 It is now time for question period. The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opinion. Mr. Speaker, question to the Premier, a Liberal Premier once stood in this house and asked about the compensation paid to the Hydro One CEO. That Premier said, why is it that with all the Bay Street savvy and financial acumen in Ontario we are paying more than Quebec for our CEO? With cheaper rates than Ontario, the boss at Hydro Quebec must be doing a great job. I would like to pose a similar question to this Liberal Premier, Mr. Speaker, with all the savanness and financial acumen in Ontario, why are we expected to pay almost 10 times the salary that Quebec does for their Hydro CEO? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Minister of Energy will want to speak to the details, but I know that the Leader of the Opposition, who has in the past commented on the ability of the private sector to run certain operations better than Government, Mr. Speaker, that he understands that the private sector often does a better job. What we have done is we have made a decision to broaden the ownership of Hydro One. We have decided to do that in a way that is prudent. Because we know that we need to make investments in infrastructure. Underlying this question, Mr. Speaker, is an assumption by the Leader of the Opposition, I can only assume, that we don't need to invest in infrastructure, that he doesn't think it's necessary to build the roads and bridges in communities like the one we were in yesterday for the plowing match, Mr. Speaker, and he doesn't think that we should invest in transit. I disagree with him on that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again, the Premier is going to give the private sector a bad name if she thinks it's responsible to pay 10 times the price of the Hydro Quebec CEO. Let me say the top five executives at Hydro One will make $24 million when you tally all the perks. $4 million alone for the new CEO. After this year, the people of Ontario will never know how much higher that salary will grow year after year. The Premier says that Ontario will continue to have control of Hydro One after the fire sale. Mr. Speaker, my question is very direct. Will the Premier disclose, year after year, the salaries of the Hydro One execs? Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition, he should know that the salaries of the CEO will be disclosed, Mr. Speaker. They're regulated under the Sanctuary Securities Commission. Mr. Speaker, he knows perfectly well. Mr. Speaker, from an article that was in the Globe and Mail yesterday, because, you know, it's very important that we put in this process in context, Mr. Speaker, so in the Globe and Mail yesterday, and I quote, Premier Kathleen Nguyen was re-elected last fall with a mandate to reinvest in the province, particularly through transit and infrastructure projects that are expected to fuel growth. Much respect to the Premier for embracing such a difficult choice. The Liberals advised by Mr. Clark, Alan Hibben and Tori's LOP, are executing this beautifully, and then it goes on, Mr. Speaker. They've persuaded Bay Street to accept some of the lowest IPO underwriting fees imaginable, and they've addressed the biggest problems that made the privatization of Highway 4... Thank you. Final supplementary. Choice. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, the salary is disclosed, not the total compensation. So again to the Premier, everywhere I go across Ontario, from Kitchener to Cornwall, families and seniors tell me they're concerned about how to pay their hydro bills. They know it's going to get worse, expected to rise 42%. They are forced to choose between heating and eating. In the face of this hardship, Mr. Speaker, this Premier is giving the new Hydro One CEO a $4 million salary. So my question is, is it fair to ask Ontario families struggling to pay their hydro bills, and then at the same time hand out multi-million dollar contracts for execs at Hydro One? Opposition should know, but he may not, that Hydro One doesn't set Hydro rates, Mr. Speaker. He would know that the Ontario Energy Board sets Hydro rates. But I want to go back to the... Finish, please. No, as I said in my first answer, Mr. Speaker, the assumption under these questions from the opposition is that it is not necessary in Ontario to build the roads and the bridges and the transit that we know we need for our economic well-being. The assumption is that as they did when they were in government, that can be put off for another generation, Mr. Speaker. We can just fall into a deficit of infrastructure investment in this province in the same way that they allowed that to happen between 1995 and 2003. We're not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. We're not taking their example. Thank you. New question from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. It's one thing to make a bad decision. It's another thing to never allow anyone to fix that mistake. Last week, a clause in the Hydro One perspective revealed that once Hydro One is sold, the government will never again be allowed to own more than 45%. The people of Ontario will never again have control of Hydro One. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier remove that clause from the updated prospectus? Well, Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition would know if he had read the IPO, he would know, Mr. Speaker, that 40% is that we will, the people of Ontario will retain de facto control of Hydro One, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that he would know, he would know if he'd read the IPO, that the compensation policy is public. It's on page 134, Mr. Speaker, of the primulinary prospectus. He would have that information. We've made a difficult decision, Mr. Speaker. We've made a difficult decision because we know that investing in infrastructure in this province is critical to our future. It's critical to our competitiveness. It's critical to our productivity, Mr. Speaker. We are going to make those investments. We are going to broaden the ownership of Hydro One, Mr. Speaker, and we're doing it in a prudent and a cautious way, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question again for the Premier. The Premier recently said she still calls Delta McGinty the boss when answering his emails. Well, the boss said, I quote, selling off Hydro One is a bad idea. It's a quick fix and it's a bad one. I wonder if Mr. McGinty's future emails, if he'll continue to tell her, it's a bad deal. Mr. Speaker, can the Premier explain while she's ignoring her boss's suggestions and stopping future governments from any strike from fixing her mistakes? Mr. Speaker, I want to just go back to the process because I was reading a commentary on it and I didn't get to complete it and I'd like to just like to go back to that. And this is a quote from yesterday's Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals advised by Mr. Clark, Allen Hibbin, and Tory's LLP are executing this beautifully. They've persuaded Bay Street to accept some of the lowest IPO underwriting fees imaginable. And they've addressed the biggest problems that made the privatization of the 407 Toll Highway such a boondoggle. This is a well run process, Mr. Speaker. That's the commentary that we're getting from people who actually pay attention to business and understand what this is about. We're going to invest in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. It's important for the future of this province. It's important to the quality of life of people across this problem, Mr. Speaker. And that's why we're going to make those investments. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. At the international planning match, I heard from hundreds of farmers who are opposed to the sale of Hydro-1. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture noted that the fire sale will cost rural Ontario between five and ten billion dollars in inflated energy rates. The Premier isn't in it for rural Ontario. She's not in it for farmers. So my question is why does the Premier show up for a photo-off at the international planning match, but at the same time ignored their pleas and concerns over the fire sale of Hydro-1 and how it's going to hurt farmers and how it's going to hurt rural Ontario? Thank you. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, you know, it was a great privilege for all of us to be at the international conference when really nonpartisan support of a sector was very, very important because the people who were sitting in those stands, Mr. Speaker, who were listening to the speeches, what they're concerned about is their family's farm. They're concerned about their food processing businesses, Mr. Speaker. They're concerned about their communities. They want their communities to be strong, Mr. Speaker. And what they know is that they need broadband, Mr. Speaker. They need natural gas extensions, Mr. Speaker. They need hookups, Mr. Speaker, so that they can have their businesses can thrive and they can hire people and those farms can be sustainable or whether those greenhouses can be sustainable, Mr. Speaker. That's the future of farming. Those are the investments that we're making. That's part of the infrastructure that needs investment in this province, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I might have to stay on the same path. New question, the leader of the third party. Thank you very much, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. The government released the Hydro 1 prospectus and it confirms what Ontarians have been so worried about, Speaker. The Premier is saying one thing to investors and the opposite to Ontarians. The Premier has told Ontarians that the government will maintain de facto control. In fact, she just said it a few minutes ago, the prospectus rather confirms in black and white that the province, quote, the province will engage in the business and affairs of Hydro 1 as an investor and not as a manager. So why is this Premier handing control of Hydro 1 to wealthy investors and a small group of her friends instead of taking care and protecting the interests of Ontarians, the people who actually own Hydro 1? I think the ability to remove the board, the ability to remove the CEO, Mr. Speaker, the necessity of a board that has 40% ownership by the people of Ontario to have two-thirds of that board agree to major decisions, Mr. Speaker. I think that's a fairly high degree of control. Those are the protections that we have put in place. Those are the protections that were not in place, Mr. Speaker, when the 407 was sold off in a fire sale. So we've learned the lessons from the past, Mr. Speaker. We've learned the lessons from what the conservative government do, Mr. Speaker, did, Mr. Speaker. But we've also learned other lessons, and that is those lessons are that you can't spend a generation not investing in infrastructure and still expect to be competitive on the global scene. You just can't do that. That's what was done by governments before us. We're not going to do that. We're going to invest in roads and bridges and broadband and gas hookups, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Speaker, the Hydro 1 Prospectus announces, quote, a new approach to executive compensation. This new approach, it seems, is to give Hydro 1 executives a big fat raise. The former CEO of Hydro 1 will continue to collect half a million dollars just to stay on as an advisor. And the new CEO stands to make up to $4 million per year. That's a five fold raise, Speaker. The new CFO of Hydro 1 stands to make about $1.5 million a year. While Ontarians are struggling, Speaker, to pay their bills, why is this premier handing away millions upon millions of dollars to fatten Hydro 1 executives' paychecks? Well, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party knows that Hydro 1 will be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act, the Ontario Energy Board, Mr. Speaker. She knows those regulations will remain in place. She also knows that Hydro 1 can be a better run company. If we want Hydro 1 to be a strong and professionally run company, Mr. Speaker, then we need the talent there to do that work. So that is part of what we are doing here, Mr. Speaker, is working to make Hydro 1 a better run company. 24% of people in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, are served by Hydro 1, and we want to make sure that they are served in the best way possible. But, Mr. Speaker, underlying this decision is our decision to invest in the people of Ontario, to invest in the infrastructure that is needed across the province for 20 to 15 and beyond, Mr. Speaker. We are leveraging this asset so we can invest in future infrastructure. Now, huge salaries. The members of Hydro 1 Board will also be lavishly rewarded, Speaker. Board directors will be paid $160,000 a year, and the chair of the board will be paid $260,000 a year. This is over 20 times more, Speaker, 20 times more than what the directors are paid at publicly owned Manitoba Hydro, and in Manitoba, customers pay less than half of what Ontario customers are paying. This Premier needs to get her priorities straight and pay attention to the hardworking people of this province. Why is the Premier asking families and businesses of Ontario to pay for lavish salaries on the Hydro 1 Board executives? So, Mr. Speaker, the compensation is in line with similar privately held energy companies throughout Canada, so it's not out of line with other energy companies. I think the leader of the third party knows that. The leader of the third party makes a reference to Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. I recall that it was the NDP that actually was in negotiation with Manitoba and cancelled the deal to take advantage of some of that cheap hydro power. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the leader of the third party that we are in conversation with Quebec and with Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, because we think that given their geography and given their capacity, we can find ways to come up with agreements. We've already done that with Quebec, Mr. Speaker, so that we can find the best price for the cheapest power, the best and most reliable power for the people of Ontario. We're going to continue to do that, Mr. Speaker, but we're also going to invest in it. Thank you. New question, the leader of the third party. Thank you, Speaker. My next question is also to the Premier. When the Premier first formed Ed Clark's panel, she promised that any decision would be transparent, professional and independently validated, and that's a quote. That is exactly what we need, Speaker, and that's exactly what this Premier has refused to do. The Ontario Energy Board, Speaker, has a mandate under the law to protect the interests of consumers with respect to prices, the adequacy and reliability and quality of electricity service. It's hard to imagine anything that would have a greater impact on electricity service than the sell-off of Hydro-1. So will this Premier break her promise that she made to Ontarians that this process will be transparent, professional and independently validated, or will she order an open and transparent review by the OEB? Remember for making your words come forward. Let me just follow the thread here. So the leader of the third party has said that she's concerned about Hydro rates, and we have said about electricity rates. And we have said, as she knows, that the Ontario Energy Board sets electricity rates in Ontario. They have done, and they will continue to do. So, Mr. Speaker, that's the first part of the puzzle. Mr. Speaker, now the leader of the third party is saying she wants the Ontario Energy Board. Member from Prince Edward Hastings, finish please. She wants the Ontario Energy Board to review the broadening of the ownership of Hydro-1, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that she has recognized that the Ontario Energy Board is an independent, public, nonpartisan body. They will continue to be that, Mr. Speaker. And they are the protection on energy rates. Mr. Speaker, this Premier is plowing ahead with the Hydro-1 sell-off with no public consultation, with no, the government has the authority. They have the authority to require that the OEB examine any question on energy. And the OEB can deliver exactly what this Premier has refused to do. They can deliver the kind of broad and transparent public hearings that the people of this province deserve. It's time to stop the secrecy of this sell-off, Speaker. Open the doors on the Liberals' back rooms and bring some transparency and some public accountability and scrutiny to this sell-off. The Premier promised that Ontarians would have, quote, a transparent, a professional and an independently validated process. So the question is, will she keep her promise and order the open and transparent review by the OEB? Mr. Speaker, her motion, she's recognizing that the Ontario Energy Board is an independent, public, nonpartisan body, and they will continue to set rates, Mr. Speaker. So she's acknowledging that they are what they are, which is nonpartisan, Mr. Speaker. It's independent. And so the fact is, they have her concern is about energy rates, Mr. Speaker. As she has said loudly across the province, that's her concern. Then she should understand that the Ontario Energy Board, which sets those rates and which is nonpartisan, Mr. Speaker, and is independent, that that is the protection for the people of Ontario. That's what we've been saying all along, and that's what we will continue to maintain. Member from Prince Edward Hastings, second time. You have one sentence wrap up. Thank you. Final supplement. Mr. Speaker, this Premier promised to actually listen to Ontarians. While Ontarians are sending her a very, very clear message, Speaker, on the sell-off of Hydro One. From the government's own polling, we know that three out of four Ontarians want to keep Hydro One in public hands. What is most appalling is that this Premier is plowing ahead with this sale with no public consultation, Speaker, no independent analysis speaker, and no mandate from the people of Ontario. And I know that the Liberal members in the back benches are hearing it every day from their constituents. Ontarians want the Premier to live up to her promise for an open and transparent process. Will this Premier allow a free vote from the Liberal members on our Opposition Day motion this afternoon to direct the OEB to hold the public hearings so that these members can actually stand up with their constituents in opposition to the sell-off of Hydro One? Thank you. Thank you. Very nice, Mr. Speaker. Well, you know, we ran on a platform last year to look at the assets of this province as part of a broader process, Mr. Speaker. And that process was, how are we going to invest in the infrastructure that is needed in this province? We ran on a platform to make an investment. Historical investment in infrastructure in this province. It's not easy for a government to make that decision, Mr. Speaker. It's not easy to make the choices. And I know, I know that we are making a very difficult choice. The leader of the third party doesn't need to tell me that this is a difficult choice because we've had the discussions within our caucus. I know that it's a challenge. I know that it's a challenge. But the greater challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to make decisions now that are going to handicap us in the future that are going to not allow us to grow as an economy in the future, Mr. Speaker, to be competitive and to be productive. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Today, the Premier received a letter from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce with many questions about the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. That letter was signed by a coalition of 43 local chambers of commerce, 93 employers, and 13 business associations. The Chamber's latest survey shows that 44% of businesses will cut jobs or freeze hiring because of the ORPP. The Chamber, the employers, and their business associations want to know hardly ORPP will impact Ontario's economy. To date, you have provided no such data. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why she is ignoring the call from Ontario's job creators for economic data to support the ORPP? Thank you, Speaker. And I want to thank the member opposite for her question. Speaker, I have met with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and its members extensively in the past year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce was one of the first individuals that I sent out when the Premier asked me to tape on this file. I note, Mr. Speaker, in the letter that was sent by the OCC that they have said the Ontario Chamber of Commerce continues to support the government's policy objective to ensure that all Ontarians are adequately prepared for debt. When people retire, they need to have a predictable stream of income so that they can continue to spend into the retirement years that are ahead of them. Mr. Speaker, that's important for business. That's important for our community. And I really wish the opposition would understand. Thank you. Until the end of the year, where is the economic analysis of the Premier's pension now? We've had enough of feel good emotional arguments and meetings around the province. We need data. We need to know how many people will lose their jobs. We need to know how many more companies will shut their doors. We need to know how many companies will not come to Ontario. The leaked cabinet document we have states that Ontario could lose 40,000 jobs. That's a staggering number of people losing their jobs at the whim of the Premier. So Mr. Speaker, will the Premier stop stalling and admit that her new pension plan will cost thousands of jobs? Question. To harm the gross domestic product and scare away investment. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows better. In fact, it was your amendment it was your amendment that we accepted the legislation. Mr. Speaker, it was the PC's proposed amendment that we accepted at committee that committed the government to provide a cost-benefit analysis by the end of the year. That was your amendment. We accepted that and included that in the final legislation. Mr. Speaker, we are listening to business. In fact, we recently have announced that the government intends to ensure that we expand the definition of comparable plan, Mr. Speaker, which would be of assistance to many capital accumulation plans. Mr. Speaker, we've also ensured that we are listening to business. They need to plan and they need to prepare for the introduction of the ORPP and we've ensured that we've responded to them and their concern. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member from Toronto, Danforth. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, my question to the Premier. Earlier this morning, the Premier dragged the media away from this house so she could stand beside Ed Clark and talk about beer. But last Friday, last Friday when Ed Clark released a prospectus showing that our hydro bills would soon be padded with fat raises for hydro one executives and board directors, the Premier was nowhere to be found. And I can understand why. Beer has been a great distraction from the hydro one sell-off. Will the Premier stop trying to use beer to distract us and instead explain to Ontarians why their hydro bills are going up in order to pad the pockets of Bay Street executives and investors? Mr. Speaker, the critic for energy. The member from Prince Edward Hastings is Warren. Carry on. Critic for energy from the third party, Mr. Speaker. It's been around here for a long time. He knows what the Ontario Energy Board does, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, it's included here in a letter that the Premier sent that the leader of the third party sent to the Premier basically saying the Ontario Energy Board is legislated to protect the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability, and quality of the electricity service, Mr. Speaker. They will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. They have shown over and over again, Mr. Speaker. When OPG or hydro one comes with a request for an increase and if their salaries are too high, executive pensions, executive pensions are too high, Mr. Speaker. They roll them back and they don't give them the increase that they're asking for, Mr. Speaker. It is a credible, objective measure protecting the public. Thank you, supplementary. Well, that was a classic non-answer. Speaker, back to the Premier. Only this Premier would use her support for a privately run beer monopoly as a way to distract from her support for a privately run hydro monopoly. She's also used beer to distract from her OPP investigations and today she used beer to distract from the Auditor General's report on CCACs. But Ontarians refuse to be distracted. They're deeply concerned about the hydro one fire sale and nearly 80% of Ontarians expect their bills to go up. A majority of Ontarians strongly oppose the hydro one sell-off. Will the Premier stop trying to distract Ontarians with beer and instead listen to them and stop this reckless and short-sighted sale of hydro one? Thank you, minister. Mr. Speaker, the member of that party and the leader of that party, Mr. Speaker, forget that they lost the last election, Mr. Speaker. The last election we campaigned on repositioning assets, Mr. Speaker, whether that's the beer store, LCBO, and they specifically mentioned Mr. Speaker, the agencies that are dealing in the energy business, Mr. Speaker. So we talked about it in the election campaign. We brought it forward. We debated it in budget, Mr. Speaker. We're doing, we're fulfilling the mandate that we saw from the public of Ontario. We're fulfilling the mandate that this House approved having the majority of votes here, Mr. Speaker. It's the right thing to do. It's a responsible thing to do. And I would refer the third party, Mr. Speaker. to the Globe and Mail article of yesterday, which puts this thing in perspective. And sir, thank you. Thank you. New question. The member from York South Western. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of labour. Over the summer, I heard several media reports about the impacts of post-traumatic stress disorder. This is an issue that I have been following closely, and like many in this House, believe that more must be done. We need to ensure that the first responders in my riding and throughout Ontario, the brave firefighters, the hardworking paramedics, dedicated police officers, and numerous others who risk their lives to keep our communities and our families safe are given all the protections and support that they need. Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister hosted a summit earlier this year to bring together frontline workers and experts in this area. And I'm hopeful that this was a first step in the right direction for positive change in respect of PTSD. Mr. Speaker, can the minister provide us with an update on what he's doing to help frontline workers and those living in this country? Thank you to the member for that very important question. Speaker, we all know the post-traumatic stress disorder is a very serious condition. All members of this House will know how it disproportionately affects those frontline workers that serve us so well. In turn, I think all members of this House would also agree that we need to ensure they have the protection and the resources that they need at the time they need it most. That's why, as the member previously mentioned, we did host a summit on work-related traumatic mental stress earlier this year. The goal was to generate open and frank discussions and solutions on issues surrounding PTSD. And, Speaker, at work, we're keeping this important exchange of ideas and best practices going. We're now working to take those ideas to the solution stage, to put forward the change how we approach workplace traumatic mental stress through both prevention, treatment, and how the WSIB handles it. We're pushing forward on this issue. I'm hoping all members will support that push. I thank the minister for that answer, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to hear that he is taking action on this file. Mr. Speaker, we all most must work together in this area. We owe it to the frontline workers in each of our communities. We must progress the conversation on PTSD so that it leads to continued change for Ontarians. It is essential that the minister continues to take this issue seriously and that he looks to even more that can be done. Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the minister explaining what his next steps are in addressing PTSD. Thank you, Minister. Thanks again to the member, Speaker. There are people in Ontario speaking out. They're asking very, very important questions about work-related traumatic mental stress. I want to particularly thank the member from Parkdale High Park for championing this issue, for making sure that she's kept it on the minds of the people who represent Ontarians in this House. Because I want Ontario to be a leader in not just responding, but in the prevention, the resiliency, the training, the supports that's needed for first responders, and how we might improve things. For example, how we deal with them at the WSIB. We've looked at best practices around the country, Speaker. We've looked at what Alberta's done, what British Columbia's done. We want an Ontario-grown solution. We want to be a leader in this regard. This is something we need to get right. We need to get it right the first time. I'm convinced we're ready to move on it. Thank you, Speaker. Your question, member, from 1910 Middlesex. Well, Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Premier. The government recently made significant changes to the estate administration tax, including the threat of harsh fines and jail time for estate trustees. Speaker, Ontario families deserve compassion when dealing with the death of a loved one. But it's clear that when the Liberal government made these changes, their priority was a bottom line and getting their cut of the estate as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, does the Premier honestly believe that it is the reasonable approach to generate $143 million of government revenue on the backs of dead people and their grieving families? Thank you, Speaker. And I do understand that the member has introduced a bill that looks to amend the estate administration tax. This is very interesting, Speaker, because it was in fact implemented in 1998 by the very party that he represents today, Speaker. So let's be very, very clear. The government has not introduced a new tax on estates. The government has not changed the amount of a state administration tax. It has not changed the way the tax is calculated, Speaker. So let's be very clear. What the member is doing is he's looking to reduce the taxes paid by the very most wealthy people in this province. So let's be clear about what this is. He wants to cut taxes for the most wealthy, which results in cutting services to everyone else. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. Not only is this tax, not only is this a tax imposed on grieving families, it's a tax levied on the charitable requests and donations of the deceased. So if someone leaves a portion of their estate to a local charity after they're gone, this government collects a tax on the amount of that donation. The federal government has been introducing incentives to encourage giving to charity, while this liberal government is profiting from charitable donations. Speaker, my question to the Premier is this. Why does she find it necessary to nickel and dime grieving families and charities? Mr. Speaker, so again, let's be very clear. We are not looking at increasing the amounts. We are not looking at a new tax speaker. The member opposite wants to cut taxes on those who have the most. Speaker, on this side of the House, our focus is making sure that those who need the most benefit the most. On that side of the House, they want to benefit those who have the most. Thank you. Good question. The member from Nickel Belt. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Prime Minister. Madam, the Prime Minister. Madam Premier. We are this morning. It is about the Auditor's General. The Public Accounts Committee, Committee of this Legislature, asked the Auditor General to conduct an audit of our 14 Community Care Access Centre who administer home care for this province. The reason we had asked the Auditor General to do this is because we had a hard time finding out how much of the $2.4 billion spend with CCAC actually reaches a bedside, actually reaches a patient. The Auditor General delivered, and she told us 38% of the money spent, that's $912 million of the money spent, never reaches the patients. Did you know this? Do you agree with this? Thank you, Premier. I'll come on to him. Minister of Health, I'll come on to him. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the question. I know that the Auditor General hasn't yet released her report formally. She has shared it in confidence with the committee. But I do look forward to at 12 o'clock her actually holding a press conference to formally release the details of her report and her recommendations. I've had the opportunity to, in the last couple of days, to speak with the Auditor General about the force of the recommendations in that report, and I'll have an opportunity to respond after she publicly speaks to it at noon. I'll have an opportunity to meet with the media shortly after. Thank you. Supplementary? Thank you, Speaker. The report was you released the report, Speaker, and hopefully somebody can bring a copy to the Minister. This $912 million that does not reach, there are money that does reach as the patient side, but the Auditor General will make it clear that of the money that reaches the patient side, no analysis was ever done to see that if the money was spent with result. The Auditor General made it clear that there are no standards that has been applied to this money to make sure we guarantee access, that we guarantee quality of care or care level. None of the work that is the responsibility of the government to do has been done, yet we see private contractor CEO making over $1 million a year while the PSW takes home about $20,000 a year. Our home care system is broken, Premier. It is broken and it needs to be fixed. It needs you to take it seriously so the people who depend on home care can actually get it. When will the Minister take its responsibility seriously? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate I was in the legislature at 10.30. We weren't aware that the Auditor General was going to be releasing at that time, but the report now is available online as the member opposite mentioned. We are doing what the member opposite is asking us to do. In fact, we were the party that increased over the next three years a $750 million investment in our home and community care. I released on behalf of the government earlier this year a 10-point plan, a patient's first roadmap as well, to make, I would say, the highly significant reforms in our home and community care sector to make sure that we're continuing to make patient care, the quality of care that's provided by our health care professionals across this province, of the highest standard possible. I'll have the opportunity to speak in detail with regards to the Auditor General's report. I want to give her the opportunity to address formally the media and the general public and noon I'll be following shortly after. Thank you. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, it was a beautiful day yesterday in Finch, Ontario. Host of this year's International Applying Match where our caucus had a great opportunity to be part of the festivities. In 2014, I was fortunate to be in Ivey, Ontario, not far from Barrie, when the International Applying Match took place and in 2012, when my region of Waterloo proudly hosted this event, not far from my rural home. In my community of Cambridge and North Dumfries Township, many of my neighbours are farmers. In fact, my next-door neighbour raises cattle and grows corn and soybeans. The International Applying Match is truly a celebration of all things agriculture. I know what a great event this is and how it showcases Ontario agriculture. Speaker, could the Minister please inform the House about the history of the International Applying Match and its impact on rural communities? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the member from Cambridge for that excellent question this morning. That's correct. All members of the House yesterday enjoyed a wonderful day in Finch, Ontario, in the riding of Stormont, Dundas, South Glengarry. I want to thank the current member from that riding and I want to thank the former member from that riding, who was the Chair. I also want to acknowledge the work yesterday by good friends opposite from Holoman Brandt. Holoman Norfolk, I should say. And to Mr. Big Cochry, who had the opportunity to visit with many agricultural representatives there. The International Applying Match, of course, has a very distinguished 102nd-year history. It's run by a large extensive network of volunteers. And I want to take this opportunity to thank every one of those volunteers who did a superb job at the International Applying Match. Yesterday, the International Applying Match generates $15 million in economic activity. And we're expecting $75 million. Stand, you sit. Supplement. Thank you, Speaker and thank you, Minister. The agricultural community is at the forefront of innovation and continues to grow and expand. I had the chance to speak to a number of vendors and learn from them about a wide variety of equipment that's available to farmers today. Farmers are woven into the fabric of rural Ontario and this event is an opportunity for members from all reasons of the province to visit vibrant rural communities in Ontario. Our government knows how important rural communities are to this province. And it's why we're making investments like the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund or the Eastern or Southwestern Ontario Development Funds. These investments are helping to create jobs and grow local economies. Speaker, can the Minister expand on the importance of the International Applying Match to Ontario's agriculture community and to the fabric of rural Ontario? Thank you, Minister. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the supplementary question. You're right. The idea is helping small towns and rural communities like Fitch showcase their community. It's an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the Premier's Challenge. 120,000 new jobs by this sector by the year 2020. And we shed a spotlight on small towns and communities. I remember Mr. Davis used to say that Ontario is still a province of small towns with big dreams. And that is part of the theme of this year's IPM, the link to the past, looking to the future. And, Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House, and I hope my geography is correct this morning, we will be at Harvested next year. And I believe it's in the writing of Perth Wellington. I think I got the geography correct. You got you. Thank you. You're the first one. You're the first one across the board. Speaker to the Premier, three months after this Premier launched the off-express luxury ride to Pearson, ridership is going anywhere but up, Speaker. After spending taxpayers millions on unnecessary boutique terminal facades and retro uniforms, the Premier and Transportation Minister have opted for fare pricing out of reach for most to pay for their luxury access. Problem is, it's hard to make up for that access when you've turned off your customers with high prices, leading to trains at 10% ridership capacity and less than half of what the government is projecting. Speaker, the luxury access has been bought and paid for. The train has left the station on that. Will the Premier now clean up her minister's mess and lower fare so passengers can afford the ride to what's becoming a white elephant on rails? Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Speaker. I want to thank the member opposite for that question. Obviously, he is correct in that he says that the up-express service launched back on June the 6th. The goal that Metrolinx and our government had was that by the end of year one, that ridership would be at around the 5,000 mark, I know that the team at Metrolinx and the team at up-express are working very hard on a very ambitious plan to go forward to encourage more take-up or usage of this particular service, Speaker. Of course, this is the first time that we've had a dedicated air rail link here in this region from Pearson to Union's Speaker. It's also important to recognize these are trains that run 15 minutes a day, 19 and a half hours out of 15-minute intervals for 19 and a half hours a day. Speaker, the trip itself takes approximately 25 minutes. And I will say, Speaker, anecdotally, every single individual I have the chance to speak with in this region and even some members in this House who have taken this understand that it's a wonderful experience. Thank you. It's a great way to get to the airport. We'll continue to work on this file. Speaker, back to the Premier. Speaker, when you're swimming in debt, you don't go out and buy Mercedes, but that's what they did. Even contracting for $4.5 million with a prestigious design firm for just the right extravagant touches. Riders just wanted to get from A to B and yet every shiny new bell and whistle the Premier forced them to pay for drove the price to ride up and actual ridership down. That's why we have 14 riders on a 173-seat trains. Why even Metrolinx admits the ridership well short of their targets. Speaker, both Vancouver and Chicago offer similar airport links for under $10. In Ontario, it's $27.50. Will the Premier put the brakes on unaffordable luxury fares before her retro ride becomes the Pearson Ghost Express? Oh, Minister? Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that the member opposite would want to make sure that the record here in this legislature clearly reflected the reality of the fare itself. Of course, with a presto card, and I know that it's transportation critic for that caucus, he would support fair and service integration across the GTHA Speaker. With a presto card, the fare for the entire trip is $19, not the number that he referenced. Speaker, as well, it's important to recognize that in locations around the world, when you're comparing apples to apples, for example, in Norway and in London with the Heathrow Express and the Norito Express in Tokyo, that the fare that's set in those communities and those jurisdictions for their dedicated air rail links is actually more expensive than that $19 fare I referenced a second ago, Speaker. And I also have to say, Speaker, there are members of this legislature on all three sides of the House who've had the chance to take the up-express, Speaker. And they recognize it is a success. It was delivered on time. It was delivered on budget. And again, for the first time between two of our previous Hubs in Ontario. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a question? Give me some hands-on words. Thank you, Speaker. My question's to the Premier. Here we are, another day and another missed opportunity because the Premier refuses to negotiate with teachers. In fact, it's the first win Wednesday. Well, I know the Liberal government is used to being able to impose contracts on teachers. It's high time the Premier tells our minister to get back to the table and get a fair deal with public elementary teachers. The longer labour unrest persists, the more responsibility the Premier holds for putting student learning conditions at risk. As if $500 million cut from education wasn't bad enough. Will the Premier commit to getting the Minister of Education back to the table today? Yes or no? Thank you, Premier. To the Education. To the Education. Yes, thank you very much, Speaker. And I'm actually very pleased to update the House on the progress that we've made since I was here to last give you an update. Last week at Wednesday, we reached a tentative agreement with the Francophone team. Awesome. They have suspended their proposed job action while we await ratification. This deal is notable because it's the first tentative agreement at a multiple employer table. It involved both the French public and the French Catholic trustee associations. That bodes well for organisations like QP and the OSSTF education workers which are also multiple employer tables. So I'm very pleased about that. Obviously, I'm very happy that we got ratification of our deals with OSSTF and OACDON Friday. Thank you. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. If the Minister was at the bargaining table, then she just might get an agreement with that foe as well. Back to the Premier. The cookie cutter our way or the highway approach to contract negotiations isn't working. Teachers' working conditions and student learning conditions must be protected. Our schools are in chaos due to more than a decade of chronic underfunding. My question is simple. Is the Premier too busy selling off Hydro-1 to get back to the table and meaningfully negotiate with teachers? I'm not sure I see the connection but let's just review what's happened. We have reached tentative agreements or actually ratified agreements now with three out of four of our teacher unions. Speaker, an agreement which reflects the fiscal parameters that we have settled with with the other three teachers unions. ETFO said they wanted no change change to class size. We did not change the class size in our offer to them. They said no change to prep time. We did not change our prep time in the offer that is on the table. We have made an offer which is similar to the agreements with the other three and we have a response from ETFO. What is wrong with the deal that everybody else has agreed to? You see it please? You see it please? Start the clock. Member from Scarborough Rouge River. Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, this summer your ministry launched a consultation to support a renewed long-term affordable housing strategy. Every Ontarian deserves to have a stable affordable home. And I know that address in the demand of affordable housing is a key priority of the government and your ministry. The first affordable housing strategy released in 2010 set a strong foundation for more efficient accessible system for affordable housing. But the reality that much has changed in the past five years. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain to this House why the long-term affordable housing strategy is being updated? Thank you. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Very good. Mr. Speaker, I sure can. And I want to thank the member from Scarborough Rouge River for his question. The member from Renfrew, second time. With the municipal leaders, the need to build more affordable housing has emerged as one of their preeminent concerns. Absolutely. Concerns about affordable housing was raised in more than half of the delegations I received at this year's AMO conference. And that's up from about 10% in previous years. So it's obviously a growing articulation of a need. The new long-term affordable housing strategy to the party that downvoted social housing that might be interested in this without any supports needs to reflect this growing need for housing in our province and put forward creative and innovative solutions to better respond. Affordable housing is, in my view, a critical part of social infrastructure. So I continue to be focused on working with municipalities, the private sector, housing advocates, and of course my caucus colleagues about the need to move forward in this area. Because it's important, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our government knows that in order for Ontarians to realize their full potential, they need to be provided with the right supports for success. As you say, Minister, throughout the summer, you receive feedback from our municipal partners at AMO and through visits to municipal councils. You also sought ideas from the public, from the private sector, and from municipalities and other housing partners. Securing a home that will allow us to live productive, fulfilling lives is a fundamental need that affects all of us and can generate varied responses from those with a range of varied experiences when it comes to talking about how to increase affordable housing options. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister inform members of this House on the input he has received to date from all these stakeholders? Thank you, Minister. Speaker, I'd be pleased to do that as well. We wanted to hear from Ontarians their views on the province's range of housing work so that we could better support them and their families. We want to provide municipalities with the right tools to locally respond to the housing needs of their most vulnerable members. We also want to incent leaders in the private sector to partner with us in this important work. Speaker, we are leaving no stone on turn with this new strategy and are looking at a broad, comprehensive range of solutions. Now, as the current federal government continues to forsake communities and provinces all across this country in failing to commit to a national housing strategy, we know there's much more to do. And that's exactly why providing access to affordable housing is a key part of our government's plan to build Ontario up and why I look forward to shortly. Thank you. Do you have a question? The members from Bruce Gray on itself. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Education. I want to talk to you today about the Liberal Government cut to special education and in particular about the impact of 50 educational assistant job cuts on special needs students in Bruce Gray on sound. I have a particular case to bring to your attention. This one involves two boys, Owen 11 and Noah 6, diagnosed as autistic. Owen and Nolan should be in grade one and grade six and grade one respectively, but they are not. In fact, they're at home. They're at home because no public nor Catholic school and handover can enroll them, not after this government's budget cut, 50 educational assistants in my writing. My question is simple. What does the Minister say to the stressed and frustrated parents suffering from these education cuts and most importantly, to the students forced to stay at home? Good question. Minister of Education. Yes, thank you very much. And I think we actually need to look at what has happened with special education funding. We have had an increase of special education funding of $225.7 million since we came into, it's increased since we took office. About 68% is the amount that it's increased by since 2000 and 2003. We have not cut special education funding. In fact, we've increased the per pupil funding for both special education and the overall per pupil funding. What has happened what has happened is that we're up to a spend of $2.72 billion this year. And that's what's happened. Thank you. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker back to Minister of Education. It doesn't matter how the minister slices and dice it. Owen and Noella and other special needs students are denied their basic right to an education because of this government cut to their budget. So how does this government justify spending $5.7 million on the Toronto Games executive bonuses but can't afford to keep educational assistance in the classroom? This money would cover the rehiring of the 50 educational assistance and put enough resources in schools to help support Owen, Noella and every other special needs student that I wrote about recently. Will the minister stand up and admit that the reason Owen and Noella are home and not in the classroom is because this government is spending less money on special education particularly in Bruce Gray own sound. Thank you. Obviously I can't comment on the situation of individual students and the families and the board and the school will need to work on the situation of individual families. I think what we sometimes lose track of is that we have no that we do have we do have situations where we have declining enrollment in boards and we actually do in the board that the member opposite represent have less children but that doesn't change the fact that the per capita member from Dufferin Caledon special needs children has continued to answer and that we have not special education funded. Thank you Mr. Speaker my question is to the minister of transportation ridership levels on the nearly empty UPX train continues to plummet it's actually dropped 23% according to a metro links report quietly released last week this means Mr. Speaker that nine out of 10 seats on the UPX are empty. I just heard the minister maintain that UPX is a success. He says we're pleased with the ridership so far so I guess Ontarians Ontarians simply want to know this answer Mr. Speaker how much will Ontarians pay to subsidize this luxury service for only a few business class travelers that regular people can afford to access and can afford to take. Good question. Thanks very much Speaker I thank the member for this question I know we've had the chance her and I informally to talk about this particular issue over the last number of months Speaker you know I said earlier in my response to the member from Kitchener this is a service that has now been operating since June the 6th that's a little bit more than three months I don't think anyone here in this legislature would suggest that we should make rash decisions around important transit concepts and projects that we have Speaker I said earlier that this is a project that was delivered on time and on budget for the community and Speaker I know that people in the West end of Toronto including in York Southwest and in Davenport where both of our members on this side have talked to me about the issue as well are looking for alternatives to get to the downtown core I would encourage that member and all members to remind the people living in these communities that there are two GO stations Speaker one in Weston and one on Bloor which do provide additional service to people who want to get downtown in the meantime we'll continue to encourage more to use this service and I anticipate we'll hit our target of 5,000 riders by June 6th of next year Speaker Thanks very much Thank you There being no deferred votes this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon