they have also formed a standing Burgoyne Bridge task force to look into it further. The first phase of this independent audit was quite damning. So much so that the councillors are not only proceeding with a second value for money audit but they now have started the process to do a full forensic audit of this joint federal, provincial and municipal project. Speaker, is the Premier aware of the initial audit and is she still content that infrastructure in Ontario dollars were all spent appropriately and that Ontario taxpayers got full value for their money on this important project? Thank you. As I said, I will get more information for the member opposite on this specific issue but I can tell the member opposite that as those processes are underway we will obviously look at the recommendations we'll look at the findings of those audit processes and we will make sure that any recommendations that flow from them that we pay close attention to that Mr. Speaker. But as I said, there are very transparent and very clear rules in place for the investments that we're making in infrastructure Mr. Speaker. They are critical investments. They're critical to the economic viability and prosperity of municipalities and they're critical to the overall economic viability and competitiveness of the province Mr. Speaker. We have not had support from the opposition on investments in infrastructure but we can already see the importance of these investments as communities have new infrastructure and are drawing business to their communities Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Training Colleges and Universities. Earlier this month Western University mourned the loss of a student who took his own life following the death by suicide of another Western student in November. Speaker, there is a growing mental health crisis on college and university campuses. Western Student Health Services saw a 26% increase in demand for mental health resources between 2013 and 2015. Since February of this year more than 1100 Western students have signed an online petition calling for improved student mental health services. The Liberal Government's approach to funding campus mental health on a project basis leaves too many Ontario College and University students without adequate mental health support. Will the Minister commit now to providing long-term dedicated and stable funding for on-campus mental health services? Thank you. Minister of Training Colleges and Universities. Thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to thank the member for that question. The health and well-being of students in our facilities and our post-secondary institutions being universities or colleges or career colleges is of prime importance for this government. That's why we have announced universities and colleges in order to come up with assistance to students. For example, one of those programs in place that's good to talk program which we announced last year to make sure that students will have access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days every day of the year, every moment access to assistance so that their well-being is met Mr. Speaker. So we will continue Mr. Speaker with our partners in post-secondary education system, universities colleges to make sure that our students will need and will have those assistance which they will need to succeed Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Question period is over. The time for questions is completed. There are no deferred votes. This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.