And we're live. Hi, I'm Dazza Greenwood, a scientist at MIT Media Lab, where I run and curate law.mit.edu. And this video is a flipped classroom talk by one of our star speakers who we're all really looking forward to again at the next computational law course next week. Elizabeth Thrunaris. Elizabeth is the Global Policy Council at Evernim. You can also check out her private consulting work where she does policy consulting at hackylawyer.com. And we're going to talk about Elizabeth's breakout session on Thursday of next week, January 17th. It's advancing an article that we had written together late last year on competing legal frameworks for digital identity in a very real sense, finding the appropriate legal framework for humanity and human identity itself. Property model is one that has a lot of purchase right now, as it were. But there's also civil liberties and human rights models that seem like they ought to have one or someplace at least. And so to help us explore that, I would just want to welcome you and thank you for taking the time to come back into the family at MIT as the legal hacker that you are. We're in the right hat. And maybe you could give us a little more context about yourself and introduce your topic. Sure. Thanks for having me. It's good to be back at the legal forum. So as you mentioned, I am Global Policy Council at Evernim, which is a startup focused on blockchain based self sovereign identity. I am trained as a data protection and privacy lawyer practiced in the US, the UK and the Middle East very much focused on cross border privacy issues. And in the last three and a half to four years, I've been very focused on a blockchain distributed ledger technologies, cryptographic tokens and tokenization. And of course, now as you know, as all those things are converging very nicely. So I had the fortunate situation of ending up in a very niche area. And all of this, of course, is why I felt that it was important to offer a course on this topic of competing legal frameworks. As many of you know, you see a lot of new blockchain and crypto projects that tout marketing, like own your data and monetize your data and monetize your attention and token for this and digitize everything, tokenize everything. And it's become very ubiquitous marketing hyperbole often. And so to sort of counteract some of that, some of us here in the legal community are obviously very conscious of not letting the marketing get ahead of the law and policy and ethical frameworks that we need to be thinking about as we move into the data driven age. Here, here. And so with that in mind, you know, let's let's get into this this concept of what is the what is the prevailing legal framework right now as it relates to individual human identity and our most intimate personal data? Yeah, so I think in light of a lot of the breaches of trust and privacy abuses, data hacks that we've seen, particularly in the last year to year and a half. As I mentioned, there's been this paradigm shift of trying to return some control to the individual to the end user. The problem with the approach has been and it's obviously, you know, it's always concerning when it's the big social media networks and large online intermediaries who are using this language of owning your data. It kind of raises suspicion. So it feels as though, you know, if you were to look at sort of the buzzwords, the ownership model is really prevailing. And I have a theory of why that is. In a recent blog post that I wrote, I talked about the nature of data and the nature of data being different. So digital forms of things are different from their, their analog versions. Because data is basically, you know, the same format. It's just a series of binary zeros and ones. So once digitized, this data looks relatively, you know, interchangeable. It looks fungible. It looks transferable. And the word data itself derives from the Latin data, which is the past participle of the verb to give.  So I think the there's been sort of this tendency to view all forms of data or anything that's been digitized as also having those sort of transferable liquid properties. But there's a risk in that. And so part of what we want to look at in this course is, when is that an appropriate framework? When is it not an appropriate framework, if ever, if it's ever an appropriate framework? And what are the relevant risks that we need to assess in making that determination? Okay. All right. So, so let's do that. What do you think? Yes, I think we need to understand what the problem is. And as I mentioned, so I brought a prop, which is one of my favorite reads of last year, Victor Meyer Schumer, reinventing capitalism and the age of big data. So really important book for a number of reasons, but I think it does the best job I've seen of articulating what the big data age or what the data driven age is. And obviously we titled this course, you know, humanity and the data driven age. So I think understanding that is really is a good starting point. And I actually will, if I may, read a quote from the book. So he says that we fundamentally misjudge what the data age is all about. It's a move away from money and capital and appreciation of capturing the richness of reality through the richness of data and embrace of the market over the firm, and an exceptional opportunity to improve the human ability to coordinate. So this is a very optimistic view of the data driven age. And the idea is that we're shifting away from finance capitalism or money as our sort of mode of capitalism to data capitalism, where data becomes currency like or money like. And again, I think a lot of this has to do with the properties of data. But we're turning things into data now that we weren't turning into data before.  Obviously, now we have things like cryptocurrencies. We've turned speech into data. So we have many platforms, digital platforms for speech and for expression. And we've turned copyrightable works into data, obviously, music and ebooks. But what happens when we move into things like, you know, the human genome, and we start digitizing our genetics, our genetic code, what happens when human behavior itself in what Shoshana Zuboff calls the age of surveillance capitalism, what happens when all of our activity is tracked, both online, you know, while we're surfing the web, but also offline through an array of digital trackers of smart devices and smartware, smart home devices, smart cars, retail beacons, surveillance cameras, all kinds of biomarkers. What happens when we're tracked in every moment in every aspect of our lives? And all of that is being transformed into data. You can see how we're talking about new things that have particular rights and concerns that attach to them. So I'll stop there if you have a question. Otherwise, I'll explain an important dichotomy here as well. Yeah, I think we should dive right into the to, you know, unpack more of the context and where the dividing lines and dichotomies are. And then let me pipe in a little bit more once you've got through that. Sure. So let's let's start with this. It's a useful sort of dichotomy, but it's not perfect. So they're, in my view, two types of sort of digital assets or data. And one set is what I call a native digital asset. So it's something that's wholly created in digital form. So take a very popular example right now, Bitcoin. Take a very different set. So the next set would be what I call a digital twin. So digital twin is basically just a digital representation of something that lives in the real world, whether it's a physical asset, people, a place, a system, a device, anything in the real world, anything in analog form in digital representation. So you've got these native digital assets, and you've got digital twins. And we have certain rights that attach in the real world to the analog version of a digital twin that we cannot lose sight of once we digitize them and turn them into data. So people is a really good example in the industry that I'm in, in identity. If we accept that all kinds of data, whatever the nature, whether they're native digital assets or digital twins are subject to the same set of rules. So for example, we'll walk through the property law approach and are now transferable, alienable and for sale. What does that mean for, you know, digitizing identity? And what happens to our identity? Can we lose ownership of our own identity? So these are the kinds of things that we want to explore. So we want to make sure that that dichotomy is clear. Got it. So in the case of of digital identity of a human being, we've got the digital part would be a digital twin when we're driving it. And it's a twin of, you know, the human live person. And then with a digital asset that was, you know, born digital such as Bitcoin, that would be a native and it doesn't have this analog where it's reflecting or emanating from like a dollar or or like a coin. Is that the basic idea? That's the basic idea. And of course, there's nuances and flavors. And these are best practice sort of in thought experiments, which is some of what we'll walk through as well. Okay. All right, let's move on. So again, the question is what's the problem of treating all data the same? And the fundamental problem to understand and why bringing that dichotomy is because data represents different things. And those different things live in different real world contexts and come from different different rights. So for example, if we're digitizing speech effectively and returning speech into data, if we start treating the data as something that can be property that's freely traded and owned, what happens to speed traits? So and again, we'll get into this some more. So basically, what we're asking is, you know, what happens if we treat all data the same way? They're obviously significant risks there. So if we can't, then how do we treat digital things in the form of data? And what are the best approaches? So we can dive right into this sort of two predominant approaches right now. And you already mentioned the first, which is this property law approach. So what I want to do is just sort of walk through what the key characteristics are and then we could discuss some of the pros and cons and perhaps a lot experiment. Does that work? Yep, that's perfect. And that will set us up beautifully for a really engaging discussion next week. So let's do it. Great. So the first thing to understand about the property law approach is that it's based on two fundamental principles of law. So the notion of private property and the notion of freedom of contract. And so many of us are familiar with different forms of private property. So you have things like real property, land and homes, you have things like personal property or movable property. And you have you have intellectual property, of course, which is also incredibly relevant to this conversation. So those are sort of big buckets of private property and private property is subject to what we call the freedom of contract. So I don't need government intervention necessarily to, you know, sell you something or to have a private commercial agreement. We have something called the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States where in other jurisdictions where contracts for, you know, for goods have certain rules around them. And there's a sort of self regulatory framework through which contract law is interpreted. So those two things kind of form the foundation of the property law approach. And a lot of this is based on sort of a neoliberal theory or classical market based capitalism. So Adam Smith's, you know, invisible hand doesn't require any regulatory or governmental interference or intervention. So that's focused, of course, on the rights of capital, the rights of capital and of individuals in particular, to leverage their capital above sort of other rights. So there's this sort of hierarchy of rights that applies in the in the neoliberal approach to property rights paradigm. So what's key to understand here and very important the context of data and particularly personal data is that the property law approach is really motivated by economics and by financial incentive. So if you think about something like intellectual property law, and you think about core motivations for designing the kind of legal framework we have, for example, in the United States, our approach to patents or for example, copyright, we have something called the incentive theory of intellectual property. And so we're designing these rules and these legal frameworks to incentivize innovation and invention and things that we're trying to protect with IP. And the idea is that you sort of need these legal rights to, to incentivize that kind of behavior and that people are creating because they're motivated by protecting the sort of economic and financial interests. Now, of course, this is an prevailing framework around the world. They're very different systems. There are things like moral rights that attach in jurisdictions in Europe, for example. So it's not, you know, it's not the only approach to the similar subject matter, but it's definitely based on this property law approach based on the notions of private property and freedom of contract. So that's, you know, that's a very different motivation from what we'll explore in the rights based approach. And any questions there? No, I think that makes a lot of sense. So we've got this property model. And, and it is being applied, you know, almost exclusively in people's minds to data as a form of personal property and intellectual property. And I think, I think people, and I think I understand that I think people can get their head around that. So now let's move forward to other legal frameworks that maybe ought to apply as well, or instead of Yeah, let's just, just one more thing on the property approach. So it's important to keep in mind that another characteristic of these property rights, whether, you know, their IP or real property is that they are alienable. So they can be transferred, they can be waived and they can be surrendered. So just keep that in mind as we as we move into sort of the competing framework, which we call the rights based approach. And this can have a lot of different terms. So for some, this is a human rights based approach. And those human rights are something that derive from, from natural law, right? So we don't need, we don't even need to codify them because they're sort of fundamental rights that exist in natural law that we all know and recognize and they attach to a person. But they, they're often codified in something like an international convention or treaty or declaration on human rights or convention on human rights or political rights. So, but fundamentally it's this, this natural law based fundamental rights based approach. Sometimes that's also incorporated into constitutions or constitutional rights approaches. Now, I say sometimes, but not always. So even within the US Constitution, for example, you know, we have this hierarchy of the Bill of Rights and then the rest of the Constitution. So there's this demarcation of a hierarchy of sort of more fundamental rights and other rights. And those are subject to different frameworks. And in the constitutional setting, you would need something like, you know, constitutional amendment to overcome the challenge, the status of those rights. And then sometimes you have an extension of, you know, we call civil rights. And again, sometimes codified in the Constitution, sometimes not sometimes in a relevant international law or treaty. But the idea is that these are not coming from private property and freedom of contract. These are coming from a different emanating from a different source. Right. So like the fourth amendment, you know, the first amendment, right, a free speech, that sort of stuff, which I guess in the US, you could say it, you know, the enforceable right is found in our Constitution and the amendment. And then, but if you go back and read the Federalist Papers and the, you know, the jurisprudence and political theory of the time, they're really just codifying what we're thought to be rights inherent from the people, you know, who, you know, if you look at John Locke and people like that, they felt that we're born with these rights. And part of the political deal, if I remember correctly, was that we'll pass the Constitution now with the understanding that we'll be adding these fundamental rights to them as soon as we can draft that. But, but yeah, so I think that makes all kinds of sense. You didn't mention so maybe I'll just sprinkle a little context. Also statutes like the Civil Rights Act and voting rights acts. And then you see the down in regulation and another sources of policy and law. Yeah. And of course, those are relevant. And but often what they're doing is codifying a specific implementation of existing fundamental rights. So those are really good examples. And, you know, if we think about, again, the personal data context, we think about the GDPR, for example, in Europe, being a rights based approach. And it's talking about, you know, it hearkens to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and it's talking about the convention. It's talking about the sources of law coming from those fundamental rights. But it's codifying against sort of an implementation. But that's absolutely right. Okay, let's move on. So, you know, in stark contrast to the property based approach, which again, I said was motivated by, you know, economic or financial incentives. There's a very different motivation for the rights based approach. And it's something that some scholars called dignitary rights. So dignitary sounds like what it is, it's based on sort of the dignity human dignity that attaches again to the mere fact of being human.  So there's a risk, of course, in propertizing and commercializing everything that we're threatening sort of the dignitary nature of some of the rights that attach here. And what's really important too is the legal process for violation of something like human rights doesn't require this, this requires a different standard to basically seek justice through a judicial mechanism. So one thing that we've seen happening a lot in the context of large in online intermediaries, social media platforms and the like is that when individuals try and bring a private right of action and challenge some of the practices that are, you know, maybe violating privacy, they often will be unsuccessful because the lack standing, because they haven't shown a so-called concrete harm. But that harm is being construed in the context in the US, for example, a very conventional common law harms where you'd have, you know, a financial harm or something other, some of their concrete harm that kind of overlooks, you know, if it were based on a fundamental rights, a rights based approach and human dignity wouldn't even require that showing. So that just gives you an example of how the paradigm shift is really important from an actual, from actually giving these rights effect. Right. So I know one of the parts of the article that we wrote that I think that made a real impact was defining, or well, I guess describing some of the nature of these human rights legal frameworks, or that the rights that people are endowed with from birth are universal, indivisible, and inalienable. Yeah. And to me, I think you're getting at that, but those three words say a lot, and they, they do starkly contrast with the, with the features of a legal framework that's property and commercial based. Yeah, very much. So universal in the sense that, you know, while they are very much endowed, you know, the individual has these rights and yet they're not focused on the individual, they're universal in the sense that, you know, I don't have those rights because I'm Elizabeth and you don't have them because you're Gaza. We universally have them because we're part of this set of being human. And they're indivisible because they're not sort of this property law theory of rights where, you know, they're a bundle of rights where you have possession and exclusion and these different things that you can break up into different pieces and have different people owning at different times. They are, you know, it's, it's kind of all or nothing.  And the inalienable is really important as well because they, these rights cannot be transferred. They cannot be waived and they cannot be surrendered. So, you know, anyone purporting to have a contract or you're waiving some of these fundamental rights, you know, the contract's indelible. So important distinction there. Yeah. So it can't be consented away at the click of a button. Right. One stark way to say that, I think. Yeah. It's a great way to say that, exactly. Okay. So let's move on a little more. Okay. So a lot of this might seem, you know, quite murky or amorphous. So, I mean, one thing we might do is look at just a thought experiment and how some of this is different. And one of the things that we mentioned in our, in our article we wrote together was this idea that even things that are property like or taking it even further, even things that are property, that does not necessarily mean that they're subject to a property law-based legal framework. Right. So we have in the U.S. Constitution, you know, a right to our person and our papers, you know, we have rights that attach to physical things. So papers and effects might be considered personal property, but there's still, there could still be a fundamental right attached to that. So one thought experiment I think is really interesting is the example of a journal.  It would be very hard to claim that, you know, that the manufacturer or the retailer who sold you that journal has any rights or interest in anything that you, you know, that you write in it and or has any intellectual property in, you know, a poem or a song that you would write in it or a drawing that you might have a patent, you know, that you want a patent. They, you know, and typically this is not an issue in the analog world because they wouldn't have any access to it. You know, if you purchase that in cash, they probably doesn't, you know, wouldn't even know who possessed it. But digital is different, right? It's very different. So imagine an app, you know, a journaling app that you can download in the app store or the Google Play Store. And, you know, I think there's a tendency sometimes in the technical community and industry to sell these things as basically just digital equivalents. And, you know, that's dangerous because if you tell someone it's a digital equivalent, well, they might have a similar expectation of privacy. So they might think that, you know, that the contents of their journal are private, right?  But we know that digital is different, right? We know that there are far more significant risks of interference, of hacking, of intrusions, of the app disappearing from your phone, right, of not functioning anymore, of being backed up in the cloud, of myriad ways that the digital version is different. And so we have to think about is, you know, if these things are being turned into data, you know, we don't, we don't want to lose, obviously, fundamental rights that would attach to, you know, the sort of analog version of these things, because then we basically lose all of our rights apart from the freedom to contract. So, and I don't know if you want to take that one further, but it's the kind of thing that we'd want to explore to really get specific about how these rights might apply. Yeah, I think, I think what you're saying is a great example with a journal so I just dug my bullet journal out of my bag. And, you know, it occurs to me that, you know, it, well, there's a couple of things, I guess, to distinguish. One of them is in terms of basic expectations of privacy. There's the first sale doctrine that applies to this physical instantiation where, you know, it's one and done and sells complete title to the personal property vests in the person that bought it. And there's no continuing interest.  And by contrast with these online services, they're more like services. And then the ownership, if you read through the terms and conditions on some long rainy, you know, weekend month, then you could, then it becomes quite clear that, you know, many rights are maintained by the provider of the service to do various things with the content for service quality or analytics or even to resell it in some cases.  And so that's one thing that distinguishes. The thing I would even, there was thinking about a step further, since you mentioned papers and effects, which is a part of our fourth amendment protections for, you know, well, that could very much apply to a journal that was in my, on my person in a pocket or in my dresser drawer for government to take those, you know, we have a different, a very different legal regime, you know, they need some kind of cause and sometimes they may even need to get a warrant. And it's going to be very specific because it's, it's not because, because they're so tightly associated with our liberty and our, and our autonomy and in a sense, our identity is free people that consent to be governed. I mean, that's part of the basic deal. Interestingly, it starts to blur the line. And I know you're going to talk about this a bit in your, in your talk between, you know, a journal is at once sometimes property, like when I go to the moleskin or somewhere and purchase it. And sometimes it's an extension of my identity. I mean, there's different legal frameworks that can actually apply to the same, to the same artifact and that's kind of ups the ante a little bit with complexity when it's not one or the other. But when the context may determine which legal framework applies and when and to what. Yeah, and I think one of the biggest risks with the property law approach is it sort of crowds out the other rights. And so again, if all of it, you know, if you have these, this data that has these dual purposes. So again, look at, if you look at the blockchain or crypto context, so you have tokens that might represent, you know, money, they might represent value, but they might also represent speech, particularly when you look at, you know, the attention economy or other assets that have, you know, both a consumptive and an expressive purpose. And the property law approach doesn't leave any room for protecting things like speech and expression. So I think it's really important that that we think these things through from these thought experiments because in the abstract, it's very easy to oversimplify and to lose sight of really important things. But I think an important distinction example you made was that, you know, we've got these robust protections from interference by government. But in the data driven age, you know, the big concern is really more from, from, you know, the commercial sector, from the private sector. The potential for interference and, you know, privacy breaches is really coming from, you know, commercial goods and services providers. So it's, you know, we don't have the same kind of protections from, you know, GAFA that we do from from the government. So we have, we haven't updated sort of our thinking and our legal frameworks around that. And, and, you know, if these things were perpetrated by the government, I think people would be up in arms, but they're sort of OK with it coming from service providers because, you know, they're often they're not appreciating the trade officer, they're not appreciating the consequences or significance or their, you know, like you said, they're really just not even sure of what it is that they're purchasing that, you know, that it's a service or that it's very different in nature. So that's part of the awareness that we need to, that we need to get to. Here here. OK, so is there is there any other kind of context setting or, you know, kind of foundation laying that that that we should add now so people are ready for the discussion? Yeah, so a lot of this we think about in the future and we think, you know, hypothetically, but we do have some concrete examples of this question coming to a head in the past. And so one of the recommended reading materials in the Github repository is a book on publicity. So it's Jennifer Rothman's The Right of Publicity, Privacy or Imagination for Public World. And it's really, really important and interesting, historical kind of legal research study on what happened to the right of publicity, which was originally derived from the right of privacy and how it was how it evolved very much because of Hollywood and entertainment lobby. It was converted into a more a propertized IP type, right? And actually crowded out the individual from their own ability to exercise the protections that were meant to sort of originally be baked into the right of publicity. So and she talks about how if we recalibrated the right of publicity and might actually help individuals in the context of owning their digital presence and their digital identity, intrusions by social media and other online intermediaries. So there are a lot of lessons in there about the risks of the property property based approach that again are not hypothetical and she does very thorough studies of quantitative and qualitative analyses of kind of how the right evolved and what the consequences were to the individual and commercially. So highly recommend that one as well because it's useful again to just not think about the hypothetical but to learn from kind of, you know, the mistakes we made in the past as legal architects. Yes, agreed. And so just to show people, let me see if I can screen share a little bit. This is where you can find all of this wonderfulness. Here we go. Is this coming through? Can you see the article? OK, so here's our class page which you can get to at law.mit.edu forward slash learning. And here's the 2019 class. You scroll down to day three where we're doing our breakout sessions. Here is there is Elizabeth's. And if you kind of click here, well, as soon as this hangout on air is done, we'll have a YouTube. So we'll we'll put the YouTube video there. You click on the working notes. You can get to links to this article and to all of that good stuff. Here's the article which really did go viral. I think when we put it out. So we stop my screen share here. There we go. I guess the only other thing I would if I could add one thing that I hope people can be thinking about is, you know, how much of this remains to be thought through. And and there's there's a dialogue that's going to be needed at the policy level politically and socially to figure what what aspects of personal data. Do we consider in the category of human rights and, you know, kind of civil liberty stuff? And what aspects would be in, you know, outside of that? So when I think about, you know, the right of publicity, I think we've settled now over decades and decades that if you're walking on a public sidewalk and someone sees you, it's that's one thing. If you're in your house or you've got you kind of made a personal video of yourself, you've got is a different legal framework that applies to right of publicity and and privacy rights.  And does it matter what the source of it is? Like when I when I use the New York subway or or a subway system where I've got a monthly card and I'm tracked for legitimate purposes to see how many rides I've taken. Is that different from the transponder on my phone and tracking me around or is the I don't know when we when we chat on Telegram, obviously they have a copy of what we're saying. But but that doesn't mean they own the right to speak for us and they don't they've not assumed our freedom of speech right. We as the you know, the as the principle of a holder of those human rights. And so we'll have to find some what there's a lot more discussion to be had to figure out what is in the ambit of human rights, what is outside the ambit. And then when do you know which framework applies, especially at the blurry margins? Yeah, I think that's right. And I think it's also important to keep in mind, you know, the individual versus the collective. A lot of these, you know, do we want to have individual rights that might, you know, disadvantage the collective if we're thinking about things like, you know, research or science?  I mean, there's a lot of complexity to this. But we are seeing a lot of fast moves commercially towards this ownership model. So we'll consider this course an intervention before it's too late. Yeah, here here. So yeah, it's like a loving intervention to a family member in the body politic. But but the big news here is wake up everybody. There's more than one legal framework that does an ought to apply to our identities online and to our personal data. It's not all commerce. There's also much longer standing time honored and critical jurisprudential and political and social conventions, the social compact itself between free people operating in free markets. And so there's some more work to be done here. And I'm glad that they were sort of raising the flag here so people can have a begin more of a meaningful discussion and we can get there. Exactly. Yeah, it's exactly the right way to put it. There's more than just commercial interests at stake. And I think as long as we only focus on the commercial interests, then there's really no point, right? What's left? So, yeah, thank you for the opportunity to present some of this. Thank you for taking time. I know you're like one of the busiest people on the planet right now. You're in such a hot corner of the economy and doing some such great stuff. So we really appreciate your taking time to come back and rejoin your extended family at MIT. And and for those of you that need a reminder, Elizabeth's session is one of the breakouts on Thursday, January 17th. And and check out this video. Go to the wiki page, read the background, and get ready for a terrific dialogue with our friend and colleague, Elizabeth Ronaris, hacky lawyer. Thank you, Elizabeth. Thanks so much, Dazza. Talk to you.


Therefore, it is time for Question Period, the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Premier. While we don't have a budget date yet, we expect the budget to come sometime soon. The PC caucus is expecting to see some key planks in this budget, so I'll lay them out. The government's mismanagement of its finances has resulted in two credit downgrades and debt-serving costs of over $11 billion annually. The province now spends more on interest than on post-secondary education, community safety, and five other ministries combined. Mr. Speaker, because of this management, the government must take action. Will this budget begin the process of paying down debt and include a long-term plan to get Ontario's debt under control? Well, thank you, Speaker, and I think it's important people understand that when the recession hit in 2008-9, we... The member from Leeds, Grenville, knows better, and I expect better. Excuse me, Deputy Premier. Speaker, we made a very deliberate decision that we were not going to slash and burn. We were not going to fire thousands, 100,000 workers. We were going to support the continued growth of this province, Speaker. We made a deliberate choice to invest in infrastructure, and we are seeing the consequences of that very deliberate decision. Some people advocated that we cut our way to balance. Our decision was to invest and grow our way to balance, and that's exactly what we've done. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, again to the Deputy Premier, and clearly no answer on getting Ontario's out of control debt. They seem to be satisfied with the fact that we're the most indebted subnational government in the world. Now, another budget ask we have with the government is, and I'm sure the government appreciates, that millions of Ontarians are struggling with their hydro bills from unaffordable hydro rates. This government's role in the hydro scheme does nothing but adds billions of dollars into debt, more into future costs on Ontario's back for hydro. The budget must take action. Rather than just borrowing, we'd actually like to see some structural changes. Mr. Speaker, will this budget include an announcement that the Liberals will stop signing bad contracts? Minister of Housing. We do not need and stop the fire sale of hydro work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Please to rise and talk about Ontario's fire hydro plan. And of course, Mr. Speaker, what we've done to take costs out of the system. Part of one of the first things that I did, Mr. Speaker, when I became Minister of Energy. Okay. Next time I stand, we're going to go to warnings.  Carry on, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the very first things that I was able to do as Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker, is put a suspension on the LRP2, Mr. Speaker, which was something that saved ratepayers billions of dollars. Again, Mr. Speaker, we brought forward the fair hydro plan, Mr. Speaker, that is going to save rate players up to, you know, on average 25%, which is something, Mr. Speaker, that all of them right across the province, all families across the province are looking forward to, Mr. Speaker. Final supplement. Mr. Speaker, again to the Deputy Premier, who was on stopping the signing of these bad contracts, there was no response. And no matter how many times the minister repeats himself, borrowing $25 billion to pay in interest is not a real plan if you don't deal with the structural issues. So since I can't get an answer on debt or hydro, I'll try a third budget ask, and that's on the housing affordability crisis that this government has created. They've decided to sit on their hands and collect the taxes and reap the benefits of an out-of-control housing market. Their careless decision to wait until the last moment has resulted in unprecedented inability for families in Toronto and the GTA and Ontario to afford homes. Mr. Speaker, this budget must take action. So my question to the Deputy Premier, hopefully I can get an answer this time, is will this budget slash red tape to increase the housing supply in Ontario? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing and Poverty. The Minister of Housing. Well, thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question about housing affordability, which of course is on everyone's tip of everyone's tongue these days. We certainly understand the growing concern across the GTA regarding the booming housing market, which, Speaker, I can say is feeling pressured, in part because of the fantastic economy that this province has created. There are, Speaker, about 100,000 people, there are 100,000 people flocking to the GTA area every year because they're coming here for jobs and a wonderful quality of life. And that, Speaker, has put pressure on the economy. And, you know, later today we'll be meeting with members from across the GTA to understand and continue the dialogue with them about what tools they need to address housing affordability. Two questions, the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is to Deputy Premier, and so the government, when it comes to debt, no plan, when it comes to hydro-relief, no plan, and when it comes to housing... Promised, we're in warnings. Mr. Speaker, to the Deputy Premier, clearly the government's uncomfortable in trying to answer their own record. Now, since we can't get an answer on debt, hydro, or housing, I'm going to ask another question that needs to be in this budget. The government's current cap-and-trade scheme is little more than a tax grab disguised in effort to address climate change, a big cash grab. $1.9 billion. The current system is not only a cash grab, it's driving business out of Ontario. It is subsidizing business in California and Quebec at the expense of hard-working Ontario businesses. If this government is serious about protecting jobs in Ontario, it will make sure that cap-and-trade is not a cash grab that is revenue-neutral. Mr. Speaker, can we get a commitment from this government that in this budget it will ensure there is no cash grab, and money will go back to Ontario's? To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, is such an entertaining gentleman I have to give him credit. I'm trying to square this, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you could help me, because you've been watching this for a long time. He wants to increase the price from $18 a ton to $74 a ton. That would jump gas prices by 16 cents. And I've raised this with him, and I think he's an honest gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and he's read David Sawyer's work on what a BC tax would look like. Could he please explain to us how he would justify today's competitive economic environment? How that makes any sense at all, Mr. Speaker? My question was on returning the funds to Ontario from this $1.9 billion cash grab out of thin air, but I'm not surprised from a minister that actually wanted to ban natural gas in Ontario. A government that is so out of touch. Since I can't get an answer on that, I will try another tax, and that is on school closures. Maybe the government can do something in this budget if they're ignoring all the other issues. We have schools across Ontario. Can you relate it to the first question, please? Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, my question... Stop the question. Unless I hear the preamble, I'm listening to the preamble, I'm encouraging the member to make sure that it's related to the first question about climate change. Mr. Speaker, my first question was the budget ask and my supplementary is the budget ask. And I want a commitment from this government that we're going to stop seeing these school closures. I want to see a moratorium on the school closures we're seeing across this province. Too many tan provinces are having their communities ripped apart by these 600 potential school closures. And the government is saying it's not happening, but you can't go to a community on Ontario and not see a school that's being closed. So my question is this. Can I get a commitment, Mr. Speaker, from the government that they will put a moratorium on these reckless... Can you see it, please? Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Speaker. It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about what we're doing for schools in Ontario. Because on the side of the House, we believe in publicly funded education. Since 2003, Mr. Speaker, we have built 810 new schools and we have extended 780 significantly by renovation. Mr. Speaker, we know that investing in our students is the best investments that we can make in this province, Mr. Speaker, and that's why we have increased the funding consistently for schools. You're after me. And you know, Mr. Speaker, in the member's own riding, we have built 11 new schools since 2000. In an odd comment, I would like to hear the minister's answer, but I can't hear it from your own side. Investments we're making in education are leading to results, Mr. Speaker. Each 5.5% of our students are now graduating high school. Mr. Speaker, as opposed to only... Do you see any place? Do you see any place? A reference to budget spending would be the best way to... final supplementary piece. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with my budget ask of this government. And since I could not get an answer at commitment from the government on school closures, let me try one more question to the Deputy Premier on the upcoming budget. The minister of finance face said it all when he saw the recent federal budget. It was disappointment, disdain, and dejection in terms of Ontario's request of the government of Canada. Something did not go his way, did not go the way the minister of finance had expected. Mr. Speaker, is the government still rewriting their budget because the federal liberals let them down? Is it too late to consider these five PC requests to make sure Ontario gets on the right track? Thank you. President of the Treasury Board. President of the Treasury Board. Yes, thank you. And you know, when we faced the recession, we set out a very responsible approach to how we would deal with the budget. We're continuing to invest, including in 11 schools in your writing to connect it to the last question. Chair, please. But we also know that we needed to get to balance. We committed that we would have a balanced budget in the spring of 2017. We will have a balanced budget in spring 2017. 100% certain. And we're able to do that because Ontario's economy has been growing because of our investment strategy, because of our job creation strategy, Ontario's economy is growing. Ontario's economy has been leading Canada. So we will have a balanced budget this spring. Thank you. New question, the member from Toronto Danforth. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the acting Premier. The cost of housing is reaching ridiculous heights in Toronto and in cities across Ontario. Last week, the Premier and her Liberal Party had a chance to help out renters facing unfair rent hikes by unscrupulous landlords, but she didn't take it. The Premier is meeting with GTHA mayors today to talk about housing affordability. Will she be telling those mayors that she will actually be closing the 1991 rent control loophole? Minister of housing? Minister of housing? Well, thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member of the third party for that really important question. Mr Speaker, the Premier has said it many times. I've said it many times in this House that it is absolutely unacceptable that so many Ontarians are faced with housing costs that are rising so dramatically. That's why we are in the process of developing that plan to address unfair rises in rental costs. In the coming weeks, Speaker, we will be rolling out a very substantive rent control reform in Ontario. I've said it again. I'm happy to stand here and say it again today, Speaker. Our plan is going to include a broad package of change that will help protect tenants. Mr Speaker, one of the reasons that I could not support the member's response or the member's bill that was tabled a couple of weeks ago was simply that it didn't do enough. We will do more. Thank you. Supplementary. So, Speaker, I take that as a no. On to my next question. While the Premier dithers on rent controls, 31 seniors in Sault Ste. Marie are facing a 31% increase in their rent. These seniors are living on a fixed income and a 31% rent increase on top of their soaring hydro bills may mean that a number of them will lose their homes. Terrible. Will the Acting Premier promise these seniors that any rent control or housing reform brought in will be retroactive so they can hold on to their homes. Good. Well, thank you again, Speaker, and it's always good to continue on with the dialogue. You know, just before I carry on, Speaker, I just want to highlight some of the few, just a few of the things that this government has done to take action. We've worked on secondary suites with our municipal partners to make those easier. We've passed inclusionary zoning legislation. We have frozen municipal property tax on apartment buildings. We've doubled the maximum refund for first time home buyers and we're continuing to collect data. You know, Speaker, this week the leader of the third party told media when she was being interviewed, she was asked whether her party's rent control legislation does it do enough to protect renters and she said, Speaker, absolutely not. And I agree with her on that, Speaker. It doesn't go far enough. That answer just isn't good enough. You know, Speaker, it makes me wonder where this back of the napkin proposal by the NDP will leave the one million Ontarians who already have rent control. Final supplementary. Well, dialogue is not a bad thing, but action is what's really needed here. Ontarians aren't impressed by photo ops of the premier with GTHA mayors. Renters need action and they need it now. While the premier sits on the sidelines unscrupulous landlords in Toronto are taking advantage of this moment and in some cases doubling rent for people who can least afford it. Since the premier refuses to close the 1991 rent loophole now will she do it retroactively to protect people from facing economic eviction because of unscrupulous landlords? Thank you, Minister. Well, thank you, Speaker. And I will say that I didn't think that the NDP would oppose the premier meeting with our municipal leaders from across the GTHA but it sounds to me as if they don't think that's a good idea that we shouldn't be continuing the dialogue with our municipal partners. Making sure, Speaker. It may indeed be the chair. Well, thank you, Speaker. And I'll carry on. You know, on this side of the House we think it's really important to build those relationships with our municipal partners with our federal partners. When it comes to the important issue of housing affordability it's absolutely untenable that people face the issues they have with their rising rent. You know, we again we are going to have solutions that take care of it. Fine. New question? No, Danforth. Thank you, Speaker. As you're well aware, photo ops are not a substitute for action. They are not. The premier is out of touch with what the people of Ontario need. Gail, the single... Sorry, to the acting premier. Thank you, Speaker. Gail, a single mom from Muskoka wrote to the NDP to tell us she'd lost her home because her hydro bills were so high. She got behind. Does the acting premier think that someone like Gail should be punished for not being able to afford the soaring hydro bills that have come with 14 years of liberal rule? To the Minister of Energy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again pleased to rise and talk about our fair hydro plan because it is concerning when we do hear about individuals in this province, Mr. Speaker, that did have a hard time and are having a hard time paying their electricity bill, Mr. Speaker, and that's why we acted, Mr. Speaker, like we did with the fair hydro plan. We did bring forward the 8% reduction and the changes to the TripleRP back in the fall economic statement and we recognized, Mr. Speaker, that while that did help many that there were others that needed more support and that's what the fair hydro plan is for. It's going to provide 25% reduction on average to families right across the province. If individuals are a Hydra 1, R1 or R2 customers, Mr. Speaker, they can see a 40 to 50% reduction and if they're in any of the low income brackets, Mr. Speaker, there are many programs in place that will continue to help them and I hope that they actually apply for these. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think that was 1600 square feet. She and her kids now live with her sister in Halton Hills in a bigger home but Gail's sister's hydro bill, her sister's home are lower than Gail's were because Gail had to pay rural delivery charges. When will the liberal government finally bring forward this plan they talk about, talk about, talk about when will they finally bring it forward to deal with the mess in the hydro system with unfair rural hydro delivery rates? Mr. Speaker? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Honourable Member listened to my last answer because I said we're actually bringing down distribution costs for six utilities plus all Hydra 1 customers and R1 and R2 designations, Mr. Speaker. They're going to see a 40 to 50% reduction, Mr. Speaker. That's dramatic, Mr. Speaker. That is part of our fair hydro plan. It is something that we're acting on, unlike their plan, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't even talk about low income individuals until the last page, Mr. Speaker. We're making sure that we're acting, we're helping all families in this province with a special emphasis, Mr. Speaker. We are putting special emphasis on helping those families that are in the rural or northern parts of our province because we recognize that they were paying a higher share of the bill, especially, Mr. Speaker, when it came to distribution costs. That's why we're seeing reductions of 40 to 50% on their bills. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, when that bill comes forward they will vote for it. Final supplementary. Well, you can talk about a bill forever but you're not introducing it and we aren't seeing the action. Gail wants to know from the Liberals how will rural Ontario promote business development and population growth with hydro cost being difficult or impossible to afford.  When will the Premier when, when, when, when will her party, the Premier, deal with the unfair delivery charges that Ontario rural families and businesses are dealing with just because they're outside of cities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the summer, summer, summer, summer is by the time we will actually have that in place, Mr. Speaker. But let's talk about being short on details, Mr. Speaker, and that's their pamphlet on dealing with electricity, Mr. Speaker. They rely on vague, vague principles in this determined, yet to be determined, expert panel that'll sit down and actually find some savings, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, they're basing these on calculations that are pie in the sky, Mr. Speaker, with negotiations with the federal government, and I know Mr. Speaker, I asked before how those negotiations are going. They're actually, Mr. Speaker, they have no idea on how to take off one cent from bills, Mr. Speaker. We are actually making sure we're taking off 25 percent, and when it comes to rural and northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, we're active with a 40 to 50 percent reduction, Mr. Speaker. We take no lessons from that party. The member from Thornhill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Children Youth Services. Mr. Speaker, many families of kids with autism spectrum disorder are back at Queen's Park today. They're disappointed and worried, upset that your government does not focus on their concerns and help Ontario residents with autism reach their full potential. Chrissy Levac is here with her Lars, her seven-year-old son, and Lars finally started therapy a year ago after this government kept him on a waiting list for four long years. Chrissy feels caught between what the ministry tells her Lars deserves and what her regional office is willing to give. Mr. Speaker, has the minister drafted a proper standard of care for children with autism spectrum disorder with strict guidelines for regional providers? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to welcome some other young men here to the legislature today and thank the member opposite for the question. The member opposite knows that we put a plan in place last year and we actually cut the transition by half, so we're going to implement that plan to start in June of 2017 a year earlier than we initially planned. Mr. Speaker, this plan is going to create 16,000 new spaces across the province of Ontario, increase the amount of ABA during the transition period, and ultimately reduce wait times to six months or less. Mr. Speaker, there has been a huge transition when it comes to young people with autism in the province of Ontario and this government's committed to making sure we put in place the right plan that works for them. I would remind the minister, Mr. Speaker, that there are 21,000 children on the wait list already and that keeps growing. Mr. Speaker, the minister has sent a letter to our families promising inclusion for all ages in autism therapy. In contrast, the minister's lead agencies are claiming that no children over five will qualify for the more intensive or enhanced video autism program. Mr. Speaker, the families don't want inclusion to mean just some kind of therapy for all ages. They want comparable therapy for all ages. Will the minister please tell us if his mandate for inclusion in autism therapy will ensure that all children get the autism therapy that they need. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the member opposite of a few things. This is the largest investment in autism in the history of this country. Number one. Number two, we've increased our diagnostic hubs here in the province of Ontario a couple of weeks ago. We made that announcement. We're creating 16,000 new spots. We've cut our IBI wait list by almost half in the last several months. I want to remind the member opposite of something that I think is very important because we're working on research. We're looking for ways to ensure that young people get the resources they need. I want to remind the member opposite when her leader was in Ottawa and had an opportunity to vote, when he had an opportunity to vote for a national plan for autism, he voted against it. Thank you. My questions to the acting premier. This morning we learned that executives at the Canadian Hearing Society, which is funded by the Ontario government, received massive raises at the same time that their employees are walking the streets because they haven't had a pay increase in four years. That is shameful. But even worse is the fact that the organization's vice president was able to avoid having his massive pay raise out on the sunshine list because he chose to be paid as a consultant. That's sneaky. Can the acting premier tell us how many more consultants are being paid high salaries with public money while keeping themselves off the sunshine list? Thank you. The president of Treasury Board. Yes, thank you very much. First of all, let me say that the individual's salary has been given to any member of the opposition, any member of the media that has asked for it. With respect to the sunshine list, when you're dealing with tens of thousands of records there are always every year there'll be a few that are missed. Sometimes it's a clerical error. Sometimes when we track it down we've got an agency that actually didn't submit the records on time to be included on the list. But what we always do in a circumstance like that, as we did in this circumstance, is we make the information available to anyone who asks and then we publish an addendum which has all the information that was given and we will do that again this year. It will be printed in the addendum. Thank you, supplementary. One of the biggest issues is these people are giving themselves raises while the people who actually help deaf challenged people are out in the pickle lines unable to do the job. To good government we all know that and Ontarians need to be able to trust things like the sunshine list. Can the acting premier clarify just how many executives are receiving salaries of more than $100,000 but didn't show up in the sunshine list this year or last year or the year before? Please make that public. Yes, thank you. As I just told you, if you wanted to have the answer for last year you would go and look at last year's addendum and I'm sorry I don't have that in front of me but anybody in any year as long as the sunshine list has existed there has always been an addendum. Many years it has been not published to the fall. This year we're actually going to publish a preliminary addendum in the spring and then if there's still anybody that's missing because as I said in the first answer sometimes we find there's an agency that's just totally missing and we have to chase. But we'll get those clerical errors out there in an early addendum this spring and if there's anything we'll still miss it will be an addendum in the fall. Good question. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. This weekend Ontario is going to celebrate its three year anniversary of the phase out of coal-fired power plants. This move was the single largest greenhouse gas reduction initiative completed in North America. The elimination of coal plants has been a major factor in improving the quality of the air that we breathe. Thanks to clean air and clean energy, Ontario has saved more than $4 billion in annual health and environmental costs. Speaker, the 2016 Toronto Vital Signs Report shows premature deaths and hospitalizations as a result of air pollution have dropped by 23 and 41% respectively since 2004. We've also seen the number of smog casualties drop from 53 in 2005 to zero in 2015. Speaker, could the Minister please explain how the elimination of coal-fired plants puts Ontario in a competitive position? Question. Thank you, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's really nice. At least I know I'll get a supplemental on this one, Mr. Speaker. The electricity we consume every day is already large and carbon free thanks in part to the early action that was taken by my friends at the Ministry of Energy Mr. Speaker. To put that into terms that's a drop from 35 million tons in 2005 to only 7 million tons in 2015 making it the largest greenhouse gas reduction ever in North American history Mr. Speaker. We as Ontarians should be very proud of that Mr. Speaker. And finally, the other thing our coal plants are our largest source of methylmercury and a number of other contaminants Mr. Speaker. So the overall health of the environment and ecosystems and the restorative impact of those closures continues to benefit Ontario today Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. I'd like to thank the Minister for his answer. The impact of Ontario's leadership on our environment and our health are remarkable. As the Minister mentioned eliminating coal as a source of generating electricity there was a bold step. Such a large scale shift away from pollution generation is unprecedented. And so Ontario had to carve its own path to build a cleaner generation and today the province's electricity generation is 90% emissions free. Along the way Ontario has built a strong industry in nuclear and renewable energy. Speaker could the Minister please give us an update on the state of electricity generation in the province since we eliminated coal. Question, thank you Minister. I'd like to thank both the Minister for his previous answer and of course the member for that question and I know Mr. Speaker we've recognized that the transition off of coal and the rebuilding of our electricity system over the last decade Mr. Speaker put a strain on Ontario's electricity costs. So the Fair Hydro Plan is addressing this by providing 25% off on average from electricity bills Mr. Speaker but meanwhile as the member noted we can be proud that our commitment to eliminating dirty coal has created new industries in our province Mr. Speaker. Renewable industries that we know the official opposition doesn't support Mr. Speaker and of course the nuclear industry that supports tens of thousands of jobs in our province. Refurbishment of our nuclear plants will support even more Mr. Speaker and right now I'm happy to report that OPG's refurbishment of Darlington is on both ahead of schedule and under budget Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance the government's mismanagement has resulted in the debt climbing to over $308 billion that leaves taxpayers on the hook for over $11 billion in interest each year the Auditor General tells us this debt is crowding out the services people need so we see this government closing schools and hospital beds firing frontline healthcare workers and nurses the finance minister says he will present a balanced budget sadly this will only be an artificially balanced budget using the fire sale of assets and reserve funds my question for the Minister does he really think the people of Ontario will be fooled into thinking the budget is actually balanced? Mr. Speaker the member opposite made some interesting points and I want to reiterate them we did choose to invest in the people of Ontario we did choose to invest in infrastructure we did choose to stimulate our economy and grow our budget this year next year and the year after that Mr. Speaker and when he talks about debt he misses the point completely we have an accumulated deficit to GDP the same today as it was 25 years ago his leader made and agreed and voted for the largest deficit in Canada's history a $55 billion Mr. Speaker put it in the national $144 billion in accumulated deficits that's what he put forward for Canada our debt to GDP is falling it's improving and we are a company of balancing we're working for the people of Ontario so back to the Minister Mr. Speaker I think he missed some of the points that I made so let me expand on them in my hometown of North Bay you fired 350 frontline healthcare workers including 100 nurses 40 to 40 more will be fired this month you closed 60 beds at our brand new hospital so Mr. Speaker it's because of their constant waste mismanagement and scandal I don't need an armchair quarterback at this moment but I also ask the members while the questions being put I'm ready to get on them and then I hear heckling on that side it's the same thing you've done both sides so let's just relax and by the way we're on warnings please finish Mr. Speaker their constant waste mismanagement and scandals has resulted in people of Ontario paying more and getting less so whether you're a family or a business life in Ontario has increasingly become unaffordable businesses continue to flee the province unable to keep up with the hydro rates the cap and trade rate grab and the red tape Mr. Speaker does the Minister truly believe the budget is going to help anyone thank you our official balances Mr. Speaker I think they only balanced all the time that Harris government was in power four times the last one was bogus Mr. Speaker it wasn't even balanced furthermore he makes reference to the cost of debt during their time it cost 15.4 cents for every revenue dollar raise to cover their debt 15.4 cents because we're locking in low interest rates Mr. Speaker and we're investing he and his party wanted to make across the board cuts as a solution to battling the deficit we chose otherwise we chose to invest in the things that matter to people we told not to put anybody in harm's way we chose to grow the economy it's working we're balancing this year we're balancing next year and the year after that Mr. Speaker can you see it please thank you new question the member from Kitchener Waterloo my question is the acting Premier today we are marking the 100th anniversary of some women getting the right to vote here in Ontario a century ago women formally entered public life in this province but yesterday the women of Ontario were reminded in a report that the gender wage gap is still 30% and has barely changed in 30 years we have been waiting we are still waiting but we aren't going to wait anymore Ontario needs to ensure that women are equal partners in our economy that means to affordable high quality not-for-profit child care does the act thank you Deputy Premier to the Minister of Status of Women Minister of Status of Women thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to thank the member opposite for the question absolutely we know there is a gender wage gap committee gender wage gap because after all we looked at the recommendations that came out from the steering committee the number one and number two recommendations were about an investment in child care our Premier made sure that there was a minister responsible for early years in child care we committed to doubling the number of spaces that are out there we are getting looking forward to transforming the way we are delivering child care in this province in addition we are increasing the number of women on boards we are making sure that the first jurisdiction to introduce comply or explain rules we have a government target of 40% for women on provincial agencies and we have a business target of 30% so Mr. Speaker we are already moving on so many things I am so glad that they are finally supplementary thank you very much Speaker we know what needs to be done to empower women in Ontario right now this province does not have a child care strategy we do not have a child care system and we have been waiting for 14 years the first recommendation from our own Ministry of Labour's report from the Gender Wage Gap Strategy Committee reads that government should immediately commit to developing an early child care system which is high quality affordable accessible publicly funded and geared to income with sufficient spaces to meet the needs we know that every dollar invested in child care leads to $2.40 in benefit to the Ontario economy due to the increase in working hours and wages of women when will this government make sure that women in Ontario can fully participate in the economy by developing a comprehensive child care strategy you have not shown it you have a credibility issue on this issue please to answer this question because actually I think it is kind of a friendly question bottom line first of all when it comes to affordable quality responsive and accessible child Minister all of those pieces were actually included in our workbook so just so you know I went out on consultations across the province spoke to people thousands of people actually both online and directly went to more than 20 cities and centres in our province and we took that workbook with us and the opposite was actually at some of those consultations so she is very aware that when it comes to affordable quality responsive accessible child care we put those ideas on the table and now she is telling me that those are her ideas and we should be acting on them new question a member from Kingston and the islands my question is for the Minister of Education Minister as you know today we recognize the International Day of Pink the day where we recognize the anti-bullying initiative that began in Nova Scotia after a grade 9 student was bullied in his school for wearing pink two students who witnessed the incident bought pink shirts to stand united with the student against bullying students, educators and people throughout my riding of Kingston and the islands are uniting today to celebrate diversity I know that youth to Kingston or Y2K the Boys and Girls Club of Kingston Girls Inc etc have worked diligently to educate and create positive attitudes and anti-bullying spaces it's important that we continue to stand together and create awareness not only today but every single day can the minister tell this house how we ensure our students feel safe and respected at schools across our province Minister of Education I want to thank the member from Kingston and the islands for this wonderful question it's so great to see this movement which started with students that is having such an impact in a conversation around bullying in schools and frankly in the community Mr. Speaker our schools must be places where everyone where staff, students parents and the community feel welcome, feel safe and respected and accepted and that's why I'm proud of our accepting schools act the act is Canada's most comprehensive anti-bullying legislation and as part of its definition of bullying it also includes cyber bullying school safety has been a priority for this government from the beginning and that's why we require all school boards to have policies on bullying prevention and intervention Mr. Speaker this government has invested over $425 million in safe schools initiatives and are helping make Ontario schools some of the safest in the world supplementary we are extremely proud of the investments made towards educating not only our students but parents and staff I know that this will have an impact on the young women that are here with us today in the speakers gallery and I am sure they will appreciate the leadership that we have taken for the first time ever we have defined bullying in legislation so that every single student teacher and principal and parent knows what we're talking about when we say bullying is not okay in our schools Minister in 2015 you introduced the revised health and physical education curriculum to better reflect the advancement of technology making information readily available to students can you please tell us about the benefits of the revised curriculum and how it is helping our students navigate in today's technology driven world Thank you Mr. Speaker and I really want to thank the member for this supplementary question because the reality is that we want our children to be safe and healthy while ensuring that they have access to accurate information we've updated our health and physical education curriculum so that students understand the importance of healthy relationships having the confidence to say no safe use of technology and the internet and mental health safety Mr. Speaker this curriculum now offers increased support and acceptance for all GBTQ and two spirited children and youth we will continue to support our school boards as they work closely with parents to ensure that every student feels safe at school we will continue to work with community partners to develop awareness campaigns for schools that provides skills for youth and educators to be effective and engage role models and allies of our schools across Ontario every student has the right to feel safe and we can learn Mr. Speaker Thank you Thank you very much Mr. Speaker my question is for the Minister of Environment for two years the Blacks and Stakuras and here in Bruce has suffered night and day from incessant noise associated with industrial wind turbines built around their homes just last week to their relief ministry of environment and climate change testing proved that there were audible sounds and possibly from the wind turbines that exceeded allowable sound level limits according to regulation zero nine finally after years of feeling ignored by this government and helpless to defend themselves because of their rights being stripped away they believed a resolution was finally here but you know what they were told Speaker more testing needs to be done so I asked the minister why should these families have to continue to suffer while waiting for more testing question or is it that you need more time to devise a plan that ignores your own ministry's research Minister of the environment and climate change Mr. Speaker an environment question from the party opposite finally thank you the challenge here Mr. Speaker is that the law works there are standards when people call I'm very proud of the officials they respond quickly and they enforce the law the law is being enforced here if the if wind turbines are any other type of technology exceeds sound levels we enforce the law I am happy to meet with the member opposite to review this case to make sure that the ministry is being diligent no one should have to suffer noise or noise pollution from any source and certainly not wind turbines in their community Mr. Speaker back to the minister I look forward to that discussion because speaker once and for all it's time for this government to finally address noise concerns associated with industrial wind turbines they can no longer ignore these hulking monoliths that serve as reminders of this liberal government's failed policies the minister of environment needs to accept the good work from his own staff I look forward to this discussion and action needs to happen today instead of protecting liberal friends well this minister taking immediate action to protect the well-being of Ontario residents immediately stop the turbines in question acknowledge the test results from his own staff and once and for all do right by the citizens of Ontario affected by industrial wind turbines Mr. Speaker we are going to enforce the law to a full extent we are not going to treat one group of proponents of a project or one community any lesser Mr. Speaker there is a law it is being enforced if the member actually doesn't think it's being enforced then she should raise that issue with me and I will review it with the deputy but Mr. Speaker it's passing strange that I never get a question when they were in power about mercury and grassy narrows I never get a question about nuclear power I never get a question about coal plant pollution this party is just an anti-revolution party because they never ask questions about nuclear power thank you speaker my question is for the minister of children use services today we are joined by families and children living with autism we have been rallying once again outside the legislature at noon they are here speaker because they have been let down so many times before by this government and unfortunately they see the writing on the wall for more of the same despite the minister's promises newly diagnosed children five and over are still unable to access intensive treatment the families of children who have been approved for treatment can access the funds when they need the minister tell families today the children five and over will receive the same intensive treatment that they need okay minister of children use services well thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to thank the member for the question I've had this file for almost a year now and the one thing I can say is that when I meet with parents from across the province of Ontario you know I'm constantly reminded of the challenges families because some of the challenges that they go through are just so overwhelming for parents Mr. Speaker and we have a premier that is committed to making sure that we get this right this is an issue that has it just hasn't popped up overnight this is an issue that has an historical context here in the province of Ontario the premier people like myself and many members on this side of the house and we have a lot of support in our local communities and personally so I want the member to know opposite that and I do believe that parents understand this that there is a commitment by this government to make sure we get this right because we cannot afford to get it wrong just yesterday I heard again from a mother of twins with autism who is in a constant struggle to get funding she is entitled to because of her uncertainty she has had to register them for school even though she knows that without intensive treatment they will regress progress made in self feeding and party training will be lost behaviors like head banging and eating anything in their grasp will return right now she will be out of pocket for more than $2500 just for the month of May money she does not have because the ministry for some reason can't get it together and get their approved money flowing will the minister ensure that approved funding is available when it's needed and that families get the information they need now thank you very much Mr. Speaker the member opposite does know that money is flowing from the government to support families with children with autism in fact currently during the transition period we put in the $10,000 allocation that can be reused an allocation of $10,000 Mr. Speaker almost 2400 families currently are using that service and some families over the last several months are at the 7th installment of this funding so we are talking about a $70,000 $80,000 investment into their children over 7 months we are committed to making sure that we get this right, we are committed we are committed to making sure that young people in this province of Ontario get the resources they need so they can reach their full potential there's too much at stake and this is a government that is committed to making sure that young children here in the province of Ontario set up for success any questions from the member from the political lecture thank you Mr. Speaker my question is for the minister of municipal affairs the minister and I have started out at the municipal level of politics and we all know the critical role that those municipalities local governments play in Ontario's daily lives they provide many frontline services and they also provide the critical local infrastructure like the roads we drive on the parks we play in and the pipes and treatment facilities that keep our water clean I'm proud our government is making the largest infrastructure investment in schools, roads, hospital public transit and bridges in the province's history and we're investing in the people and communities that make Ontario strong our government is also providing predictable ongoing support to municipalities in a number of programs with the minister elaborate what those programs are and how they benefit municipalities across Ontario thank you minister thank you very much I want to thank the member from Etobicoke for the question as the minister of municipal affairs take great pride in the relationship that we've established with the municipal sector over the years since coming into government in 2003 specifically through the MOU round table through that venue and through programs in this government we have increased significantly the financial assistance that flows to the municipal sector in Ontario that was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 billion today's speaker the financial package that flows annually in support of our municipal sector in the province of Ontario is somewhere in the range of $4 billion an increased speaker of $3 billion a four fold increased speaker I would say that if you are a municipal property tax payer in the province of Ontario our government has provided significant capacity and room for your municipal councillors to provide their budgets and provide their services to those constituents in a very affordable way thank you minister and I understand that these programs work together to benefit municipalities across Ontario for example the OMPF is now largely a northern and rural grant providing over 90% of its funding to northern and rural municipalities provincial transit funding to municipalities through the gas tax program that benefits the nearly 100 municipalities in the province with public transit systems and OSF provides annual funding to small northern and rural municipalities but there's been a focus on funding for the City of Toronto in recent weeks and I understand programs like provincial uploads and gas tax provide significant ongoing support to the city in addition to provincial funding for specific projects with the minister elaborate some of the support the province has provided to the City of Toronto since we've come to the member from Etobicoke asks a great question we recognize that the City of Toronto represents the fifth or sixth largest economy in Canada and as such we recognize that it merits serious and specific attention in that vein speaker we have uploaded 530 million from the City of Toronto as well as providing 170 million in gas tax funding totaling about 1.9 billion new revenues for the City of Toronto so far and as people will know they've heard the minister of transportation announce that we will be doubling that gas tax funding so that on an annual basis the City of Toronto will be receiving $340 million starting very soon speaker in addition examples of major infrastructure projects 5.3 billion for the Eglinton Crosstown 1.48 billion to extend Danforth subway line and Scarborough speaker and actually even in the members riding from Etobicoke Lakeshore very recently the minister announced $50 million for the Kipling Mobility Hub and Etobicoke Lakeshore speaker these are just some of the examples of the amazing support we have provided financially to the City of Toronto new question thank you speaker my question is to the minister of health and long term care in 2016 the minister received a proposal from the Ontario personal support workers association requesting the right to become the provincial governing body of personal support workers in their request they highlighted the greater need and increased role of our hardworking PSWs due to the increased need for home and community care there are many more PSW in today's health care system never too late to get a warning many more PSWs in today's health care system than in years past as such it has become apparent that there is a great need for oversight which includes a governing body that oversees the needs of PSWs and the responsibilities and more importantly the needs of their clients speaker the minister has stated that he is supportive of a health care system that protects all patients and health care providers therefore can he tell us when we can expect a response or action regarding this proposal Thank you Mr. Speaker and I appreciate the question and the member opposite is correct that the ministry has received a proposal from the association representing our PSWs and I think I speak for everyone Mr. Speaker in this legislature that we have such great respect for the thousands upon thousands of PSWs that are working in every facet of our health care system they are often our unsung Mr. Speaker doing incredibly important work to the highest quality and I want to express my appreciation for that and part of that Mr. Speaker part of that appreciation has been reflected in the fact that we have increased the minimum wage for our PSWs in this province by four dollars an hour so the minimum threshold for that minimum wage now is at stands at sixteen dollars and fifty cents Mr. Speaker we are so invested in elevating this profession to where it should be to be recognized for the important work that they do Thank you Speaker back to the minister the question wasn't about wages the minister is well aware that the time to make decisions regarding health care is now the system can't wait any longer with an aging population and our health care services being rationed it is imperative that his government take action his comprehensive and outlines the importance of safety accountability legitimacy trust and oversight things the government claims to uphold the minister has acknowledged the important and expanding roles of our PSWs in our health care system how much longer will all PSWs have to wait for the validation they deserve Mr. Speaker as a government we have created a $10 million annual fund for PSW training so that they can enhance their training Mr. Speaker we have created a common curriculum and educational standard for our PSWs we Mr. Speaker last year alone we added $80 million to home and community care where many of our PSWs work resulting in an additional 1.3 million hours of PSW work in our homes and communities Mr. Speaker we've added 2,500 PSWs in our long-term care homes since 2008 we're looking at this proposal that aspect of regulation and oversight and really to give the respect and the elevation of the profession that it deserves is one important element of our stabilization strategy we're looking at their proposal as we're looking at other options Mr. Speaker Thank you Mr. Speaker thank you very much Mr. Speaker the earlier we had the most important visitors in your gallery speakers gallery and I missed the opportunity to introduce the three delegates from the best community city of Toronto Scarborough their name is Christina Bihari and Rachel Haiman and Kali Saajian thank you very much Mr. Speaker thank you Mr. Minister if I could I've just noticed in the members east lobby from Thunder Bay representing Peril Enterprise Ms. Roslyn Lockyer thank you there being no further there being no deferred vote this house stands recess until 3pm this afternoon