 It's now time for Question Period, the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Premier, in the most recent report from the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Essenza, called for the strengthening of third-party advertising rules. And we expect his upcoming annual report will do the same. Premier campaign finance rules are there to help create somewhat of a level playing field and to limit the degree to which money can be used to influence the outcome of an election. As long as third parties, such as the Working Families Coalition, are exempt from the same rules as other political entities, as the Toronto Star has put it, fairness is distorted. Premier, will you agree to the Chief Electoral Officer's request and introduce legislation to limit third-party spending? Thank you, Premier. Well, as the interim leader of the Opposition knows, we've taken a number of measures to make elections and election finances more accountable. The question was put without interruption. And so shall the answer. That includes anyone on that side. You're always open to ways to improve Ontario's democratic process, Mr. Speaker. We always have been, we always will be. We have rules in place in Ontario to ensure that there's both transparency and free speech in our election campaigns. And obviously, that's the balance that we have to strike, Mr. Speaker, but we have those rules in place. Third-party advertising rules were introduced in Ontario for the first time in 2007, Mr. Speaker. So the first time we had any rules around third-party advertising, it was our government that brought them in, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Premier, by allowing the negative campaign ads to be paid for by your third-party friends, you allow them to do the dirty work for you. And that's completely unfair. They were allowed to spend $9 million more than the opposition parties, and they did it to attack mainly my party of preying up your party to spend on positive campaigning. It's unfair and you know it. Order. For the last election, again, Mr. Speaker, for example, the third party, the NDP, spent a total of $2.6 million. Or sorry, spent, the largest third-party spender spent $2.6 million, that far outweighed what the NDP was allowed to spend in the last election. Premier, do you believe that allowing third-party interest groups to spend more than political parties is healthy for Ontario's democracy? Thank you. Again, Mr. Speaker, and I know the Attorney General is going to want to comment in the supplementary on this, Mr. Speaker. But again, from our perspective, finding that balance is very, very important. Under the current rules, third parties that spend $500 or more on election advertising are required to register with the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Speaker. And so that kind of transparency is important, Mr. Speaker, and that's the regime of rules that we put in place, Mr. Speaker. Again, I will say to the member opposite, he knows that we brought those rules in. He knows that we were the government that put any parameters around third-party advertising, Mr. Speaker. And we are always interested in suggestions for how we might improve the democratic process. Thank you. Final supplementary. The member from Mr. Electoral Officer. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and again to the Premier. The Chief Electoral Officer noted, and I quote, that Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, and the federal government have all adopted controls over third-party advertising and that the jurisdictions of the jurisdictions in Canada that regulate third-party advertising until it was the only one where third parties do not face advertising spending or contribution limits. To ensure fairness, I will soon be bringing forward a private members bill that will introduce third-party spending limits. Good man. Premier, will you stand behind your word and support my initiative? Here, here. Attorney General. Mr. Speaker, the reason why the opposition party leader knows how this group contributed and how much they did, it's because of what we have done. We changed the rule, we changed the legislation. We're always open to the... Member from Leeds, Grenville. Leader, carry on, please. So again, Mr. Speaker, it's because in 2007, this government introduced a third-party advertising rule and under this current rules, a third party that spent $500 or more on election advertising are required to register with the Chief Electoral Officer. And registered third party must also report to the Chief Electoral Officer on election advertising expenses. Thank you. Because of our change that you... Thank you. New question? Member from Latter-of-Farmer, Levingston. My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister Paul Compton and his five-year-old son Mateo are constituents of mine. Paul is a Canadian citizen. He grew up, lived and worked in Canada for 32 years before taking a job to teach overseas. Last Friday, Paul was told Mateo's OHIP eligibility had been pulled by your government. Mateo was born to Paul and his wife while they lived in Peru and has fallen through the cracks in our health insurance laws. If Paul was adopting Mateo from a foreign adoption agency, Mateo would be covered. If Paul was a foreign worker in Canada on a work visa, his dependent son would be covered. But instead, Paul is a Canadian citizen whose dependent son was born abroad. So we have declined him... Minister, will you intervene to help Paul and his son Mateo? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I understand that this is a deeply troubling and difficult situation for the family involved. I had an opportunity to speak with the member opposite yesterday briefly after question period and committed a bad time to look into the situation in more detail, which I have done. And it is a complicated issue as the member opposite knows. We've taken the politics out of decisions such as this in terms of OHIP eligibility precisely for this reason. The member understands that the reason for eligibility is due to changes that the federal government, in fact, made with regards to citizenship. But I have committed to the member opposite to follow up on this. I know he's met with my ministry or spoken with the ministry. I would offer a similar opportunity to the family involved with me with my ministry officials. Supplementary. Thank you, Minister. This is a grave situation for Paul and his family. And although there is some elements of immigration laws, it's because of regulation 552 has not been modified by this government since those changes in the immigration laws. Paul is looking and his family are looking to you to demonstrate that this government has compassion and integrity. And you surely will agree it is not within the spirit of law to disallow Paul and his dependent child, Paul who is a Canadian citizen and his dependent child health care coverage. Minister, will you act now and make sure that the law is applied as it is intended and that Mattail is covered by health insurance? Thank you, Minister. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I would, I guess I would suggest and ask the minister, the member opposite to join me in the understanding that this was a federal decision that was taken legislatively. It was. Several years ago. Member from the P.A. Carlson, come to order. I would invite the member opposite, in fact, to the petition of the federal government if, in fact, as I take the position, if I disagree with those changes that were made, the fact is that Ontario health coverage is provided to individuals who are Canadian citizens and individuals who are permanent residents. I think that's a fair process. There is a wait period in place for new permanent residents, new Canadian citizens, a wait period of three months being long established in this province. Really, this is the result of a federal decision which restricted citizenship for those individuals who are born abroad. Final supplement. A follow-up, Minister. We know that when those federal laws changed your government, immediately took steps and provided OHIP coverage for refugees. I have depress release here. You acted, right? Paul Compton and his family is asking you to act in their case. It is a fair and just request. And, Minister, I think it's important for us to realize there's a lesson here that laws that are rigid lack discretion and that are applied regardless of the circumstances always result in unjust outcomes. Minister, I'll take you up on that offer. I'm sure Paul will take you up on that offer, but we have met and we have met and I've spoken with you and I've sent letters to your immigration minister here as well. We have not had any success. It's time to act and change Regulation 552. Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned at the beginning of my first answer, that I sympathize with the family involved. The member opposite knows, and I'm happy I have both committed to following up specifically, but I know he's spoken with my ministry. I am happy to arrange that meeting between my ministry and the family involved. But fundamentally, this is something that has resulted from a change in legislation at the federal level, further restricting the ability of children of Canadian citizens born abroad to obtain that Canadian citizenship. OHIP coverage is available for Canadian citizens and permanent residents in this province, as he knows. This was a federal decision and I would implore the member opposite to work with me at the federal level to have action if he believes this is an injustice. New question. Thanks very much, Speaker. The question is for the Premier. Last week, the energy minister was on CP24 and he said, and I quote, the government has decided we will be selling a portion of Hydro 1. Now, the energy minister has told Ontarian Speaker about the Premier's plan. Can the Premier actually tell Ontarians how much of Hydro 1, rather, has she decided to sell off? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the leader of the third party knows that we are awaiting a report from Ed Clark and his team. We have committed to a review of the assets, Mr. Speaker, that are owned by the people of Ontario because we believe that investing in modern infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, in transit, in transportation, infrastructure roads, bridges across the province, that that is an important part of the economic growth that we know is necessary for this province, Mr. Speaker. The leader of the third party knows that that is the case. She knows that we will be bringing that plan forward once we have those recommendations, Mr. Speaker. And I look forward with her to hearing those recommendations from Mr. Clark. Something just doesn't seem to be adding up. The Premier has said no decisions will be made about selling Hydro 1 until the Ed Clark report goes to Cabinet. And on March 10, the Minister, Energy Minister, told reporters that no decision had been made about selling Hydro 1. But on March 26, Mr. Speaker, the Energy Minister was on live TV saying, I quote, the government has decided we will be selling a portion of Hydro 1. Now, it sounds like something, or some time rather, between March 10 and March 26, Cabinet got the Clark report and the Liberals made their decision. Otherwise, why would the Minister be saying this on live TV? Has the Cabinet actually seen the Ed Clark report, Speaker? And if they have, will the Premier make that report public today? Thank you. The final report has not been completed, has not been received. It will be received shortly, Mr. Speaker. And we will be very clear about our intentions going forward, having had an opportunity to look at those recommendations. But, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there are conversations that are ongoing, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to pretend that there are not. There are obviously conversations, and it would be irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, of us not to have those conversations as those decisions are made. We await the decisions, we await the recommendations from Mr. Clark's panel, and we will make those public once they're made, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. What's irresponsible is for the energy minister to say on live TV that the government has already made a decision on selling off energy. Energy minister said any decisions about Hydro-1 would be, quote, rate payer-based decisions. He said, quote, rate payers' interests will be looked after. So, if the Premier has decided, as it sounds she has, to privatise Hydro-1, can she offer any proof, any studies, any economic analysis, any regulation, anything at all that will ensure that rate payers won't be paying more because of the Premier's short-sighted decision to sell off Hydro-1? Mr. Speaker, we made very, very clear that any sale of Hydro-1, we would retain a significant interest to protect the interest of the rate payer, Mr. Speaker. But in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Energy Board is an independent regulator with a mandate to protect the interest of Ontario rate payers. Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Energy Board was there under Conservative administrations, under NDP administrations, and under Liberal administrations, Mr. Speaker. Just by way of example, Mr. Speaker, rate applications are reviewed by the OAB. They make the final determination. In 2010, Hydro-1 asked for a rate increase for distribution, received a 9% reduction of their capital request, Mr. Speaker. In 2012, Hydro-1 asked for a rate increase for transmission, received a 3% reduction for its capital request, Mr. Speaker. When Ontario Power Generation applied for a 6.2% rate increase in 2011, the OAB denied the request and lowered rates by 0.8%, Mr. Speaker. The public is presented. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, if anybody thinks the OAB actually acts in the interest of rate payers, they got another think coming. Questions for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. The Premier loves to say that it is incumbent upon government to do more than one thing at a time. But for some reason, the Premier seems to think that Ontarians can either have public Hydro or they can have public transit. The Premier doesn't seem to think that Ontarians can have both. Like, say, they did for nearly 100 years, Speaker, when Hydro rates were affordable and we actually built subways in this province. Now, can the Premier please explain, Speaker, why she is the first Premier in the history of Ontario that thinks public Hydro and public transit are in either or proposition? Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in terms of the ongoing investment in transit, Mr. Speaker, and in public transportation across the province and in transportation infrastructure, there has been a huge period of time before 2003 when those investments were not being made, Mr. Speaker, and that goes back through governments of all stripes. So to the leader of the third party, I would say this, that yes, there was a time in this province when there was investment in infrastructure, but there was a long period of time when that investment stopped. We've begun investing again, Mr. Speaker, and one of the strategies is to take assets that have been built up over decades that were infrastructure that was needed many years ago, Mr. Speaker, and recycle those assets, protecting the interests of people in Ontario, protecting the price base, Mr. Speaker, making sure that the regulatory regime is in place, but also ensuring that we make the investments that we need for the future. Can the future stop the talk, please? Do you see it, please? Do you see it, please? Supplementary. There was a subway line being built called the Eglinton Line by the NDP government of the day, Speaker. In 2013, the Premier insisted that the only way to pay for transit was road tools. Now she's insisting that the only solution to pay for transit is to sell Hydro-1. New Democrats want to see transit and transportation infrastructure investments across Ontario, but let's look at long-term solutions, Mr. Speaker, that put people first, like closing corporate HST giveaways that cost the Treasury billions of dollars or ending the sweetheart deals that have wasted $8 billion on public-private partnerships and put our energies into the affordable public financing that built our highways and transit systems in the first place in this province, Speaker. Does the Premier think it's a good solution to sell off Hydro-1, but keep P3s and HST giveaways? Now, Mr. Speaker, talking about the arrangement that saved the people of Ontario $6 billion. Yeah, I think that's a good idea, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, and making sure that we partner with the private sector in a way that's responsible, Mr. Speaker, and that gets those projects built. You know, the challenge with the leader of the third party is that she had... Actually, the clock was running as I was asking for the one caucus to come to order, because of your interjection, to stop the clock. So, the member from Eglinton Lawrence, I'd like to do my own job. Please finish. So, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party knows that every dollar from our current asset review, every dollar that's realized will be invested in infrastructure that we need, Mr. Speaker, and the fact is that the leader of the third party had no plan to build infrastructure. She has no plan to build infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, but we do, and we're going to do that. Well, Mr. Speaker, I trust the Auditor General's numbers far, far more than I would trust a liberal number any day. If money, so says the Auditor General, and build infrastructure, not just one speaker, but every year. Closing corporate HST loopholes would build infrastructure, not just one speaker, but every year. Taking a look at the fairness of our tax system would build infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, not just once, but every single year. Those are clear options with long-term sustainability and fairness, Speaker. Can the Premier explain why it is that she thinks the only way to build transit or transportation infrastructure is a short-sighted, one-time asset sale? Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, the reality is that we have a massive infrastructure deficit across this country, actually. This is not just an Ontario issue. This is a conversation that I am having with premiers across the country. And one of the things I have said is that if we had a federal government that was interested in a national infrastructure strategy, we would be having a very different conversation. If you look at jurisdictions around the world, you will see that where the infrastructure deficits are being addressed, Mr. Speaker, and where infrastructure is being built, it is a federal government. It's a national project that is part of that process, Mr. Speaker. That's not the case here. So we are working within the confines of what we have to work with here in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. So one of the things we have done is we have put in place a financing process that allows us to build. And contrary to what the Leader of the Third Party is saying, the new TD report says that reverting entirely back to old models of procurement would represent a major step backwards for the province. We're not taking that step backwards, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Attorney General. Mr. John Rafferty is once again on the Speaker's list for 2014. As you know, John Rafferty was given a very large parachute to leave the Peel region where he worked as an assistant Crown Attorney. Rafferty was paid an astonishing $368,000 in 2013, almost three times what most Crown Attorneys are paid. In 2014, he was paid another $116,000. In 2012, prosecutors, defense lawyers, court clerks, police officers and a witness filed a group complaint against Rafferty. Additional complaints were made in 2011 and 2010. Clearly, there was a history of workplace harassment while he was an assistant Crown. Minister, what is the total amount of the multi-year settlement given to John Rafferty to leave the Attorney General's office? Mr. Speaker, as the member of the opposition party knows, I cannot comment on human resources matter as all employee matter relating to current or former employees are confidential. So I also cannot comment on the earnings of individual employees. So however, I understand that public sector salary disclosure act identified what amount constitutes salaries and includes an additional to their annual salary such form of remuneration as retroactive salary award or others. So public sector salary disclosure is part of the government's commitment to being accountable open and transparent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister, I know you don't want to talk about John Rafferty, but when you give him a half a million dollars to walk away, the public has some questions and they need to be curious about workplace harassment and eliminating it, protecting victims, then you must be prepared to track the number of complaints and investigate those complaints thoroughly. In the interest of transparency, will you table the number of workplace harassment complaints that have been made by public sector employees in 2014? Thank you. So Mr. Speaker, again, like the member knows, I cannot comment on any human resources matter as well as employee matters relating to current or former employees are confidential and will continue to keep it confidential. And I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our Crown attorneys are held to the highest standard and are expected to conduct themselves professionally and fairly at all times. So all Crown attorneys in this province of Ontario are subject to the rule of professional conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada. And in addition, they're also subject to the Crown policy and practices as well as the same laws that apply to all Ontarians. So there are also our procedure in place to deal with complaints against the Crown. And when there is a complaint, there is a problem. Thank you. New question. The member from Nickel Belt. Thank you, Mr. President. The question is for... Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. That bribery is acceptable. Supplementary. I think that it was acceptable for her Sudbury Kingmaker, for her campaign director to engage in what election Ontario calls bribery, and the OPP says threaten the appearance of government's integrity. Does the Premier think that this is OK, that this is normal? Have a nice later. Have a nice later. Mr. Speaker, let's be absolutely be clear and I want member opposite to be careful what she's referring to are mere allegations and nothing whatsoever. As Speaker, as you know, there is an investigation and an issue that is ongoing right now. They have been no charges laid by the police in that regards. Even the chief electoral officer in his ruling said that he is not making any judgment whatsoever. He is letting the independent prosecutors and judges to make determination. So, Speaker, we need to be very careful. These are just allegations. There is a presumption of innocence in our system which we all members should respect and we should let the independent authorities do the investigation and we will cooperate with them fully. Thank you. New question. A member from Trinities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister responsible for women's issue. Minister, it's been three weeks since the premier unveiled the sexual violence and harassment action plan. In my writing of Trinities, we received great deal of positive feedback about that plan. I think it's very powerful to hear the premier of the largest province talk about rape culture and say that the problem of sexual violence and harassment is rooted in deep health beliefs about women, men, power and equality. I'm very proud of the leadership of our premier and the work of our government has done. Minister, can you highlight some of the next steps you'll be taking as a part of the action plan? Thank you. Minister responsible for women's issues. Thank you, Speaker, and I want to thank the member from Trinities, Bidina, for this important question. I also want to thank him for his work on the all party select committee on sexual violence and harassment. It's great that he's doing that. And our new permanent round table on sexual violence and harassment is holding its inaugural meeting today, Speaker. So it's a very important, exciting day. Yes. And the round table is one of the 13 initiatives and actions in our... It's okay, an action plan to stop sexual violence and harassment. And that the advice that we're going to get from the round table is going to help the government talk about the issues today as well as the emerging issues on gender-based violence. And it will be co-chaired by Sly Casadale, who's here. She's the Executive Director of Guelph Wellington Women's Centre. And we thank her for taking on that role. The other co-chair is Farah Khan of the Barber Schlaffer Commemorative Clinic in Toronto, and they're here in the legislature. And I wish them a successful meeting today. Thank you very much, Minister, for the answer. It's encouraging to see all the great work our government is doing to promote a province that's free from sexual violence and harassment. I'm also heartened to see that our government is working with organizations such as the White Ribbon to include men in this very important discussion. As a man and a father of a young boy, I know how important it is for boys to learn the value of respect in a relationship. I'm also proud that I have taken a part in the White Ribbon's I Am a Male Model event today at the Arts Gallery in Ontario. Speaker, through you to the Minister, could you update this House with some of the good work being done by organizations such as White Ribbon? Thank you, Minister. And again, thank you to the member for the question. And yes, he was with me this morning for the White Ribbon Campaign's I Am a Male Model. And in fact, 24 members of this House speaker from all parties participated in their social media event last week. So I want to thank you all for participating because you are role models and you go a long way to encouraging men-to-be role models and to help shape the views and attitudes of particularly young boys to promote the importance of equal relationships. So just in terms of the campaign speaker, the White Ribbon Campaign, which is co-sponsored by COPA, the Centre Ontario Intervention de Cresce, the target audience includes elementary and secondary teachers, community workers, coaches in schools, fathers and diverse men. So White Ribbon, as you know, is a very large campaign in the world and we're very proud of the work that they're doing here in Ontario. Any questions? Thank you and good morning speaker. My question is for the Premier. The internal finance documents we obtained through the gas plant scandal hearings continue to reveal much about Ontario's finances. Here is your confidential advice to Cabinet. Quote, over the medium term, we have notional targets by sector that add up to the deficit numbers but no plans to deliver on them. In a response to my order paper question this month, the Finance Ministry revealed they still don't have those line-by-line details for 2017-18. That's the year you claim you can return to balance. Premier, this is unacceptable. Either you're keeping these numbers from the public because they don't add up or you simply have no plan to balance. So Premier, which is it? You don't add up or you have no plan? Mr. Speaker, I know that the President of the Treasury Board is going to want to comment on this in the supplementary but Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, we have a path to balance Mr. Speaker and in fact today the Minister of Finance is going to be talking about the fact that for 2014-15 our government will beat the deficit reduction target that we put in place. So for some reason likes to talk down the Ontario economy but Mr. Speaker, what he needs to know is that all private sector economists are forecasting continued growth for the Ontario economy. RBC is projecting that Ontario is expected to top provincial economic growth rankings in 2015. RBC forecasts real GDP growth for the province to accelerate from an estimated 2.5% in 2014 to a five year best rate of 3.3% in 2015 and that's a quote from their documentary. Supplementary. Back to the Premier. Well, I'm not surprised that the number will come in lower. Your own documents I just spoke about told us that you made that number up to begin with. The troubling news speaker doesn't end there. The Ministry response shows your planning on adding $1 billion in what it calls quote all other tax for the next two years. Again, Speaker, there's no line by line just a promise in writing to ring out $1 billion in new taxes from Ontario's families and seniors. All the while your government's made announcements in recent days, much like the 5.6 billion in new spending you announced before last year's budget. Thank you. Minister of Transportation, second term. Oh, you were too busy yelling while I was telling you to come to order. Thank you, Speaker. Premier, are you going on another spending spree? The Auditor General just told us that we can't afford. And if so, what new taxes are you planning on introducing to pay for all this new spending? Thank you. Well, thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the question because I think it's a question that certainly I'm happy to talk about given our real focus on overachieving on our fiscal target, Speaker. One of the initiatives that is putting us on the path to balance is the program review, renewal and transformation process being led by Treasury Board. We have a commitment to review every program in this province. We are looking at whether or not it's still relevant. Is it effective? Is it efficient? And is it sustainable, Speaker? So we are going through and as we are going through this work, we acknowledge that every dollar counts that outcomes are what matters to us, Speaker. Answer. Our program is working. If they're not working, what do we need to do to make sure they are getting the outcomes for people? An important element of our path to balance. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. People in London and across the province are shaking their heads. They are appalled that the President of Western University made almost $1 million last year because of a deal that more than doubled his annual salary. Yesterday, the Minister of Training Colleges and Universities avoided my question about whether the government would prohibit double salary payouts and said that Ontarians have the right to make sure that their tax dollars are spent properly. Premier, do you think that almost $1 million for University President is spending tax dollars properly? At a time when university budgets are being cut, Ontario students are facing the highest tuition in the country, grad students are being paid poverty wages, university class sizes are increasing, and more and more students are being taught by contract faculty. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the member for that question. Mr. Speaker, disclosure of public sector salaries is a part of this government's being open, transparent, and accountable. Mr. Speaker, as part of that commitment, our government passed legislation last year, the Accountability Act, which received the lawyer last December. Mr. Speaker, this act will allow our government to put control on the executive salaries, not only in universities and colleges, in every public sector and the broader public sector executives. And that also includes a significant compliance and enforcement measures, Mr. Speaker. And our government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to make sure that the hard caps are in place for executive salaries in the university, college sector, as well as in every sector in broader public sectors. When it comes to individual salary disclosure, Mr. Speaker, whenever it has been disclosed by the sunshine list, that's what we have, but we cannot enter into discussion about every individual salary point. Thank you, supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. I understand that it is common practice in the sector to allow university presidents to take an administrative leave at the end of their term and collect their salary at the same time, but the Western Board of Governors went one step further. They negotiated a contract allowing the president to forego an administrative leave and take a double salary instead, in other words, collecting two salaries for doing one job. A petition campaign is rapidly gathering steam calling for a vote from the university administration as a result. Premier, do you support the ability of university boards of governors to negotiate this kind of a deal with a university president? If not, will you step in to prohibit the practice? Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the member for that question. Mr. Speaker, our universities and colleges, in particular our universities, they are autonomous institutions. They have all the right to run their own daily affairs including resources and all aspects of their own institutions. Mr. Speaker, we are very, our universities and colleges, they are ranked among the best in the world. They have been doing a great job in educating our young people and we have all confidence in our university board of governors to be able to run our institutions. So they are autonomous institutions and these matters lies within the jurisdictions of our universities and colleges. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, Ontario use of P3s and the alternative finance and procurement model has been under scrutiny recently. I understand that TD economists released today their special report examining Ontario AFP's models. They are finding different drastically than compared to the rhetoric we hear by the third party. I would like to reiterate that the Minister has said many times public-private partnerships have had a net benefit of $6.6 billion over the course of the 74 AFP infrastructure project. Of infrastructure Ontario, 37 completed projects, 36 or 97% of these projects were complete on budget. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure please inform the house that TD economists concluded the special report. Thank you. Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank TD economics for commissioning this really important report examining the cost associated with Ontario P3s. The report confirms our support for the AFP process is well founded. It also confirms, Mr. Speaker, the NDP's rhetoric about AFPs is dead wrong. Let me quote directly from the report, Mr. Speaker. It reads, the focus on the $8 billion in excess costs oversimplified the auditor's analysis. Let me continue to quote, the narrow focus on higher tangible costs of P3s does a disservice to an innovative model of government procurement which has enabled a more transparent and accurate accounting of the full cost of a project before construction begins. Let me go on. Quote, reverting entirely back to the old models of procurement would represent a major step backwards for this province. The premier is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We're going forward when it comes to building up infrastructure. I'm not going to take the advice of the NDP. Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the minister for the update. Our government has a strong track record of building modern infrastructure. In 2003, our government has invested nearly $100 billion in infrastructure and we're focusing on that makes our community stronger. Asset like hospital, schools, and transportation. We are investing over 130 million infrastructure in the next 10 years that will create over 110,000 jobs each year, Speaker. My constituents and I are encouraged that this government pragmatic approach to infrastructure is ensuring that we maximize dollars while building the more infrastructure on their needs to build a better economy. In fact, I understand that the federal NDP leader, Thomas Mclare, spoke in favor of the value of P3s. Would the ministers please update the House on what Mr. Mclare said? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The NDP may not want to listen to us on this issue. By their heckles, they don't seem to want to listen to TD economics which I think is a pretty darn thing, Mr. Speaker. They'll consider listening to their federal cousins because when it comes to the AFP process, Thomas Mclare said the following and I quote, he is not dogmatic. The point is to get things built and that's exactly what we're trying to do. We're constantly improving the success of our AFP model. But as Mr. Mclare puts it, dogmatically rejecting AFP will not help Ontario build the modern infrastructure we need to build better. We don't want to go back to the days that the NDP want us to go back to. We don't want to see more projects like the Spadina Line or Union Station or BC Place and BC that went way over budget, Mr. Speaker. We want to stick to our process 97% of projects were built. Thank you. New question? My questions to the Premier and Premier, I have a quote I'd like to share with you. We will put evidence before ideology and choose partnership over partisanship and invite everyone to work together. Who do you think said that, Premier? You did. You did on the opening day of the 41st Parliament and yet over three days of committee to consider important safe road legislation, we've seen your government members reject every step of the road. It's not safe. No debate, just rejection. Premier, less than nine months later, have you now chosen partisanship over partnership? Share the road. Minister of transportation. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the member opposite for asking that question. This is the second time over the last number of days that he's given me the responsibility of making Ontario roads safer. It's an important bill, it's important it got through the legislature in the committee and I understand it will be reported back to the legislature later today. It's important because as I always say, one of my most important responsibilities as minister to make sure our roads and highways remain safe, this legislation is designed to accomplish that. It will allow for the suspension of driver's license for those to be driving, found to be driving under the influence of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. It will require drivers to keep a one meter distance from cyclists when passing speaker. There are a number of very important initiatives in this bill, it's important it comes back here and it gets passed to third reading. Premier, your bill 31 committee members were so determined that they even voted down a section of your own bill. Again, we saw thoughtful amendments given short trip. Medical review of license improvements, left lane moveover provisions and the establishment of a highway incident management advisory committee. All proposed and rejected. Premier, it's taken less than nine months for your government to go from preaching partnership to making sure your members are following your marching orders. When will you cut the puppet strings and allow government members to embrace the principles of partnership that the July 2014 Premier committed to? Thanks very much Speaker, I appreciate the follow-up question, as I mentioned, this is important legislation. I believe, Speaker, that's why when this bill was here at second reading, all three parties voted that it got sent to committee, Speaker. I know a great deal of hard work went into the hearings of committee. We heard from the public. There was broad recognition that this bill requires or should get passed as soon as possible, Speaker, but it's interesting to me that that member would ask this question because if I have my information correct, Speaker, when this bill was actually voted in the final instance at committee yesterday, the members of that party chose to abstain instead of supporting the legislation. And that's unfortunate, Speaker. It's hard enough for families in Toronto to find childcare that they need, but the Liberals are making the problem even worse by forcing school closures that will also shut down dozens of childcare centres. Today, Toronto City Council will hear that more than 2,000 childcare spaces are at risk under the Liberals' plan for school closures. Each and every parent struggling to find childcare knows that we simply cannot afford to lose 2,000 licensed childcare spots in the City of Toronto. Why doesn't the Premier know that, Speaker? Thank you very much, and I obviously haven't seen the report you're referring to, but I think it's actually important to understand that with childcare modernisation and with the increase in after-school childcare, in fact, we have dramatically increased the number of childcare spaces in Ontario. And in fact, where boards will continue to have a requirement to have where the parents wanted to have a childcare in the school available. So it really has nothing to do with whether this school or that school is open, the legislative requirement to provide for before and after school childcare will continue. Thank you. It's shocking that the Minister of Education responsible for childcare doesn't know about this extremely important report that's going to City Council today. We hear today that the City might seek restitution for the loss of childcare centres. But make no mistake, it's young families in this province who are going to be paying the highest price under the Liberals' plan for school closures. Take care of the West End Parents' Daycare in Old Orchard School, one of the schools in Toronto that the Premier could sell off. Parents shouldn't be forced to fight this Liberal government to save their daycare. They should have a government that expands access to affordable childcare, not one that tries to shut childcare centres down. So why is the Premier creating chaos for thousands of families whose beloved childcare centres are at risk because of this Liberal government's decisions? Who knew, apparently the leader of the third party is on the Toronto distribution list. Unfortunately the Minister of Education isn't. But I repeat I repeat the point here is that there is a legislative requirement through the Education Act already and now with the Bill 10, the Child Care Modernization Act for school boards to provide for foreign after childcare in schools where parents ask for it. So it really, if I'm sure that legislative requirement to will continue. So if the parents who are one place are moving to another place and still want childcare, the legislative requirement to provide childcare will follow the parent and the child. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Today marks the start of the Ontario Bike Summit, hosted by the Share the Road Cycling Coalition. This event brings together cycling stakeholders from across our province including municipal and provincial leaders such as our party Cycling Caucus and the Ontario Cycling Foundation. We have five new bicycle friendly communities will be announced bringing the total to 26, in fact 60% of Ontarians now live in a designated bicycle friendly community speaker. Cycling is on the move and as the founder of Share the Road I had the distinct pleasure of working with the MTO on a number of cycling related initiatives. One of the most important cycle on or the Ontario Cycling community will join together to discuss Cycle On's implementation and how working together we can all make our communities and our province more bicycle friendly. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister please update the House on the progress that has been made with the Cycle On strategy. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I want to begin by thanking the member from Burlington not only for today's question but for her long standing advocacy on this particular issue. She's done an exemplary job of improving the cycle on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker. Every spring summer and fall more than 2.8 million adult Ontarians cycle on a regular basis. That's why our government developed Cycle On, Ontario's Cycling Strategy. This strategy includes a 20 year vision to encourage the growth of cycling and to improve safety for cyclists across the province. Almost one year ago, Mr. Speaker, we released the first of a series of multi-year action plans for implementing our Cycling Program, which will invest $10 million in municipal cycling infrastructure and $15 million in provincial cycling infrastructure. I am very pleased, Speaker, that my parliamentary assistant, the member from Cambridge, is attending the bike summit to partake in some of the discussions regarding our strategy to look forward to continuing to work closely with the cycling community on this vote. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for being here today and in particular to Bill 31, Speaker. I know our government is fond of saying that road safety is our number one priority, but it's extremely important that we consider the safety of everyone using our roads. Keeping our roads safe requires the cooperation and participation of all road users, drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists as well, Mr. Speaker. I know that an important component of the Cycle On strategy is improving cycling safety. I also know that cyclist needs to be a part of this government. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister please provide members of this house with more information on what our government is doing to make Ontario Road safer for all road users and in particular cyclists? Thanks again Mr. Speaker. And again I want to thank the member for that thoughtful question. Last fall I was very proud to introduce Bill 31, the making Ontario Road safer app. As part of this bill, Speaker, as part of this bill, Speaker, we have decided to implement the current regulatory amendments to improve cycling safety in Ontario, including requiring drivers of motor vehicles to maintain a minimum distance of one meter when passing cyclists, permitting cyclists to ride on the paved shoulders of all unrestricted highways and increasing the fine for persons who improperly open or leave open their doors of motor vehicles. Though unfortunately, Speaker, the official opposition chose to abstain with the support of the third party. If cast, this legislation will help ensure that cyclists remain safe on our roads for years to come. Thanks very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, the 2010 Sunshine List included nine people at the Social Housing Services Corporation. Nine people making over a million dollars combined. That was in 2010. We know that the CEO of the Housing Services Corporation earned almost $300,000 last year. So, Minister, can you explain why no one from the Housing Services Corporation appeared on the Sunshine List that was released last week? Mr. Speaker, they must for some reason be exempt from appearing on the list. That's all I can offer. Supplementary? Well, Minister, you claim your government has made this rogue agency more accountable, but in fact it was your government that changed the legislation that took them off the Sunshine List. My private members bill would increase the accountability by once again requiring Housing Services Corporations to report salaries over 100,000. These are public social housing dollars that taxpayers deserve to know how they're being spent, Minister. If your changes to the HSC made it more accountable and transparent as you claim, can you tell us how many people at the Housing Services Corporation earned over $100,000 last year? Thank you, Minister. The Housing Services Corporation, which was established by the party opposite when they were involved, as an independent private corporation operates as an independent private corporation. We've enhanced the accountability by having them agree to live with management board cabinet expense limits, making some changes to the board and bringing in a third party independent review agency. As for the Sunshine List and whether they are independent private corporations all across the province, should member from Oxford or the German when we debate the honourable members, private members. Thank you. I'm not going to debate you either. Next question. Member from Oshawa. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Speaker, on March 31st, temporary foreign workers in Ontario will go to bed as lawfully employed, hardworking, tax-paying residents of Canada and will wake up the next day as illegal immigrants. What conversations has the province had with the federal government about this new legislation? Thank you, Speaker. The world of work is changing in the province of Ontario and obviously we try to maintain a good relationship with those people that are governing our rules at the federal level as well. We understand that the world of work in the province of Ontario is changing. Precurious work is more of an issue that the Ministry of Labour needs to deal with on an ongoing basis. The Workers' Centre's report that came out today on precarious work, outlying some of the situations that take place here in the province of Ontario, certainly I meet with my counterparts, with the other Ministers of Labour throughout this country and certainly I meet with the federal Minister. We correspond on a regular basis so we are keeping abreast of the issue. We certainly take the issue seriously. It's something that we plan to address as a part of the Employment Standards and the Labour Relations Act review that's taking place in the province of Ontario as I speak. Thank you, Supplementary. Thank you Mr. Speaker and to the Premier once again. Thousands of Ontario workers are being left in the lurch. Will this Government cooperate with Stephen Harper? Will the OPP, MTO and Corrections Ontario be helping to execute the biggest deportation in Canadian history? Or does this Government have a plan to protect these vulnerable workers and their families that will help them to have a future in Ontario? Certainly I think the question was would we cooperate with Stephen Harper? The answer is we'll cooperate with the federal government when it's in the best interest of Ontario and when it's in the best interest of employees that work in the province of Ontario. The member will know and I know she knows because we've had a few conversations this province should be wondering if they get paid following a hard day's work. We have the Employment Standards Act that is in place that has protected people in the past. The world of work is changing. The world of work is changing, I understand that and certainly what we need to do is we need to ensure that the legislation we have in place in the province of Ontario that covers workers within the province and those workers that come from outside the province is the sort of regulations that suit the needs of the workers themselves and suit the wishes of the people here in the province of Ontario. Thank you. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about Bill 73, Smart Growth for our Communities Act that he introduced in the legislature a few weeks ago. You and most colleagues in this house will know that I had a 17 year career as a city councillor and I was chair of Toronto's Growth Management Committee and during that time I advocated for many of the changes proposed in this bill. Now I'm very proud to be part of a government that is making meaningful changes to the planning process in this province that will increase the accountability and transparency of local decision making and improve the way for municipalities to fund growth through changes to the Development Charges Act. Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing could you explain some of the important changes that are being proposed in Bill 73 both to planning regulations and also to Development Charges. I'd love to Mr. Speaker I want to thank the member from Etobicoke Lakeshore and note through you Speaker that we consulted wide view with stakeholders across Ontario we heard that Ontarians want a greater say in the planning process and I think that's one and we'll also have provide some ways to assist municipalities resolve disputes and they'll have to municipalities have to put a parks plan in place to make sure we handle money in rural parks and I think I've left myself time for a supplemental. Thank you Mr. Speaker the changes that are being proposed in this act will in part allow municipalities to have more pay and local planning matters by restricting some of the ability to appeal certain matters to the Ontario Municipal Board but they'll also provide municipalities more ability to raise funds to pay for important growth related initiatives in their communities but also make that far more transparent to those who pay those charges be it developers or be it homeowners that buy those new properties this is part of the Premier's mandate letter to the Minister Mr. Speaker through you to the Minister can he please tell the House how the proposed changes to the Development Charges Act will actually work and what other changes are being contemplated to the municipal planning process that he might be bringing to the House in the coming months. Thank you. Mr. Speaker we appreciate the member from the Tobicles Lakeshore's supplemental question and his ongoing commitment to making things better for Ontario municipalities and I can say through you Mr. Speaker that our proposed changes to the Development Charges Act aimed to give more municipalities further opportunities to invest in growth related infrastructure like transit and recycling. It would make when use fee collection systems more transparent and accountable and would support curving urban sprawl in favour of livable walkable communities that will help create jobs and grow our community. Now the member's right the Premier has given me a letter my mandate is clear and we as a government intend not only to fulfill my mandate but the mandate so long. The member from Perth Wellington on a point of order. Thank you Speaker. I would like to introduce Dan Matheson who is the Chair of Impact and also the Mayor of Perth. Welcome Dan. Thank you Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to welcome members and researchers from the Council of Ontario Universities they are visiting the house today and they are having their reception in room 228. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thanks very much Speaker. Point of order in reference to August 28th, 2012 there was a unanimous resolution in this legislature supported by all parties with respect to the cancellation of the slots at racetrack program. Today a provincial court has argued that or has ordered the government as well as the OLG to produce documents related. That's actually not a point of order. There are other ways in which you can obtain that information this is not a point of order. There are no deferred votes this house stands recess until 3pm this afternoon.