 Therefore, it's now time for Question Period, the leader of Her Majesty's moral opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Ross McClain from Barrie wrote me to share his family's story. His daughter recently turned five and waited three and a half years for IBI treatment. She's now been receiving treatment for just three weeks. The family has already seen a market improvement. Mr. McClain knows autism doesn't end at five. His son actually benefited from IBI until the age of 12. Clearly, autism doesn't end at five and neither should IBI treatment. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why her government thinks it's okay to kick Mr. McClain's daughter out of treatment after just three weeks? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to answer the question and I will do that. First, I want to congratulate the leader of the opposition on completing the Boston Marathon. It's no mean feat to complete a marathon, so congratulations. Mr. Speaker, of course what we want is for that child and every child in Ontario who has autism to get the service that they need. We want her to get the intensive treatment that she needs, which is why the transition into the new program will include in those intensive services. We understand that the $8,000 that will be the initial transition, that's not enough. We understand that. That's why we're setting up the program, Mr. Speaker, that will allow her to continue with intensive services. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. I also received an email from Tia Riopole from Uxbridge. She's the mum of Jolien Jones. I want to read to you the impact IBI had for Jolien. IBI, to quote the family, gave her a voice, words, the ability to make eye contact and make friends. IBI opened her eyes to her family. After six months of IBI, she acknowledged the presence of her grandfather for the first time and gave him a hug. That's how the family describes it. Listening to that, how can you take away IBI treatment from Jolien's family? Mr. Speaker, will the Premier think as a parent and a grandparent and explain how she can take away IBI treatment away from all these children and families? We don't need political talking points. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing and not kick these kids off the way back? Thank you. Premier. The opposition party wants to frame this as though we're taking something away from people. What we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are providing services that are tailored to the children, and those will be intensive, Mr. Speaker. So I need us to hear from some of the people who have been advocating for these changes, people who are experts in the field, and are working with the very children that the member is talking about. Peter Zotmari, who is the Chief of Child and Youth Mental Health Collaborative between CAMH, Sick Kids and U of T. And Peter Zotmari has been working... I'm from Leeds, Granville, Second Time. We've been working in this field for decades. What he says, Mr. Speaker, is it is so important to personalize intervention services for children with ASD. This funding opportunity is a significant step in that direction. Early intervention for all, but different interventions at different times is an essential step in the right direction. That is what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. No matter how you slice it, thousands and thousands of kids have been taken off the wait list for help. Not done through providing... Minister of Children and Youth Services. Abandoned. These children can't be abandoned. So I'm going to tell you another story. This one from the Saunders family. On March 28, their daughter Sloan came off the IBI waiting list after two long years of waiting. One week later, they were told Sloan was now too old to receive treatment and her IBI would end in September. As the Saunders said, this is life-changing therapy. Autism does not end at five. Mr. Speaker, the Premier do the right things. Hearing the overwhelming response from families in Ontario, from those with a loved one with autism. Will she do the right thing and stop these cuts to the IBI therapy? Will the Premier do the right thing? Yes or no? Thank you. Can you see this please? Thank you. Premier. $333 million new dollars, Mr. Speaker, that are going in to create the program, Mr. Speaker, to provide a transition. And we know autism doesn't end at five. And Mr. Speaker, we also know that sitting on a waiting list and not getting any service is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I actually am quite shocked that the opposition parties, both of them, would be advocating for keeping children on a waiting list and not getting any service. So let's see. The Minister of Labor is not helping. Sloan to have the service that she needs, Mr. Speaker, to get that intensive service. And as importantly, I want all the children who are on that waiting list who are not getting service to get the intensive service that they need in the same way that Sloan is getting that. Answer. That's the change that we're making, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question? You leave it up to the opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, since I can't get anything but political spin on the autism cuts, let's talk about something else. I came across a... Question please. Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, I came across a photo of a Hydro-1 bill the other day. It was dated April 13th, 2016. It read, on peak, zero kilowatt per hour is used. Mid-peak, zero kilowatt per hour is used. Off-peak, zero kilowatt per hour is used. Total cost of electricity, $113. Wow. Mr. Speaker, why is it acceptable for Hydro-1 to charge this family $113 for not using any electricity? Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As recognized, Hydro-1 needed to be improved. We made the changes necessary to provide greater consumer experience, and that is being done. And Mr. Speaker, we've modernized electricity system that needed to be improved. We've done so. I would like to use that line as well. Minister. And we continue to advance on those improvements so that consumers have the ability to get the services they need. Excuse me, if you think this is some kind of game that as soon as I sit down you start up again, you're sadly mistaken. So if that happens again, I'll nail you. Carry on. And throughout this process, it's not necessary to be competitive. I appreciate the member's question. And that's one of the very reasons why Hydro-1 has made the changes they've made, Minister. Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. I didn't hear anything remotely to be an answer in that response. So I'll ask the Premier again. As city news puts it, the math doesn't add up. Despite a mild winter which saw Ontarians conserve electricity, Hydro rates are set to... Member from Newmark and Aurora. ...because we saved too much energy. It defies the logic that the reason given by the government, that you use less and you get charged more only if... ...you get charged more only in Ontario. The family got charged $113 and now has to pay more. It's unbelievable. Mr. Speaker, does the Premier find it acceptable to charge Hydro customers more to use less? Simple question. Yes or no? Thank you. Minister? So Mr. Speaker, when it comes to pricing, the member has just reinforced the necessity for us to make these enhancements and these improvements to Hydro-1. Which is exactly what we've done. And in 2013, our long-term energy plan, the average projected payment was about $167 on the monthly bill. What the opposition fails to acknowledge is that prices are in fact coming down well below those very projections. But what we must do is continue to provide the services necessary to improve. The member from Lampton can't metal sex, come to order. And the member from Prince Edward Hastings come to order. And to count the OEB's most recent rate decision, the average household bill will be under $150 per month. That's about $200 per year less than the projections that were given publicly more than two years ago. We have made improvements and I recognize the member's question for a specific individual. And that's all the reasons we put forth an ombudsman necessary to address her issue directly. And that is why, again, we've made those appropriate changes on Hydro-1. Mr. Speaker, once again, back to the Premier. Unbelievable that the Minister of Finance can actually say in the cells that Hydro-8s are going down. No one in Ontario believes that, not even for a second. Now, the problem. Brady Yacht, the Executive Director of the Consumer Policy Institute, explained the rise in Hydro-8s by saying this. I quote, this province has overbuilt the electricity sector significantly and has to pass those costs on. In fact, Ontario is now procuring an additional 900 more megawatts of costly energy. Much of that from costly wind projects. It's not just that it's overbuilt. It's that they continue to overbuild. The question is why? Maybe we could ask the wind companies that attend their $6,000 plate dinner with the Premier and the energy minister. Why? Is this about rewarding your friends? Or is this about affordable hydration? Minister. Mr. Speaker, we've been very clear in our long-term strategy, in our budgets, in our regard to providing a prudent plan on Ontario's energy. And we've shared those investments, substantive investments, to introduce new power plants clean and eliminating coal completely from our system. It also highlights, in the last two elections, the oppositions have made no plans, have not identified any publication of what those electricity costs would be going forward, and they keep those details secret. But, Mr. Speaker, eliminating dirty coal generation from Ontario, from our electricity system, now enables 90% of emissions free. Smog days in Ontario in 2005 were 53. In 2014, so smog days have been zero, Mr. Speaker. None because of the efforts and the investments that we've made to improve emissions and a cleaner environment. Southern, the opposition does not support, and that's unfortunate for future generations. We continue to fight for it. Thank you. Your question? The leader of the third party. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Earlier today, I stood with the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Green Party of Ontario. And together, we called on the Premier to form an independent panel that will recommend changes to how election campaigns are funded. So, we can bring about real change in a way that is transparent, in a way that is open, Speaker, and in a way that is trustworthy. Will this Premier agree to appointing a nonpartisan panel to bring fairness to Ontario's election rules? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm committed to changing political donation rules in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. We have put forward a proposal in terms of bringing in draft legislation in the spring, Mr. Speaker. We have said that there is already a broad consensus on the direction that we need to go. I had a meeting with the leaders of the opposition parties to get their input on some of the questions, because there are questions, even though there is a consensus on, for example, banning union and corporate donations, Mr. Speaker. There are questions around public subsidy, for example. I have no idea where the leaders of the opposition party stand on the details around that. So, I look forward to hearing from them. And, Mr. Speaker, you know, it's interesting, because my understanding from the press conference this morning is that there was a desire to have input into the draft legislation. I have asked for that input from the opposition leaders, and I will come back to that in my supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Well, Speaker, apparently the Premier didn't listen at that meeting that she had with the leaders of the opposition parties, because we told her quite clearly that she should not be changing Ontario's election laws unilaterally, because that puts us on a very slippery slope, Speaker. Today, I, along with the leader of the official opposition and the Green Party of Ontario, set our partisan interests aside, and together we are asking the Premier to do the right thing and to put her partisan interests aside. It's not just political parties. Democracy Watch has said, quote, the unilateral decision by the Liberals on changes that will be made goes against their own commitment to consult with Ontarians, end quote. Will the Premier listen to Democracy Watch and the leaders of three of Ontario's four major parties and agree to meaningful public consultation through an independent panel before changing Ontario's election laws? It's remarkable that the leader of the third party is basically saying that there is no democratic process that we follow in this legislature. It's quite remarkable. What we have said is that we bring forward draft legislation and in an unusual process send the legislation out for consultation after first reading, Mr. Speaker, and then allow for that consultation to take place between now and the fall, Mr. Speaker, and then allow the legislation, send the legislation out for consultation again after second reading, Mr. Speaker. That would mean that the opposition parties can call whatever witnesses they want, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the committee. And, Mr. Speaker, what's also interesting is that right now the House leaders are having a conversation about how the opposition parties might give input into the legislation before it's drafted. That seems to run counter to what the leader of the third party said this morning. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, what is remarkable is that this Premier is clinging to her power instead of doing the right thing by the people of Ontario. That's what's remarkable, Mr. Speaker, and it is very unseemly in a democratic province. Today's press conference wasn't about me, nor was it about the leader of the official opposition, nor was it about the leader of the Green Party, Mr. Speaker. Order. Leader. Let's ask you about Ontarians, and perhaps this Premier needs to think about them when she's thinking about this issue. We came together in the spirit of cooperation and consensus to call on this Premier to do the right thing, Speaker. For nearly 30 years, election laws were updated with consensus and nonpartisan input. We are calling on this Premier to build on that tradition instead of putting Ontario on a slippery slope where any political party with a majority can change election laws whenever they want. Will this Premier agree to establishing a nonpartisan panel that will make recommendations on how to ensure election laws are fair for Ontarians? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not willing to delay the process. I'm not willing to slow it down. I'm not willing to buy into the stalling tactics of the opposition parties, Mr. Speaker. And as I said, right now, my understanding is that the government house leader is having a conversation with the other house leaders about how the opposition parties might have input into the legislation if they choose before the legislation is drafted. But that obviously starts with the opposition parties actually coming forward with some substantive opinions about some of the issues that have to be grappled with in order to write the legislation. And then, Mr. Speaker, that legislation can go out and the opposition parties can call whomever they choose to come and speak to the legislation across the province. That's the definition of the democratic process as it works in this legislature, Mr. Speaker, and as it works in the province of Ontario. I look forward to their participation in that. Thank you. New question? Mr. Speaker, my next question is also for the Premier. The leaders of three of Ontario's major political parties joined to say that our elections should be fair and Ontarians themselves should be involved at every step of the way if changes are going to be made, Speaker. None of us are asking to be in charge, Speaker, but we are saying that the Liberal Party shouldn't be in charge of making the rules either. The rules that govern our democracy should be built fairly and they should be built to last. Not made according to the whims of any one political party, Speaker. Will this Premier agree to create a panel chaired by a neutral party outside of this legislature with members from political parties, Ontarians, and civil society like business, labour, and academia? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I am quite confident that business and labour and academia, folks from each one of those sectors and beyond, Mr. Speaker, will come to speak to the committee. Mr. Speaker will come to speak to the legislation after first reading, Mr. Speaker, the whole point. So I hear the heckling on the other side. You know, the point just to inform the member opposite. Member from Lannark, second time. The point of sending the legislation out after first reading, Mr. Speaker, would be to hear that input in order to be able to amend the legislation in ways that would be appropriate given the remarks that will be heard at committee. That's the whole point of sending it out after this reading, Mr. Speaker. So I look forward to that debate as the legislation comes forward. Thank you. Supplementary? Well, Mr. Speaker, those of us on this side of the House are confident that regardless of what anybody says in a committee process that's run by the Liberals, that the Liberals will do whatever the heck they want at the end of the day, the pockets are, or what, where they come from, that their voice will actually be heard, Mr. Speaker. That's why we need to make election laws with a process that is fair, Mr. Speaker, and that is open. Three of Ontario's major political parties have set partisanship aside and agreed on the ground rules for a process that is fair, that is open, that is transparent, and most importantly, a process that Ontarians can have faith in, Speaker. Will this Premier do the right thing and agree to that process? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party is preoccupied with the process, but there are some things we actually don't need to consult on, and I'd be interested to know what they think about that. For example, we don't need to consult on whether or not we should move to a ban on union donations. We don't believe we need to consult on a ban of corporate donations. We don't think we need to consult on issues around reforming third-party advertising and putting maximum spending limits on third-party advertising. We don't think we need to consult on the issue of whether we should reduce the maximum donations, Speaker. We have put forward our proposal. We really do hope, we really sincerely hope that the opposition parties will participate in the legislation discussion. The Premier has welcomed your input. You are just focused on the process. We're focused on action. The Premier of this province has an extremely important decision to make. She can agree with the growing consensus of political parties and civil society that changes to our election laws should be made based on fairness, consensus and with the approval of Ontarians and established a nonpartisan advisory panel on political finance reform and election participation, or she can go it alone, Speaker, making all the decisions in the back rooms of the Premier's office and ramming things through a Liberal-dominated committee, giving Ontarians more reason to be cynical about politics and this Liberal government. Speaker, the question is very simple. Which is it going to be? Minister of the environment, come to order. Minister of the environment, in case you didn't hear me, come to order. The member from Renfrew, come to order. Deputy Premier. Well, Speaker, it is surprising and interesting that the leader of the third party is opposed to changes that the NDP government has made in Alberta, Speaker. In Alberta, the NDP introduced an act to renew democracy. In Alberta, the Premier introduced legislation and then it was sent to committee for public consultations. In fact, as you heard from the Premier, we're adding an extra round of public consultations after first reading, which is a very unusual step. I'm going to ask all members to come to order because it's not one-site. Finish, please. So, Speaker, here in Ontario, we're consulting before we introduce the legislation. We believe it's important to get this right, but we also believe it's important that we get this done, Speaker. So, we are moving forward because we think this kind of reform needs to be made and it needs to be made now. Thank you. Question from Elgin. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Every week, we're hearing about the crisis in healthcare, the rationing of our system that leaves many without healthcare services. Now, we're hearing that people will die due to the government's mismanagement of the healthcare system. Allostem cell transplant is the only treatment for patients with acute leukemia, MDS, or other life-threatening diseases. The Princess Margaret Hospital is rejecting new patients requiring stem cell transplants because they've run out of money. The option now given to patients is to seek treatment in the United States. Ontarians expect our healthcare system to be better than that. Speaker, will the Minister ensure that emergency funding is available so that Ontarians can receive life-saving treatment they require in Ontario? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the question. Mr. Speaker, our government has increased funding for stem cell transplants in this province by over 600% in the last four years. And we've done this to meet increasing demands, and I know the member opposite knows this as well, and this is a good thing. Recent advances, technological advances, pharmaceutical advances in care have actually made stem cell transplant, particularly the allogenic type, which is a transplant from another, a different donor into the individual, has made it a safer and a more effective option for more patients than ever before. And so we're seeing the result of that technological advance in the increased opportunity for Ontarians to benefit from that procedure. So the increase in eligible patients, it is true and accurate that the wait times for stem cell transplant had grown in this province, and that's why our government is working to make sure that we meet that growing demand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister, you're not meeting the growing demand, and in fact, I find it insulting to the people of Ontario that the Ministry of Health has money to run radio ads promoting how great they are and not enough money for people with need and cancer treatment. Mr. Speaker, how many funding emergencies must Ontarian space before this government acts? Lack of funding for life-saving treatment is unacceptable. For a treatment where time is of the essence, current patients at Princess Margaret must wait on average 200 days, which increases the chance of treatment failure. For new patients needing treatment, there's no viable option for transplants in the province. They must travel to another country. Speaker, we have seen the rationing of care for mental health and dementia patients. The rationing of care through postponement and complete cancellation of knee and hip surgeries across the province. But to ration life-saving treatment, has the government's mismanagement of health care reached a new low? Speaker, will the minister stop the rationing and act now to ensure life-saving stem transplant is acceptable? Thank you. Minister of Health. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's somewhat hypocritical because that member... The minister will withdraw. I withdraw. Here he is. Well, it's somewhat surprising then, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite would take this particular approach. In fact, the entire opposition that voted against our budget that actually allocated nearly 30 million dollars, new dollars, Mr. Speaker, four stem cell transplants in this province. And that money is flowing and we're aware of the operational concerns. There are six hospitals across this province that will benefit from that increased funding, Mr. Speaker. But we're also aware that we need to deal with these wait times immediately. And that's why Cancer Care Ontario is working with the patients in the hospitals currently on the wait list to ensure that that out-of-country option is available for them if they choose it, but it's that 30 million dollar investment that they voted against that will really make the difference, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. In the past, the Premier's created expert panels on studying everything from reports by other expert panels to what should be sold in grocery stores. But the Premier is dragging her feet on creating an independent panel that will make sure that Ontarians can trust the new election rules that are developed are actually fair and put democratic values first. This is very different from other bills. This is a democratic bill that will address the way our elections are governed. Will the Premier join with Demarxy Watch, the NDP, the Greens and the PCs and agree to establish a transparent, fast-moving, non-partisan panel beneath any deadline set to make sure that the new election rules are fair in this province. Thank you. Well, Speaker, again, I will say to the member opposite, what's more democratic than taking a bill to the democratic institution that is represented by people who have elected those representatives? Speaker, there's nothing more democratic than this House. And Speaker, I think the rhetoric coming from the third party is very dangerous, from the NDP is very dangerous when they start arguing somehow this place and the members who are elected in this House are not democratic and do not have the expertise, do not have the credentials, do not have, Speaker, the validity to work on issues such as reforming our campaign finance rules. Speaker, I ask the NDP to come forward with their substantive ideas so that we can work together, we can listen to experts within the legislative process and pass this very important piece of legislation. Thank you. What's dangerous is when one party uses its majority to rewrite election rules in the province, that's what's dangerous. In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada said electoral fairness is key where Canadians perceive election rules to be unfair, but their apathy follows shortly thereafter. We want to ensure that people have trust in the process to ensure that the results are also very fair. The Premier can show leadership today. She can agree to ensure that our election rules are made in an impartial manner through an independent panel that's nonpartisan and most importantly based on consensus decision making. In an open process, Ontarians can trust the results. So the question is simple, will she do the right thing? Will she ensure that an independent panel is struck that abides by principles of consensus decision or will she go it alone and keep the process entirely under the control of the liberal majority? Speaker, what basically the NDP process does is it prolongs this process and undermines bringing new campaign financing rule speaker in preparation of the next election. Speaker, this side of the house, the government, the Premier is not interested in prolonging this matter. We want to bring a legislation this spring speaker and as a result what we want to do is we want to have very robust consultation both after the first reading and after the second reading of the legislature. Now I understand Speaker, the member opposite may be a little confused because we haven't used that process where we can take a bill right after first reading but speaker, we have an amazing opportunity through our rules to take a bill right after first reading. We want to have this consultation throughout the summer, listen from the chief electoral officer, listen from the leader of the Green Party and experts in Ontario's get their view so we can work together speaker collaboratively and pass a piece of legislation that will foster democracy. Thank you. Thank you for the minister of Aboriginal affairs. Speaker, we were all deeply saddened to hear about the tragic news at Attawapiskat last week. It's important to note that our government took urgent steps to respond to their call for help and we've learned that Ontario is providing $2 million in immediate support and is addressing long-term assistance to the community at this time of need. And Mr. Speaker, it is the right thing to address just one of many communities in Ontario facing these sorts of challenges. Speaker, could the minister please tell us how the government is working with Indigenous communities to address the everyday challenges that they face? Thank you, minister of Aboriginal affairs. Speaker, the health and well-being of all First Nations people is a priority for this government, especially those in communities like Attawapiskat and other remote First Nations. I want to start by commending my colleagues, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Children and Youth, for their very swift response to the crisis in Attawapiskat. Our government recognizes that more work needs to be done to improve the health status and overall well-being of people living in remote communities. That's why our 2016 budget included greater investments in Indigenous health services, access to education and Northern infrastructure. Speaker, I also now have a federal partner that is willing to work with First Nations and provincial governments to maximize investments and to complement our work in addressing these issues. Speaker, that was not the case with the previous federal government. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for all of their hard work on this very important issue. The challenges that these communities face are systemic, inadequate housing, risk of flooding, limited access to clean drinking water, and insufficient educational supports. Mr. Speaker, these are issues affecting Indigenous communities right across Ontario, and while we are now fortunate to have a federal government that is committed to working with our Indigenous partners, Ontario does have a role to play. It's very encouraging to see that in the 2016 budget we have included a number of very significant investments for Indigenous people, such as funding our long-term strategy to combat violence against Indigenous women. Speaker, could the minister please tell us what our government is doing to help remote communities address the issues that they face? Thank you, minister. Speaker, in the 2016 budget we set out a number of commitments that benefit remote communities. Some of them are $13 million to support Indigenous communities in climate change and develop micro grids and energy storage options. $100 million over three years for our long-term strategy to end violence against Indigenous women and girls. This funding includes funding for additional front-line services workers to provide access to family services, $80 million for a new family well-being program to help families in crisis and support communities. Other investments in Indigenous health such as additional funding for Aboriginal health and wellness strategy to address the very high costs of program delivery in remote communities. $1.3 million annually for Aboriginal access centers. $2 million for engagement on public mental health. This government is very serious about addressing these issues, Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Laurentian University has made the decision to close its buried campus in large measure because it was turned down by the government and its bid to expand to an independent campus and in part because it was being forced by the government to restrict where and how it educated its student body. Ultimately, it all comes back to funding, Speaker. Hundreds of students will be displaced from the buried campus of Laurentian before they finish their degrees. Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing? Will she and her government provide transitional funding for these students to remain in bury to finish their degrees? Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Speaker. And I think it's important to note on this issue that our government has been committed to trying to figure out how to make sure that students who are in Simcoe County do have good access to post-secondary education. And in fact, we've worked extensively with Georgian College, with Laurentian, with Lakehead who all have a presence in bury to figure out how we can expand that access to high quality degree level education in bury and Aurelia and other communities in Simcoe County. And in fact, we went so far as to have John Garrett and have a work with them all last summer. However, as the member has noted Laurentian College has decided to close its campus in bury. And they are working with Thank you. Supplementary. Again to the Premier. Students thought they were entering a contractual relationship when they signed into their university programs in bury. One of the terms is rightly assumed to be the school will be here while I'm finishing my degree. Now it won't be for so many of them. Why can't students at Laurentian and bury finish their degrees the way they started in bury? Thank you very much. Speaker, I want to assure you that we have been working with Laurentian and working with students who want to complete their degrees understandably. 105 of the 220 students that have been effective have already chosen to continue their degree on the Sudbury campus of Laurentian and I understand that half of them have actually already starting classes recently or very soon. But the students will have a range of options as I've noted. Some of them will be completing their degrees at the Sudbury campus. Some of the students will be able to complete a three-year Bachelor of Arts degree in bury at the George and Lakehead campus and some of them are opting to transfer to another university with a letter of permission from the faculty to take courses at another university. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Speaker, in 2008 Pay Coalition released detailed recommendations on how to eliminate the gender wage gap by 2025. Eight years later the gap remains stuck at around 30% and Ontarians have yet to see specific concrete actions to close the gap from the Premier or her government. Speaker, how can Ontarians have confidence in the Premier's commitment to eliminate the gender wage gap when her 2016 budget did not include any funding? The key strategy is recognized as essential to achieve equal pay such as investments in child care and the Liberal government has consistently failed to enforce its own pay equity and employment standards laws. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Speaker. I want to thank my critic for this very important question and for it. As a critic knows it's in my mandate letter as well as Minister Labour's mandate letter to develop a wage gap strategy to ensure that we close that gap, Speaker, and we want women to achieve their full economic potential. We want fairness. We want equitable treatment and workforces and closing that gap is important to families as well not just to women themselves. We want to be a part of this community last year to lead the development of that wage gap strategy. The minister and I met with the panel just this morning, Speaker, and a number of consultations were held throughout the province and a summary of what was heard is made public on the ministry of Labour's website. We know there is more to do, Speaker. The Minister of Labour and I are aware that the Ontario have waited too long for the Premier to make the changes that are necessary to close the gap. The Premier has ignored the actions that can be taken right now, like child care funding and enforcing Labour laws actions that do not require the report of the gender wage gap steering committee and despite the gender lens mandate that was given to the minister responsible for women's issues it is clear that no effort was made to implement the 2016 budget. Speaker, once the final report of the gender wage gap steering committee is received in May, will the Premier make the report public and will she move immediately to implement the recommendations? Or will Ontarians have to wait another eight years or longer to see any concrete action? Minister. Minister of Labour. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you to the member for the question. Thank you to the member for the tremendous work they have done on behalf of this House, travelling throughout the province of Ontario, talking to people, getting advice from those people, getting ideas as how we can close the gender wage gap speaker. These are our mothers, our granddaughters, our sisters, our aunts. There is nobody in this House that agrees in 2016 that the gender wage gap should still exist. These people are bringing forward their ideas. I want to thank everybody that has taken part in this process to date. 530 people came forward. Almost 1,500 people sent in their ideas, Speaker. The idea as a report was received today. The recommendations will follow very, very shortly. The implementation phase comes after that. I look forward to the support of all members of the House in the implementation phase. Thank you, Speaker. My question today is equal pay day. A day to raise awareness on the earnings gap between men and women in Ontario. Members of this House may not know, but the days calculated each year to mark the extra time it takes a woman to earn as much as a man. Men in Ontario are on an average of $50,000 while it took a woman until April 20th the following year to earn more. Based on the most recent statistic Canada data, Ontario's gender wage gap ranges from 14 to 32 percent. The Royal Bank of Canada estimated that personal incomes would be $168 billion higher each year if women in Canada had the same labour market opportunities as men. More must be done in the province in Ontario to enable the playing field. Mr. Minister, how in Ontario is Ontario helping to end the gender wage gap? I'd like to thank the Honourable Member for that important question following up on the other one. Many people have talked about this issue over the years. This government is doing something about it. What we've done is we've got people from around this province that have an expertise in this issue. They've gone around this province with people they've consulted with experts in the field. They're bringing us back their best advice because, Speaker, it's unacceptable that women still don't get paid as well or have the same opportunities as men in our society. We as a group need to change that by demolishing the barriers that have held us back from progress in the past. So, Speaker, others have talked about it in the past. This is a government that's acting on it. I would like to thank the Minister for his answer. I understand that the gender wage gap is a complex issue caused by many factors. We know that all women across the economic spectrum are affected by the wage gap. But the gap is more pronounced for women who are minorities of original newcomers or living with disabilities. I also know that other factors intersect with gender to compound their wage gap. This is something that I heard that the steering committee has no doubt addresses, but more must be done. Speaker, can the Minister please share steps the government has taken to ensure equality in the workplace for women? Thank you, Minister. Speaker, the Minister is responsible for women's issues. Thank you, Speaker. I agree with the member. I agree with her that we need to work more hard to do, but let's not lose sight of what we have done and what we're continuing to do, including significant investments in child care. To help low income women learn new skills, change careers and secure better paying jobs through their women and skills training programs. The women's directorate funds programs for women who experience abuse who are at risk of developing new skills and having those opportunities to find employment and achieve that economic security. These are just a few of the many programs that our government invests in, Speaker. I'm very proud of these investments as we continue to take meaningful steps in order to improve quality for women. Thank you. Thank you for your question. I have a member from here on this. I'm talking to the Premier. Since the Premier failed to answer my question yesterday, I think we can assume that she did, in fact, write the Liberal's Cabinet Trade Bill at her kitchen table over the weekend. Unfortunately, the result, Speaker, has been a shoddy piece of legislation that the government is now rewriting on the fly. To hide the mess she's created with this Bill, Speaker, the Premier has now ordered her members to stop government lawyers and officials from answering serious questions in committee. So I have to ask, Speaker, does the Premier think it's appropriate to muzzle government lawyers and officials when elected representatives ask tough questions? At both in the Cap and Trade and Carp Prices. Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we have had four discussion papers on Cap and Trade and Carp Prices in both of the last 10 years. Second, in the last year, we spent an entire year consulting on what approach to take. A broad consensus from industry... Minister? We've been a member of the Western Climate Initiative for a decade and worked on designing this with experts from across North America. Our one-year consultation, which was purely on whether we would use a carbon tax or a Cap and Trade system, we listened. All right, I got a good memory. The member from Renfrew, the member from Stormont, the member from here on Bruce who asked the question, come to order. Gary Young. And the strong consensus from experts from the business environmental community was to go with the Cap and Trade system and that it not be revenue-neutral that there was money to invest in the transformation of industry. Mr. Speaker, but the member's been talking over me as she did, 20-minute breaks, three times every committee filibustering and destroying the entire committee process, Mr. Speaker. You're not helping, trying to get them to be quiet. That's too for you. Finish, please. No matter how they spin this, this government owns some of the worst legislation ever to hit this floor. It's no different. Again, Speaker, back to the Premier. The Environment Minister admitted yesterday that the Liberal's Cap and Trade Bill is, quote, one of the most complex pieces of legislation to be introduced in this legislature. A part of the complexity is the result of poor drafting. The Liberals have more than 70 amendments to their own bill, Speaker, and now they're attempting to strong arm committee members into rubber stamping each of their changes. And they are now even muscling government lawyers and officials in committee, Speaker, to prevent these people from speaking the truth about the Cap and Trade system that they've devised. Speaker, these tactics are not acceptable. Will the Premier, for once, do the right thing, withdraw 172, Bill 172 to be specific, and begin developing a revenue-neutral plan? Thank you. I believe it's a big challenge from the other side. It's, this is a word, not complicated. Amendments that come with every bill. Why does the opposition agree to quickly pass all of the legal, technical, and translation matters, and we'd be down to a couple of matters? Because they're trying to obstruct the bill, and they've said that. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member of Toronto Danforth, Mr. Speaker. I tried. Remember from here on, Bruce, second time. Finish, please. I want to thank the member for Toronto Danforth and the third party, who have been incredibly constructive, have worked to improve this legislation, and have been extremely convergent. The answer, remember from here on, Bruce and her party have done nothing but delay, call breaks, and prevent other members from actually discussing the bill. Mr. Speaker. This way, she does, she does. Good question. Member from Hamilton, Melton. My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Last Friday, parents, along with opposition MPPs, helped protest across the province against the government's decision to remove children five and over from essential autism therapy. Well, most liberal MPPs refused to make contact with parents and defend themselves, some made factual incorrect statements claiming the creation of 16,000 new IBI spaces. When it comes to our most vulnerable kids, you would think the government members would at least understand the devastating impacts of their decision. The Minister is about to get up and claim that in the name of science, she had to remove children five and over from the list. And that's simply not true. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell me on what page the Clinical Expert Committee recommends kicking children from PTSD over five off the list? Can you show us this? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of the changes we're making to the Autism Service Program in the name of children in this province. And, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I'm also very proud of all the MPPs on this side of the house, and if others on the other side of the house actually met with their constituents, actually received people in their offices on Friday, I did the same thing. I continue to talk to families about the changes to this program. And it's very important we have those conversations, Speaker, so that the facts are clear, so that the investment, the new investment is $333 million. It's understood how it'll be used, that it is understood that there will be 16,000 new therapy spaces for children going forward. And it's very important to note, Speaker, we are not removing children from waitlist, Speaker. We're removing from services, rather removing them from waitlists and putting them into immediate service. That's very important. That continues that continuity of continuous service. Thank you. A supplementary? Since that the report did not say what she's claiming and that it did. If the report doesn't recommend removing children with ASD five and over from the list, then this must be about money. Children with ASD should not be paying the price for this government's failed. You got to be careful not to hit mine. Trudish, please. This government has already failed children with autism, forcing them to wait years on a list and now telling them that they will never get access to that therapy, just so that this government could make a good news about reducing the waitlist. And that's shameful. This is leaving lives hanging in the balance. Speaker, will the minister do the right thing and immediately reverse her decision to remove children with ASD five and over from the list of the essential therapy? Thank you. Minister? Thank you. So, Speaker, yes, of course I've read the clinical expert committee. And if anyone who's read it will understand that their advice is that there are better outcomes to be achieved for children in those early developmental windows. So we are acknowledging that. But at the same time, Speaker. A member from Hamilton Mountain asked the question, please come to order. Finish, please. So, Speaker, as I said before, we are taking children off wait lists. I agree. Those wait lists are unacceptable. I will not, as the minister of children and youth services, stand here and let wait lists grow to five years by 2018. More importantly, we need to make sure that the services that the children get under the new enhanced program will be longer in duration, will be intense as needed. And it'll be very individualized to what the child needs. And this is based on clinicians' expertise and advice, Speaker. That's how the Autism Ontario program works. Thank you. We'll continue to support children with autism. Thank you. Any questions? The member from Newmarket, Aurora? Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister of agriculture, food and rural affairs. Minister, spring is in the air and Ontarians from all across the province are looking forward to getting seasonal Ontario fruits and vegetables from their local farmers' markets and grocery stores. In Newmarket and Aurora, shoppers have two great farmer markets to attend, one in Newmarket and one in Aurora. The local food fund successfully supported Ontario producers, processors and organizations with innovative projects that increase supply and awareness of food grown, made and harvested in our great province. But the local food fund ended this March. Mr. Speaker, local food organizations and businesses in my riding and in the nearby Holland Marsh are concerned that government has abandoned the treatment to support local food. Can the minister please tell the House how the government is supporting local food without the local food fund? Thank you. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Excellent question. Excellent question. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Newmarket, Aurora for that great question. First of all, let me assure this House that we remain resolute in our support of local food. In fact, tomorrow morning, I will take part in the consultation with the organizations like Food and Beverage Ontario, the Ontario Culinary, Tourism Alliance and Metro to discuss enhancing local food access. Mr. Speaker, since our government took office in 2003, we have invested more than $170 million to support sales of Ontario foods. That includes the local food fund, which we launched in 2013 with a three-year commitment. We've plowed on this and have had a successful harvest, Mr. Speaker, over the last three years and building on that success, the local food fund, we're partnering with the Green Belt Fund to continue delivering local food programming for all of Ontario. Good day. Good day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thanks to the minister for that answer. My question again is to the minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I'm truly glad to hear that our government continues to support local food. And as the minister knows, I regularly meet with farmers in the Holland Marsh and area to get an on-the-ground report about how they're doing. Through the ups and downs of the business, they appreciate our government's commitment to promote Ontario-grown fruits, vegetables, grains, livestock, poultry and more. I'm sure they will also appreciate that the province is still funding local food programming through the Green Belt Fund. But Mr. Speaker, the local food fund was open to organizations across the province. Can the minister expand on the government's investment in the Green Belt Fund and clarify whether businesses and organizations across Ontario will have access? Here. Thank you, minister. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his great supplementary and his keen interest in Ontario's food sector. We are investing $6 million over the next three years in the Green Belt Fund to, one, support marketing activities to celebrate local food champions, and two, the local food investment fund for projects which will improve food literacy, enhance access to locally-grown foods and encourage the use of local food in the broader public sector. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, the local food investment fund is open to all applicants across this great province. Whether you're in Thunder Bay or Essex, and as I was yesterday in the town of Sipco and the community of Dalhawaii, you will have access to our local food programming. And Mr. Speaker, here's food for thought. Supporting local food is a great way to grow the economy and create jobs in communities big and small. That's why our government stands firmly behind our commitment to local food. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who's making his way back to the seat, I see. The current river-generating station in Thunder Bay has been in operation for almost 30 years. Recent changes to legislation have raised questions about this small-scale hydrofacility's ability to operate into the future. The proponent in this case, a Métis citizen, has been writing to the provincial government for two years, seeking consultation on the potential impacts of Ontario government policies with no response. Minister, I think you will agree that two years is an extremely long time to wait to receive an answer on whether the provincial government will choose to consult on a project or not. So I ask through the Speaker, will the Minister commit to consult with the Métis nation of Ontario on this project as has been requested of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Ministry of Environment in accordance with the constitutional rights for the Métis nation of Ontario? And will the Minister commit that the Ontario government will not make any decisions or take any action on these files prior to consultation and commit to abide by... Thank you. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Thank you, Speaker. I am unaware of the specific situation that the member speaks of, but I'm happy to speak with the member afterwards, get the details of the parties involved and look into the matter and report back to you as soon as possible. But we do have a very healthy relationship with the Métis nation of Ontario, of which we're very proud of, and we work together with the Métis nation of Ontario in very constructive ways. One moment, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 38A, the member for Whitby Oshawa has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education concerning the Orange and University of Derry. May I finish, please? This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m. The member from Windsor to come see on a point of order. You speaker, on a point of order, earlier I mentioned some people here from MPAC. I forgot to mention Carla Nell, who is MPAC's new Vice President of Municipal and Stakeholder Relations. Welcome to Queens Park. Thank you. Deputy House Leader. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to introduce for members the legislature Mayor Walter Sensen of St. Catharines, who's in the West Members' Gallery. Thank you. The Associate Minister of Finance. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, today we were joined by members of the West Hill ESL Center. 25 members visited along with Paul Lowe, their instructor. Hey, here. Thank you. Minister of Advertising. On a point of order, Speaker, I too would like to introduce Grand Chief Benedict from the Aquasocene First Nation. Welcome, Grand Chief. Thank you. I guess I opened the door. The member from Tomiske, me, Cochran. Constituent of my riding, Doug Anglicson, I'd like to welcome him to the legislature today. We have a deferred vote on a motion for closure, on the motion for second reading of Bill 181, an act to amend the Municipal Elections Act 1996, and to make complimentary amendments to other acts calling the members, this will be a five minute bell. All members, please take your seats. On April the 11th, 2016, Mr. McMeek can move second reading of Bill 181, an act to amend the Municipal Elections Act 1996, and to make complimentary amendments to other acts. Mr. Nakvee has moved that the question be now put. All those in favor of Mr. Nakvee's motion, please rise one at a time, be recognized by the board. Mr. Nakvee. Mr. Nakvee. Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bradley. Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor. Mr. Sousa. Sousa. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Mr. Kohl. Mr. Kohl. Mr. Dakkar. Mr. Dakkar. Mr. Brodenetty. Mr. Brodenetty. Mr. Delaney. Mr. Orzetti. Mr. Orzetti. Mr.國 geld. Mr. Gerville. Mr. McMeekin. Ms. Mary. Mr. Chan. Mr. Chan. Mr. Meriti. Mr.まeriti. Mr. Кcillow. Mr. Leähl. Mr. Leihl. Mr. Flynn. Mr. Zimmers. Mr. Zimmer. Madam Lonelang. Mr. Card擦ry. Mr. Quadri. Ms. Mangat. Mr. Kra8. Kra8. Ms. W 95. Mr. Hunter. Mr. Sergio. Mr. Morrow. Mr. Jasek. Mr. Dal-Dukar. Mr. Dal-Dukar. Mr. Donnerla. Mr. Fraser. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Baker. Mr. Ballard. Mr. Doll. Mr. Hager. Mr. Hager. Ms. Koala. Ms. Smalley. Ms. Smalley. Mrs. Martins. Ms. Martin. Ms. McGary. Ms. McGary. Ms. McGman. Ms. McGman. Mr. Milchyn. Mr. Milchyn. Ms. Nidey Peres. Mr. Harris. Mr. Arnoldy. Ms. Verneel. Mr. Tebow. Mr. Tebow. Mr. Parsley's rise one at a time would be recognized by the court. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Arnaud. Mr. Arnaud. Mr. Hardiman. Mr. Hardiman. Mrs. McLeod. Mrs. McLeod. Mrs. Jones. Mr. Jones. Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark. Mr. Fidelli. Mr. Fidelli. Mr. Yakibuski. Mr. Yakibuski. Mr. Hillier. Mr. Hillier. Ms. Scott. Ms. Scott. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris. Mr. Nichols. Ms. Marto. Mr. Snowtoe. Mr. McDonnell. Mr. Demetrius. Mr. Evans. Mr. Sample. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Rolling. Ms. Koepsen. Mr. Dick t Rateaus. Mr.000. Mr.zo Pin atm. Mr. DIE.дāne Saike. Ms. Gretzky. Ms. Gretzky. Ms. Gretzky. Ms. French. The ayes are 52, the nays are 41. The ayes being 52, and the nays being 41, I declare the motion carried. Mr. McMeekin has moved a second reading of Bill 181, an act to amend the Municipal Elections Act 1996, and to make complimentary amendments to other acts. Is it the pleasure of the motion carried? I hear no. All those in favour please say aye. All those opposed please say nay. In my opinion the ayes have it. Call in the members, this will be a five minute bill. Mr. McMeekin has moved a second reading of Bill 181, an act to amend the Municipal Elections Act 1996, and to make complimentary amendments to other acts. All those in favour of the motion please rise one at a time and be recognised by the clerk. Mr. McMeekin. Mr. Sousa. Ms. Wynn. Ms. Matthews. Mr. Hoskins. Ms. Sands. Ms. McCharles. Mr. Quinter. Mr. Quinter. Mr. Cole. Mr. Car. Mr. T Orzettis. Mr. Gewelles. Mr. Murray. Mr. Chand. Mr. Moready. Mr. Kutho. Mr. Leone. Mr. Flinn. Ms. takes him. Ms. Manca. Ms. Winter before Cook. Mr. Del Duke, Ms. Dahmerle, Mr. Frazer, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Baker, Mr. Ballard, Mr. Don, Ms. Hogar, Ms. Kuala, Ms. Molly, Ms. Martin, Ms. McGarry, Ms. McMann, Ms. Milchin, Ms. Nidu Harris, Mr. Potts, Mr. Rinaldi, Ms. Verneel, Mr. Tebow, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Bessie, Ms. Morabat, Mr. Besson, Mr. Bantal, Ms. DeNovo, Mr. Tabbins, Mr. Miller, Hamilton, East Stony Creek, Ms. Sattler, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Natashak, Ms. Armstrong, Ms. Forster, Mr. Montau, Ms. Gretzky, Ms. French. All those opposed, please rise one at a time you recognize by the clerk. Mr. Harden, Mr. Arnaud, Ms. McLeod, Mr. Wilson, Ms. Jones, Mr. Brown, Mr. Clark, Mr. Fidelli, Mr. Yakibusky, Mr. Hillier, Ms. Scott, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Barris, Ms. Monroe, Mr. Eur, Mr. Houda, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Walker, Mr. Smith, Mr. Harris, Mr. Nichols, Ms. Marto, Mr. McDonnell, Mr. Coe, Mr. Coe. The ayes are 69, the nays are 24. The ayes being 69, the nays being 24, declare the motion carried. Second reading of the bill. Does the aum lecture depose you to the law? Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I'd move that we send it over to Bill 181 to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. There are no further deferred votes. This house stands recess until 3 p.m. this afternoon.