role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

February 18, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Feb-18 (PDF)

L137 - Thu 18 Feb 2016 / Jeu 18 fév 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 18 February 2016 Jeudi 18 février 2016

Orders of the Day

Concurrence in supply

Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le soutien aux sentiers de l’Ontario

Introduction of Visitors

Member’s birthday

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Correctional facilities

Health care funding

Ontario economy

Human trafficking

Ontario economy

Energy conservation

Violence against women

Air-rail link

Health care funding

Ground current pollution

Student achievement

Accessible parking permits

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Health Information Protection Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

2016 Canadian International Auto Show

Hospital infection control

High-speed rail

Ivan Mater

Goodwill Industries

Organ donation / Don d’organes

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

International trade

Classy Lane Stables Training Centre

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Estimates

Introduction of Bills

Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder), 2016 / Loi de 2016 d’appui aux premiers intervenants de l’Ontario (état de stress post-traumatique)

Battle of the Hatpins Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de la bataille des épingles à chapeaux

Petitions

Home inspection industry

Health care funding

Lung health

Health care funding

Winter highway maintenance

Lung health

Gasoline prices

Protection de l’environnement

Privatization of public assets

Health care funding

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Taxation

Privatization of public assets

Protection de l’environnement

Private Members’ Public Business

Saving the Girl Next Door Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la sauvegarde des jeunes filles

Life Lease Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les baux viagers

Elimination of Ground Current Pollution Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’élimination de l’électropollution du sol

Saving the Girl Next Door Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la sauvegarde des jeunes filles

Life Lease Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les baux viagers

Elimination of Ground Current Pollution Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’élimination de l’électropollution du sol

Appointment of Chief Medical Officer of Health

Orders of the Day

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Concurrence in supply

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 17, 2016, on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy; the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure/Ministry of Research and Innovation; the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs; the Ministry of Finance; the Ministry of Education; and the Office of Francophone Affairs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Speaker. It will be a pleasure for me to use the few minutes left on this important debate to put a few things on the record, I would say in no particular order.

One of the first things I wanted to talk about has to do with the Ministry of Health and the fact that we have nurse practitioners throughout this province. I’m really thankful that the Liberals saw fit to fund the nurse-practitioner-led clinics. I have three of them in my riding; there are many of them in the north. But Speaker, did you know that those nurses, most of them women—there are a few men—have had a pay freeze for the last nine years?

Think of where you were nine years ago and think of where you are now. Think of how much you pay for gas, for milk, for groceries, for everything else. Those nurses have not seen a pay increase in nine years. How could it be that we will be voting on these concurrence motions, but yet, in the Ministry of Health, we don’t see anything to bring equity to nurse practitioners, we don’t see anything to bring equity to the dietitians who work in any primary care model? Whether you look at family health teams, community health centres, aboriginal health access centres, nurse-practitioner-led clinics, it doesn’t matter.

The dietitians have not seen a pay increase, and their pay was too low to start out with. The same thing is true for most of the other professionals working within the primary care sector. Whether you look at nurses or health promoters or dietitians or social workers, they haven’t seen a pay increase in way too long.

What does that mean? That means they are not able to recruit and retain a stable workforce, because those are people with pretty good skills. They can choose to go elsewhere with those skills and get jobs that pay a decent wage, have pension plans, have benefits.

The same thing in the Ministry of Health budget: We are looking at the fifth year in a row of flatline budgets for hospitals. Our hospitals are very creative and they have sought out efficiencies and they have developed best practices so they can do more with less. But, as the Ontario Hospital Association will say, they have come to a critical point where most of them are not able to balance their budget.

What does that mean? That means that 1,200 nurses have been laid off. That means that in January alone, 400 nurses were laid off. That means that this week alone, we had 69 layoffs in the Windsor area. We had layoffs yesterday in the London area. That means that our health care system—our hospital system—cannot cope. I hear the Minister of Health say, “Oh, but there are positions advertised in Ottawa.” Mr. Speaker, nurses are not widgets. A nurse who loses a full-time job working at the hospital in Windsor cannot take unscheduled, part-time work in Ottawa. Those people have lives just like you and I.

This is not respectful, and it’s hurtful to patient care. But this is what we’re about to vote on.

All the Liberals will stand up and vote in favour: “This is a great thing.” But I can’t support things like this, because it’s wrong, because we can do better, because when we talk to the people of Ontario they tell us that health care is their number one priority. This is what defines us: We have a health care system that is based on needs, not on ability to pay.

That brings me to my third point: that this government has been pushing privatization at every step of the way. Look at programs and services that used to be within our hospital sector and that have gone out to the community. I have no problem—all of we New Democrats have no problem—with strong, community-based, not-for-profit health services. I come from that system; I certainly support it. But that’s not what we’re seeing. That’s not at all what we’re seeing.

What we are seeing are programs and services like mammography, like physiotherapy, like colonoscopy, like many diagnostic tests that used to be done in hospital. They were done in an area in hospitals that are not-for-profit, hospitals that have layers of oversight, transparency and accountability to make sure that we can ensure quality. As hospitals cannot maintain balanced budgets, they are told, “You can get rid of anything that is not acute hospital care. Hospitals should focus on acute hospital care.”

Well, this is all fine and dandy, but where do the rest of the programs and systems go? The other programs and services go to the private sector. They go to the private sector where there is a very, very thin layer of oversight, called CPSO, which looks after the physicians who work in those private clinics. For the rest of it, we have lost all the transparency, the accountability, the quality assurance that we were going to have—good, quality care. All of this is gone because we have not built up the same amount of scrutiny that exists in our hospitals.

Those services are allowed to transfer into the community, but not the oversight, not the transparency, not the accountability. None of that transfers, plus you bring in profit.

What does it mean when you bring in profit? It means that services that used to be completely accessible—your physician or your nurse practitioner would refer you for a colonoscopy. It was straightforward. You got your little paper that said, “Show up at 8:30, don’t eat anything,” and that was it. There’s none of that anymore, because you’re sent to a private clinic. Did you know, Speaker, that ColonCancerCheck, one of the programs I am really proud of that we have in Ontario—Cancer Care Ontario has this program so we can prevent colon cancer; we can catch it early for the best result. Well, most of that work is done by the private sector.

And what does it mean when you deal with the private sector? Well, you don’t simply have your appointment anymore. Now when you get there, they say, “Oh, you need to have a conversation with the dietitian.” Remember those dietitians who used to work in the not-for-profit? Well, they’re now going to the for-profits, where they get paid a little bit better. But the dietitian is not free; the consultation will be 60 bucks. “Well, I didn’t think I had to pay, but if the doctor there says I need to talk to a dietitian, I must need to talk to a dietitian; therefore, I will pay.” Then the barriers to access start.

The Ontario Health Coalition did a fantastic report. They went out to hundreds of those clinics that have popped up throughout Ontario—not so much in the north, but a whole bunch of them here in southern Ontario—and they looked, and 90% of them or more had fees like, “We will do your cataract surgery, but the ophthalmologist prefers to use this lens, and this is a lens that is not covered; therefore, you’ll have to pay $300 per eye.”

“Well, I thought my cataract surgery was supposed to be free. I thought we had medicare.” Yes, but all of a sudden there’s always a way they find to basically put in barriers to access to care.

I cannot vote in favour of a document that is basically pushing barriers to care—this is what we New Democrats call them—because once there are those backdoor fees imposed on patients, it means that some of us won’t go. It means that some will think twice about getting the care that is required—the care that is based on needs—because they do not have the ability to pay. This goes completely against medicare.

When the Liberals stand up, they are pro-medicare: “This is the program that defines us,” and they have nothing but good words. But when it comes to acting, their actions are completely opposite to what they say. All of their actions are pushing more and more health programs and services into the for-profit sector, which they have completely refused to regulate or put oversight on or make sure they are respectful of what medicare is all about. So they talk a good talk, Speaker, but their actions speak even louder.

Their actions speak louder when we see what is being done; when we see the number of private, for-profit clinics that are popping up every single week in this province; when we see the erosion of our hospitals, cut by cut—death by a thousand cuts. I cannot stand for that, Speaker, because this is wrong.

That brings me to another topic that has been in the news a lot, and that is violence: violence in our long-term-care homes—we’re talking patient-on-patient violence—and violence against our health providers, most of them being women and most of them being nurses.

A nurse had the courage to go against the taboos of the profession and speak up and give clear examples of how she and the nurses she worked with had been victims of violence, some of it pretty drastic. We’re talking about broken bones, physical violence, mental—every level. She had the guts to speak out, and what happened to her? She got fired. She got fired from her job. Her union is now working really hard to get her job back.

Do you know what happens when something like this happens? It puts a cold blanket on everybody else. A lot of nurses were finally coming out of their shell, being able to say: “Yes, my workplace has a lot of violence that could be prevented. Yes, I live with a lot of violence at work; I am afraid.” And yet the surroundings do not do anything to protect them, and when one of them finally speaks out, she is fired. She is now unemployed. How is this supposed to motivate change in the right direction?

Make no mistake, Speaker: As soon as we start to look into this, what is the main reason we have violence? It’s because we don’t have enough hands-on staff. It’s as simple as this. When people are sick, when they are in pain and they are made to wait a long, long time, then when that good nurse comes to help them, sometimes they lash out and she is at the receiving end. It doesn’t matter how qualified and good and good-hearted and wanting to help—when she has a caseload that makes no sense, when she’s running from one patient to the next because there’s not enough of them to do the work, then they pay the price.

When they speak up about paying the price and being the victim of violence, they end up losing their job. I can’t stand for things like this. This is wrong at so, so many levels that I could never vote for something that would allow this to go forward.

You all know that I come from 25 years in the health care system; many, many of my friends are nurses. They are primary care providers, hospital workers. They speak to me. Something interesting: The CBC radio station in Sudbury wanted to do a story on this. When I talk to some of the people I’ve worked with, some of the nurses who are victims of violence, and ask them to go public, ask them to answer the call from the radio station, they all shy away. They don’t want to; they are afraid. This is revictimizing them and this is so wrong.

My colleague here has lots of experience in trying to get those nurses their jobs back. Believe me, it is not easy and it is not a certain thing either, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. The consequences are drastic. Think of it: You’ve lost your job, you’ve been fired. This is wrong.

I also wanted to talk about—my, the time went by fast—both OPP helicopters. We used to have one in Sudbury; both of them are in Orillia. We needed the OPP helicopter in Sagamok this week because we had an armed, dangerous situation. Orillia could not take off because there was a snowstorm. Both OPP helicopters were stuck there. They ended up using the MNR helicopter from Sudbury to do search and rescue, but MNR is not trained to do search and rescue, the OPP is.

I can’t vote for this, Speaker. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? Further debate? Last call for further debate.

Mr. Leal has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Leal has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Leal has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure/Ministry of Research and Innovation. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Leal has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Leal has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Finance, including supplementaries. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Leal has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Education. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Leal has moved concurrence in supply for the Office of Francophone Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motions agreed to.

Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le soutien aux sentiers de l’Ontario

Mr. Coteau moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act to enact the Ontario Trails Act, 2016 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 100, Loi édictant la Loi de 2016 sur les sentiers de l’Ontario et modifiant diverses lois.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I recognize the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing some of my time with the parliamentary assistant, the member from Kingston and the Islands.

Before I start, I wanted to take a minute to recognize the extraordinary work of one of my former fellow trustees, Sheila Ward, who passed away yesterday. Sheila Ward was one of my mentors when I first got to the board, back in 2003. She was an incredible person, very intelligent, smart, understood the process of the school board and how provincial governments and federal governments work so well, and she was a strong advocate for the children of Toronto. I know she’s going to be missed by many people in this Legislature, but also in the city of Toronto.

She was an extraordinary person and I just want to thank her, her partner and her family for the time she invested in public education in this city. I think she was originally elected back in 1991. She was just an extraordinary person and she will be missed by many of us.

The last 12 months have been an extraordinary year for sport here in the province of Ontario, and I’m happy to be here today to talk about this new act. Joining us this morning are some of the strongest advocates for trails here in the province of Ontario and across the country, folks who support trails and healthy living. I just want to mention these folks here joining us in the east members’ gallery today: Richard Wyma, Mike Clewer, Bill Allen, Larry Ketcheson, Peter Curtis, Patrick Connor, Jack de Wit, Jessica Maga, Robert Ramsay and Brian Knechtel.

They represent organizations such as Conservation Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, Parks and Recreation Ontario, parks and recreation Canada, the Trans Canada Trail, the National Trails Coalition and the Ontario Federation of Trail Riders. I hope I didn’t miss anyone. Thank you so much for joining us here today.

I also see the MPP for Durham in the members’ gallery as well. Good morning.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, this year has been an extraordinary year for sport here in the province of Ontario. The ministry staff and the government have been working hard to advance sport here in the province of Ontario. I want to recognize the staff at the ministry of sport, but also tourism and culture and the entire ministry for their extraordinary work.

In the past year, we developed the first sports plan in 20 years. We developed that sports plan because we wanted to address some of the most complex issues that are taking place here in sport in Ontario, and I’m very proud of our Game ON report. It addresses issues like low participation rates among women and girls in sport and looks at ways to overcome financial barriers that are put in place that sometimes prevent young people from full participation and from reaching their full potential in sport.

We’ve more than doubled the amount of Community Aboriginal Recreation Activator Programs that serve communities across the province of Ontario. These programs encourage young people to participate in sport and recreation through community-run programs.

As every member in this House is aware, we had the largest, most successful sporting event in the history of the province and Canada, and we were proud to be able to deliver that on time and on budget.

Mr. Speaker, our ambitious agenda to advance sport in the province of Ontario is far from over. As part of our plan to move sport and active lifestyles forward here in Ontario, I have the privilege of standing before this House to speak further to our proposed new legislation, the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2015. This is an important piece of legislation and I’m so happy that the parliamentary assistant will be joining me to speak on this bill. She has played such an active role in developing this proposed legislation.

In my speech I’ll address some of the ways that the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act will improve access to Ontario trails, building both a healthier and more prosperous Ontario. I know that the member from Kingston and the Islands will go deeper into some more of the details and talk about the next steps for creating a culture of wellness and active living in Ontario.

Ontario’s trail system has always played an important role in building a healthier and more prosperous Ontario. That’s why increasing access to Ontario trails is so important. If passed, the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act would increase user access by making it simpler for trail users to understand the types of trail experiences that exist here in the province; cultivate trail tourism in the province by clarifying liability responsibility; and encourage the further expansions of our trail network by protecting landowners.

Currently, there is no single method of trail user plans that allow people to understand the trail experiences that exist here in the province. That means that there’s no one-stop method to search for specific trails, and there isn’t a systematic method of understanding how difficult trails can possibly be. So if you’re a cyclist and you want to get out there and hit a trail, it’s really difficult to understand, in many cases, the difficulty level of that trail.

So you say, “I’m going to go for a great workout today.” You’re in an area you’ve never been to before and you hit a trail; it could end up being just flat land versus the more ambitious trail that you wanted to take on. An ATV rider might want a challenge and end up with a straightforward trail. It’s unlike our ski hills that exist in Ontario and across the country, where when you go to a ski hill you understand right away the difficulty level of that ski trail.

Our Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, if passed, would create a voluntary categorization system and would provide users with a more holistic perspective of the Ontario trails network. If passed, Bill 100 would assist users in curating their own trail experiences, increasing access to trails and their general use.

One of the key pieces to this legislation is increasing the number of trail users by adding clarity to the Occupiers’ Liability Act. That’s an important piece that we think needs to be put in place here in Ontario. We know that trail tourism in the province of Ontario is part of a larger tourism sector in the province, which is a $28-billion sector. That represents around 4% of our GDP in the province of Ontario. We know that tourism supports 350,000 jobs in the province of Ontario.

I may add that of the youth jobs that are out there in Ontario, 40% are connected to the tourism sector, so it helps our young people here in Ontario. The trail tourism component of that larger $28-billion sector represents about $1.4 billion in economic benefits, and supports an impressive 18,000 jobs. As the minister responsible for tourism in the province, I can tell you that this bill, if passed, will also continue to build on tourism in the province.

Currently there exists some legal ambiguity around what standard of care is owed to the users of trails. For example, if an ATV club charges membership fees for coordinating rides on a portion of an Ontario trail network, it is legally questionable what level of care is required from the business and from the owner of the trail. If Bill 100 is passed, it will clarify legislation, encouraging further participation between businesses and the owners of trails.

I would also like to highlight how we’re also increasing access to trails by protecting landowners. Currently, if a hiker trespasses and causes significant damage to property, the landowner would have to file two court claims. If passed, Bill 100 would streamline that process by which a landowner can reclaim damages caused to their property, turning two lengthy trials into one.

Mr. Speaker, our government anticipates that making it easier for property owners to recoup damages will increase the number of property owners willing to allow easements on their property. Many trails cross private lands, with access freely given by these people willing to share their properties with trail users.

I just want to take a moment to thank all of the Ontario landowners out there who freely provide access to their land for trails, because it does, again, add to our economic activity here in the province of Ontario, but even more importantly, it adds to building a healthy Ontario. This legislation acknowledges the role private landowners have played in developing Ontario’s trails and, if passed, will ensure that these property owners are protected against damage. It’s important to increase access, because we want people in Ontario to be able to participate in an active lifestyle, and we want to promote a culture of wellness.

Trails are around us. In fact, just outside of the Legislature here, there’s a trail. There are trails everywhere you go.

I often like to use the trail in Gananoque along the Thousand Islands Parkway when I go to visit my in-laws. It’s the trail I often use. It’s such a beautiful walk out there.

There are so many people participating on those trails. I was asking this morning about some of the trails that are out there that are notable. I know that around Lake Superior there’s a trail where you can go and see, if you go along the trail, where the Group of Seven painted and actually go from point to point.

So we know that not only are trails good for one’s health, but they also allow us to experience and see things that we may not normally have access to.

Mr. Speaker, we know that this healthy lifestyle component of trails helps prevent heart disease, diabetes, obesity, colon cancer and depression. Getting out there and being in nature is good for one’s health. In fact, there was a study from Queen’s back in 2001 that stated that trails can also reduce the economic burden of physical inactivity. We also know from our own research at the ministry back in 2014 that 90% of trail users believe that trails have a positive impact on their physical and mental health. Trails are vital to the people of Ontario. It’s probably one of the most inexpensive activities you can do out there. You just walk outside and you hit a trail and you go.

This morning, I was talking to my friend Nick Pessos, someone I grew up with, and I was telling him what I was doing this morning. He asked, “Can a trail be a pathway?” I said yes. They’re along boardwalks, pathways; they could be through waterways, along rivers, along the lake; they could be through city centres. Trails are everywhere. We want to make sure those trails are mapped out, that they’re placed into categories, and people can easily choose which type of route they want to engage in, to learn, to stay healthy and just to explore.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke a bit about the $1.4 billion of economic activity that trails create for the province of Ontario. In 2014, hiking expenditures by Ontarians led to important benefits to the province. There was $559 million directly put back into Ontario’s GDP through hiking, and $806 million through labour income. The ministry also has done research and we have identified an estimated 18,000 jobs that are directly connected. The spending that takes place when people are actually on the trails: $957 million on day-outing hiking expenditures, including travel, and almost $700 million for overnight-outing hiking expenditures that take place here in the province.

Because trails build a healthier and more prosperous Ontario, the Premier has included this trail legislation in my mandate letter, and that’s why we’re looking forward to the future debate on the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act. We see this as an important piece of building a strong Ontario.

Since 2009, our government has invested $130 million in both direct and indirect funding to support our trails system here in the province of Ontario. We’ve invested in the Pan and Parapan Am Games legacy investments that, among other things, filled gaps on the Trans Canada Trail, creating 2,000 kilometres of continuous trail here in Ontario, connecting communities from Ottawa to Windsor and Fort Erie to Huntsville.

We’re investing in the restoration of the iconic Ontario Place, creating the William G. Davis Trail, a dedicated waterfront trail along the east island of Ontario Place announced last year by Premier Wynne, which recognizes the extraordinary work of one of our greatest Premiers here in the province of Ontario, William G. Davis.

Mr. Chris Ballard: A Progressive Conservative.

Hon. Michael Coteau: A Progressive Conservative.

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Mr. Speaker, there’s a bit of activity around me right now.

We all recognize the extraordinary work of former Premier Bill Davis. I think this trail and the dedication at Ontario Place of this trail to this great Ontarian, this great Canadian, is an incredible thing.

I’d like to conclude by saying that the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act will improve access to Ontario’s trails, building both a healthier and more prosperous Ontario. Our trails system in Ontario was largely built by the hard work and time of our volunteers—many of them joining us today on this important day—members of trail clubs and other not-for-profit organizations.

I was surprised when I was first briefed on the trail system here in Ontario and they told me how many clubs look after trails in the province of Ontario. I think it was 900 and change—just under 1,000 clubs across—am I getting some heads over there? Is that rough? Okay. So about 1,000 clubs here in the province of Ontario, and these are volunteers who look after our trails across the province on their own time so people in Ontario can stay healthier and so we can continue to add to the economy through trails.

I want to say thank you to the men and women and the young people who work on those trails every day to ensure we have safe access and information, and we’re allowed to participate in such an incredible activity.

In the fall of 2013, the ministry held a consultation; they put forward a consultation process to look for ways to strengthen the Ontario Trails Strategy. Through the consultations, we looked at issues related to trails: the roadblocks that exist, and the challenges and the opportunities presented to trails and organizations across the province. We spoke to people from Thunder Bay, people in Toronto, and Ingersoll to Ottawa. We turned to trail users, providers, municipalities, landowners and, of course, to our aboriginal partners. We held five regional sessions and two sessions with aboriginal communities. We also posted a discussion paper on the Environmental Registry for 48 days.

Through this consultation, we heard about the issues directly from the people involved in nurturing our trail system. We heard about the concerns related to liability, securing land for trails, trespassing, protecting private and public property, and more. But we also heard about opportunities to enhance our trails system here in Ontario to enhance trail tourism, to strengthen the role of trails, to look for ways to maximize water trails opportunities, ways to conduct research etc. Over 250 individuals and organizations participated in the consultations, and we received 80 submissions via the Environmental Registry on this discussion paper.

The bill before this House is informed by knowledgeable and valuable experience and perspectives shared by the entire sector. The legislation was developed in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Attorney General. If passed, it will help us better manage trail activities and protect public lands and property by modernizing stewardship, compliance and enforcement tools.

If passed, our legislation would recognize the significance of our world-class trail system, and would protect and enhance it as a vital resource for Ontarians long into the future. When this government introduced this bill back in May 2015, it was greeted with tremendous support from the trail community, associated stakeholders and the public. I call upon members of this House to show their support for Bill 100 and for the continued sustainability of Ontario’s trail system, truly one of our greatest treasures here in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I recognize the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: It truly is a tremendous pleasure to share time today with my colleague the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. We’ve got a lot of details to go through, so I’m going to try and plow through fairly quickly, so bear with me.

I’m delighted to be able to add my support to this bill. I want to speak in a little more detail about the positive implications if this bill is passed. Ontario has some of the most treasured and protected outdoor areas in the world. As the minister has stated, the proposed Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2015, is important for Ontario and the future of our province’s natural and cultural heritage. Thousands of kilometres of trails and roads on provincial crown land are open for the public, as the minister has stated, to use free of charge.

Our urban, suburban, rural and remote land and water trails allow millions of Ontarians and visitors access to unforgettable natural experiences. There is a trail for everyone, people of all abilities and all ages.

In my community of Kingston and the Islands, we are so fortunate to have a number of trails that represent our rich heritage and our conservation efforts. Winter, spring, summer or fall, regardless of the season, I always enjoy hiking along Kingston trails; if only I had more time to do it. The city of Kingston is home to approximately 140 kilometres of walking, hiking and biking trails, divided among six distinct trail systems, all with unique character and charm. The Downtown Kingston, Treasure Island, Kingston West and Fort Henry trails are all part of the Waterfront Trail, a 900-kilometre Rideau Trail that stretches from Kingston all the way to Ottawa.

Last year, as part of the city of Kingston’s annual Kingston Gets Active Month, I invited members of our community to join with me for lunchtime walks around our beautiful downtown and at Lemoine Point for a few early and invigorating Saturday morning hikes. One of our most well-known trails is the K&P Trail. Dating back to the 1800s, the K&P Trail, formerly the Kingston and Pembroke railway right-of-way, served as a railway track for steam engines. Once the tracks were removed, the right-of-way became a popular trail for recreational use. Now owned by the city of Kingston, the trail will be an important connector to the eastern Ontario trail network.

The K&P Trail is a great example of a multi-part trail. It has 15 kilometres of multi-use, semi-urban and rural trail extended from the Cataraqui Creek to Orser Road. The K&P is ideal for a variety of recreational uses, enjoyed in all seasons, and it provides for a range of scenic experiences with its open landscape, rock cuts and wetlands. A personal favourite of mine is the 11 kilometres of trails at the Lemoine Point Conservation Area, with several scenic lookouts and benches located along the trails that enable you to take in all of the peaceful surroundings and all that Mother Nature has to offer.

That it is equipped with handicapped-accessible trails from the north and south parking lots makes this a very popular trail for people with disabilities.

Our trails province-wide provide the opportunity to lead a healthier and more active lifestyle. The province recently conducted the Ontario Trail User Survey, which received over 5,000 responses from a wide range of trail users from across the province, including hikers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, off-road motorcyclists, cyclists, four-by-four users, ATVers, horseback riders, snowshoers, cross-country skiers, canoeists and kayakers. We have left nobody behind. The survey found significant personal benefits with respondents all indicating the use of trails improved their mental health, physical health and sense of well-being.

Trails attract individuals and families to visit and explore our communities, supporting the local economy and jobs. In 2014, hiking expenditures by Ontarians contributed, as the minister has stated, $559 million to Ontario’s GDP and $806 million in labour income. The ministry’s research estimates that hiking created more than 18,000 jobs across the Ontario economy.

Beginning with province-wide consultations in 2013, which, as the minister has stated, have included aboriginal engagement sessions and five regional sessions across the province, we heard the concerns and priorities of our different trail partners. Sessions were attended by 251 individuals, which included representatives from 80 municipalities, 48 trail organizations, 42 other not-for-profit organizations, 17 health organizations, 12 tourism organizations and eight conservation authorities, among many others. We also received 80 submissions through the Environmental Registry.

Landowners shared that they are hesitant to allow access for trail development due to liability concerns and that lawsuits are settled out of court due to fear of liability. Consequently, a clarification is needed for the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

Public and private landowners, including the agricultural community, want to ensure that their property is adequately protected and are concerned with property damage from inappropriate trail or off-trail use.

Stakeholders expressed concerns about trespassing. It can be widespread, and measures to counter it can be difficult to enforce. The fines and amount recoverable for damages at the time of prosecution are also low. As a result, changes to the Trespass to Property Act also need to be taken.

There is a need to establish a way to secure land and ensure long-term access to trails, where costly rerouting of trails can be avoided. A legislative mechanism is needed to help secure land long term for trails and trail access to allow for trail easements. We heard that additional tools are needed to help promote trails and trails tourism.

The proposal before you today has been designed to address these issues in a comprehensive way and it has been developed in collaboration with 12 other ministries. It is important to mention that the legislation starts off by acknowledging the crown’s duty to respect aboriginal and treaty rights within—and without altering—the constitutional and common law framework that protects them.

If passed, the act would help the trails community more effectively develop, operate and promote trails by addressing long-standing land access, liability, trespassing and protection of property challenges. This legislation, if passed, would make Ontario’s thousands of kilometres of trails stronger and safer while encouraging the expansion of the province’s trails system.

As enabling legislation, it would provide the government with the authority to guide the trails sector on promotional initiatives to increase awareness and regional tourism. These actions would respond to stakeholder requests for a mechanism to promote trails more effectively and ensure consistency across the province without creating an additional burden.

If passed, the proposed legislation would also set out a mechanism for trail easements, embed the Ontario Trails Strategy into the legislation and require its periodic review. Overall, the passage of this legislation would help deliver on the government’s commitment to implement “a refreshed Ontario Trails Strategy, including the introduction of trails legislation.” This legislation will allow the province to keep pace as a leader in the development, management and promotion of trails in Ontario.

If passed, the legislation would proclaim an annual trails week in Ontario to coincide with International Trails Day in June, and through consultations allow for the establishment of voluntary best practices, targets and a classification system, as the minister has mentioned, as well as a process for recognizing trails of distinction. It would also require the publication of the name of every trail recognized as an Ontario trail of distinction on a government of Ontario website, along with the trail classification system and best practices and targets, if established.

A process for recognition would be developed for the trail classification system at a later time through consultation with provincial ministries, agencies, and municipalities; aboriginal communities; stakeholders; and others that have an interest in trails. Voluntary best practices could include trail management and signage, and would enable consistency across the province. If widely adopted, voluntary best practices could help promote trails more effectively. If the act is passed, the government would consult with the trail sector at a later date to help guide the development of voluntary best practices.

The legislation recognizing Ontario trails of distinction would include trail awareness and local tourism, responding to the stakeholder request for a mechanism to promote trails more effectively without creating additional burden. This approach would also allow for the wide variety of trails and varying capacity of trail managers to be taken into account. By including this authority in the legislation, it would signal the intentions of government to provide guidance to this sector.

The legislation, if passed, would strengthen the consequences of trespassing on private and agricultural land and will increase the amount that landowners could recover at the time of prosecution for damages caused by trespassers. The legislation would help to clarify landowner responsibilities for trails running through their land and clarify liability for trail providers and users.

The proposed legislation would also provide a mechanism to establish trail easements. One of the long-standing issues is the long-term securing of land for trails, without which trail managers may lose access to the land, or face costly rerouting. Setting out a mechanism for trail easements would help address this issue.

Mechanisms currently available include: informal handshake agreements that can end abruptly when the land is sold; common-law easements that require land ownership on the part of the easement holder, but many trail organizations do not own adjacent or nearby land; and conservation and heritage easements where trails only qualify if they serve specific conservation or heritage interests.

If passed, the proposed legislation would create a mechanism to enable eligible bodies and landowners to voluntarily enter into easements to secure long-term trail access. This aligns with stakeholder requests for a legislative mechanism to allow trail easements.

An easement under the proposed act would be an agreement between a willing landowner and an eligible body that grants the eligible body a right to use their land for trail-related activities. Trail easements would have to be negotiated between the willing landowners and eligible bodies, and be registered on the title to the land.

In order to ensure that the interests of individual property owners balance with the wider interests and objectives of the whole community, trail easements would not be made exempt from the Planning Act and the oversight it provides.

The proposed mechanism would specify the purposes for which a trail easement could be granted; require that all trail easements be registered in the appropriate land registry office; allow the term to be specified in months or years, or in perpetuity, to be negotiated by the eligible body and landowner; allow for the assignment or release of the easement; and allow the easement holder to enforce the easement or covenants and the landowner to enforce those covenants.

There has been some confusion in the past couple of weeks about this particular part of the bill. The misinformation is that if an easement is granted, a landowner will lose control of who can access the trails on their property. This is incorrect and this is something I would like to clarify here and now. As I mentioned above, an easement pursuant to Bill 100, if passed, would be a voluntary agreement between a landowner and an eligible body or bodies. No property owner would be compelled to provide an easement unless they agree to do so.

We are proud of what this legislation can accomplish, if passed. It is the product of a collaborative process between the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and 12 other ministries. Our primary partners in the development of the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2015, have been the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The legislative proposals include changes to the Public Lands Act, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, the Trespass to Property Act, as well as complementary amendments to the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act and the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

Under the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2015, if passed, our government addresses liability, trespassing and crown land issues.

In support of the stand-alone Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2015, the Public Lands Act would be amended to protect public lands and property from damage and to strengthen enforcement under the act. If passed, changes would make damage to crown land property an offence. This provision would have no effect until a regulation is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to define damage.

If a person is found guilty of causing damage to crown land or property, a court would be able to order the person to rehabilitate the lands and repair any damage to crown land or property, in addition to imposing a fine under the act. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry would also be able to rehabilitate land or repair damage and recover costs for doing so in court.

Enforcement officers would be provided with new enforcement tools to stop vehicles, inspect documents and arrest persons suspected of or caught violating the act. Proposed amendments, if passed, would increase the maximum penalties for the majority of offences under the act and create a separate penalty structure for individuals and corporations similar to other legislation. Proposed new maximum penalties for individuals are $15,000 for the first offence, and $25,000 for the second and subsequent offences.

For commercial interests, proposed maximum penalties are $25,000 for the first-time offence, and $50,000 for the second and subsequent offences. The amendments would also allow a court to impose an additional fine where there has been monetary benefit from the commission of an offence under the act.

Due to the vast area of crown land in the province, detection of contraventions is often difficult to achieve within the current two-year time limitation period. The act would be amended to increase the length of time within which to lay charges to within two years from the date of discovery of the offence up to a maximum of five years from the date that the offence was committed.

The second complementary initiative proposed in the legislation relates to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, which was adopted in 1980. The act currently provides a basic duty of care to anyone who comes on the land but creates a lower duty towards people who come on the land for certain stated purposes and who are deemed to willingly accept the risk of injury. The act currently states that an individual who comes on to a marked trail for recreational purposes, and for free, does so at their own risk.

Amendments, if passed, would clarify the standard of care required by not-for-profit and public owners and managers of trails. It would be clarified that trail managers and not-for-profit organizations that may receive benefits or payments or may charge incidental fees for access to the land, such as parking fees, would not have to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the trails are reasonably safe. Under those circumstances, the individual trail user who comes on the owner’s land does so at their own risk. However, the owner still has an obligation to such a person not to injure them intentionally and not to act with reckless disregard for their safety.

The proposed amendment would clarify that this rule also applies to organizations that receive a public benefit or payment, such as snowmobile clubs. The act would also be amended to add portages to the list of lands to which the lower standard of care applies. The Trespass to Property Act was also adopted in 1980 as a companion to the Occupiers’ Liability Act. It clarifies the offence of trespass and sets out the presumptions about when land is private and thus when entry on the land is trespassing.

The act provides rules about signage and gives the landowner the right to arrest and to hold trespassers until the police arrive. Many stakeholders, especially farmers throughout the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and individually, feel that the maximum fine for offenders under the act of $2,000 is outdated.

I want to thank the member for Dufferin–Caledon, who introduced a private member’s bill in an effort to address this issue, and I’m proud that our government is taking it one step further.

Bill 100’s proposed amendments to the Trespass to Property Act would, if passed, strengthen the consequences of trespassing on private and agricultural land by increasing the maximum fine from $2,000 to $10,000, consistent with other provincial statutes. It would also remove the limit on the amount that landowners can recover as part of the prosecution for damages caused by trespassers. Raising the maximum fine would show that the province takes trespassing seriously and that the fine is meant to be a deterrent but also proportionate to the offence.

In addition to these changes, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act and the Off-Road Vehicles Act would be amended through the proposed legislation to align with the amendments that would be made under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, if passed, the legislation we are proposing addresses many long-standing issues, such as securing long-term access to the land, liability, protection of property and trespassing. Trail organizations, municipalities, the provincial government and other organizations, as well as the aboriginal communities, would all benefit. For example, farmers, municipalities and the general public would benefit from the changes to the Trespass to Property Act, organizations would benefit from the ability to create trail easements, and the provincial government would benefit from enhanced compliance and enforcement tools that would improve the management of trails on crown land.

We will work together to ensure that the trails are safe, accessible spaces where Ontarians of all ages and abilities can enjoy being active in Ontario’s beautiful outdoor settings.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my comments in the beginning related to the importance of trails in the lives of Ontarians. I noted the promotion of better physical and mental health, conserving and appreciating the environment, as well as strengthening our people and the communities they live in. Trails also open up a momentary respite from the fast pace of urban life, along with the challenges of daily living.

My dear friend the Anglican bishop of Ontario, Michael Oulton, described these locations as “thin places.” I was intrigued by the term. He went on to describe how these spots are places that we come upon in life and words fail to describe the experience. People of faith consider these places to be found where the walls are a bit weaker between heaven and earth, and we catch a glimpse of the divine. I was thankful to Bishop Oulton for capturing and verbalizing that spiritual correlation. I knew he got it, and so did I.

We also chatted about how people are drawn back to these thin places because they have the capacity to nurture the heart and soul. Life slows down for a bit, and we can pause to appreciate the remarkable gift we have in the land around us and in the people we encounter. That’s the power of the thin places as they touch the heart and draw people together. I’m thankful to Bishop Oulton for opening up that experience with me.

Our government is indeed very supportive of this piece of legislation. We would like to protect and expand Ontario’s trails system. I call on all members of this House to join us in the effort by passing this bill today. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Sorry; questions and comments.

Mr. Steve Clark: I listened to the minister and the parliamentary assistant. In fact, the parliamentary assistant used words in her last paragraph saying that the government wanted to protect and expand trails in the province.

As many members in this House know, I’ve written to the minister and expressed concern about this bill. I recognize that the stakeholders are here today. Some of them have issued press releases; the minister has issued press releases.

So 27 months ago, the ministry conducted some consultations. Last May, they introduced this bill. Regardless of the press releases or the comments today, there is an issue in this province regarding Bill 100. I outlined my concerns to the minister in a letter, asked for a briefing, and received the briefing this morning. I’ve asked for some higher level of detail from ministry staff about the consultations.

Let’s talk about what’s happening in Ontario today. I had a call this morning at my constituency office in my riding from the Athens snowmobile club. The entire trail from Athens to Gananoque is closed. A

section north of Athens is also closed.

The Grenville snowmobile club—two sections of trail have been closed and two other property owners have indicated that, at the end of the season, they’re done in terms of their agreements with the snowmobile club.

These agreements are very delicate. These

interpretations are very delicate. I’m asking the government and the stakeholders to not issue press releases but to actually go out and talk to property owners about their concerns and to address them. That’s the way we should move forward with Bill 100.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: My comments are very much in line with the previous speaker. I support what we are trying to do. We want trails to be available and we want people to use them and be healthy—all of this is great. But we are legislators. We read the words on the piece of paper, and the way the bill is being interpreted right now is really, really problematic for me.

I represent one of those huge ridings in northern Ontario. I represent Nickel Belt. I have gatherers, snowshoers, snowmobilers, ATV trails, ski trails—I have them all, and they’re really heavily used. We have tons of snow this year.

But this bill has caused the same thing that it has caused in his riding. Some of the trails are now closed. We are going in the exact opposite direction of what we want to do. We want trails to be available and we want Ontarians to use them, but this bill is problematic.

Come and talk to the people in northern Ontario; come and talk to the snowmobile clubs, the snowshoer, the cross country skier. We have some of the most beautiful trails in Nickel Belt, and some of them go through farmland. The snowmobile clubs have an understanding: When you go through farmlands, they put those extra signs that say, “Don’t go off the trail; protect our crops.” People get that.

The farmers would never give access to their farms in the summer. They’re farming them. In the winter, they let us through their farms on the trails, when they are covered with snow.

The bill is problematic. I support what the minister is trying to do. I want people out there using the trails. I want the trails to be available to all and everybody to use them, but we’re talking about a piece of legislation, not a dream. I support the dream, not the piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to stand and speak for a couple of minutes about this bill in support of Ontario’s trails systems. I am delighted to join my colleagues. It’s a good piece of legislation.

As speakers before me have said, our trails are a treasure, a valuable element of our province’s culture and heritage. I can speak to what’s happening in Ontario, specifically what’s happening in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora with trails. In Aurora alone, there are 57 kilometres of trails. We’re working with landowners who aren’t concerned. Their concerns are addressed because, like all across Ontario, associations and municipalities are sitting down with landowners and they’re hearing them out. They’re dealing with the issues. This piece of legislation will only make things better; I’m convinced of that.

Mr. Speaker, let me carry on about how important trail systems are to my riding and to Ontario.

I’ve heard a lot of discussion today about recreational uses and about fitness uses, but there’s another element that especially those of us in urban areas have come to rely on, and those are trails for use as active transportation: getting our children off the streets, a way for our children to get from their houses to their schools without crossing busy intersections, having them enjoy a little bit of nature as they move about, and business people being able to get to their jobs from their houses without having to climb into a car; let’s not forget that.

That’s another reason I’m delighted that this bill is moving along.

Trails offer a place to explore and experience the breathtaking beauty and rich cultural heritage that we identify with Ontario. So the bill before this House is informed by knowledge, valuable experience and perspectives shared by a wide variety of interested and passionate stakeholders across the province. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill. Come and explore some of the 57 kilometres in Aurora.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? Questions and comments?

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank all the members who commented this morning on the bill. I would like to assure members opposite that, if you read this bill in its entirety, you will see that it is a bill that’s good for Ontario.

I understand that the member from Leeds–Grenville says that there has been some confusion in his riding. I’ve made this offer to him, and I’ve made offers to other members in his caucus who are taking us up on the offer. I’ll make the same offer to the third party: If you have a club, if there’s a municipality, or anyone who wants to talk to us, we will get people from the public service to reach out to have those conversations.

I understand that if you’re the critic, if you’re the opposition, if you’re the third party, it’s not your job to make the government look good. It’s your job to criticize and to hold us accountable. But we know this piece of legislation is a good piece of legislation. It protects landowners. It clears the way if there are any foggy areas when it comes to liability. Let’s get rid of the partisanship, and let’s deal with the issue.

I’ve issued a statement saying that

section 12 is very clear. There are no easement rights that will be imposed by any governments on landowners. The landowners’ association issued a press release that was wrong. I issued a statement correcting them, from our opinion. We’ve talked to legal counsel.

If you have anyone in your community—the member from Leeds–Grenville, especially—who has an issue, give us the phone number. We will call them directly and we will work with them. There are almost 1,000 volunteer organizations out there. We can’t get to every single volunteer organization. If there’s an issue, we can help them on that issue. Get us the numbers, and we will call them directly. We will work with you. Take me up on my offer to help you deal with these issues locally.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

M me Andrea Horwath: Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais accueillir à l’Assemblée législative les coprésidentes du Regroupement étudiant franco-ontarien, Geneviève Borris, Rym Ben Berrah et Myriam Vigneault; le président de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, Denis Vaillancourt; le président de la Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne, Jérémie Spadafora; la directrice générale de La Passerelle, Léonie Tchatat; et le président d’Action Positive VIH/SIDA, Carlos Idibouo.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my great pleasure to welcome former member of Parliament Sarkis Assadourian, sitting in the members’ gallery. As well, it’s a great pleasure to introduce the Tashijian family, who just recently arrived from Syria. Please help me welcome Shahe, Anoush, Hrair and Hrag Tashijian. Welcome to Canada, welcome to Ontario and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Mr. Barry Hunt, president and CEO of Class 1 Inc., an innovative medical gas company headquartered in Waterloo region. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to welcome my niece Rebekka Schultz and her friend Sarah Curran, both on their reading week, visiting Queen’s Park for the first time. I welcome them here.

I’d also like to acknowledge the presence of Alison Brown, who is my OLIP intern. It’s her last day. I want to thank her.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’m pleased to welcome my honorary constituent Mr. Lee Montgomery to Queen’s Park today. I’d also like to welcome Dr. Magda Havas and Sheena Symington. They’ve been tied up in traffic, but they will be here.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to welcome Michael Eggens to the gallery today. He is the father of our page Ryan Eggens and comes from Guelph. Welcome.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Speaker, it’s Heritage Day. We have members of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario up in the west gallery. Please welcome president Catherine Nasmith, Kae Elgie, Jean Haalboom and others who have joined us today to speak to our members about Heritage Day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a couple of guests to the members’ lobby: Jennifer Mills from Quinte and District Rehabilitation services and Sue VanderBent from the Ontario Home Care Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome here in the Legislature Amanda Ramroop, who’s a Ryerson student working in my constituency office, and Darlene Ferreira, my legislative assistant. Welcome.

M. Yvan Baker: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue aux étudiants de ma circonscription d’Etobicoke Centre. I’d like to welcome students from the grade 5 class of Valleyfield public school and their teacher, Lorraine Vasilaros, who are touring Queen’s Park today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d also like to welcome in the public gallery Alison Storey Davidson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: In the members’ east gallery this morning, I have friends and constituents of Cambridge: Brian and Glenna Haggie and Ian Hope. Welcome.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to welcome Wendy Fritz, who is here this morning. She’s the mother of page captain Charlotte Fritz. She’s here to see Charlotte today, of course. I make the introduction on behalf of Tim Hudak, who was unable to be in the House.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to welcome to the gallery today Zheng Wong, a Ryerson student who is going to be helping out today.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome Mr. Rick Miller from the great riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. Welcome.

Mr. Ted Arnott: The member for Sarnia–Lambton is probably on his way, but I want to introduce the mother of page Tristan Bhola, Patricia Bhikam Bhola, who is here in the public gallery this morning. Welcome.

Member’s birthday

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I do stand today for an introduction, because tomorrow is an historic day in the province of Ontario. It is the birthday of one James J. Bradley, the esteemed member from St. Catharines.

I know I’m slightly breaking protocol, but because he is the dean of the Legislature, I know you’ll give me a little flexibility this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Maybe.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Now, Jim, I want to give this to you on behalf of our caucus. Happy birthday, Jim.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

Hon. Jeff Leal: —wouldn’t reveal his age, so I’ll leave it at that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? I suspect he’s going to make note of that in his “WhiteBerry.”

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. It has been one year since the Chief Electoral Officer tabled his scathing report into the actions of Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed Jr. in the Sudbury by-election—a first for Ontario. No chief electoral officer before Mr. Essensa has ever made a finding of apparent attempts at bribery under the Election Act.

Mr. Essensa pointed to the Premier’s very own deputy chief of staff as the source of these apparent contraventions. Pat Sorbara continues to work in the Premier’s office, despite the fact that a dark cloud hangs over her head.

Mr. Speaker, a year after this historic finding by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Premier has still assumed no responsibility. Will the Premier finally do the right thing and remove Pat Sorbara from her office?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been very open with the Legislature and with the media and the public about any of the allegations that have been put forward. As far as I know, the Elections Ontario investigation that the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about is ongoing, and we’ll continue to co-operate with that independent investigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. Back to the Premier: While Pat Sorbara may not have been charged with her partner in crime, Gerry Lougheed Jr., she continues to be under OPP investigation for the apparent contravention to the Election Act.

Never before—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock. I know what to do and when.

Please finish.

Mr. Steve Clark: Never before has a Premier allowed someone with so much influence to remain in their position while under police investigation. Integrity in the Premier’s office seems to be a foreign concept to this government.

Mr. Speaker, if Ms. Sorbara is charged under the Election Act, will the Premier finally ask her to step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been very clear with the public. I’ve answered hundreds of questions on this issue. There’s an Elections Ontario investigation going on. It’s an independent investigation. It’s taking place outside of this House. We’ll continue to co-operate with that investigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Again to the Premier: For one year, Ms. Sorbara has had unfettered access to the Premier and all the government’s documents. Her predecessor, Laura Miller, is charged herself with making important government documents disappear.

Common sense would dictate that Pat Sorbara step aside while under OPP investigation. You heard the Premier; she won’t even entertain the thought. This Premier, like her predecessor, will stop at nothing to protect her own personal political interests and hang on to power.

Why should the public believe that this government hasn’t once again wiped away all evidence of wrongdoing?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, Speaker, I think that common sense will dictate that the opposition will respect the convention of this House and not interfere in an ongoing investigation. Clearly they have no other important issues to talk about. Clearly they have no plan for Ontario, that they continue to focus on an investigation that is outside the scope and jurisdiction of this Legislature.

In fact, I would remind the member from Leeds–Grenville that he said himself, back in February, “Stop interfering in an ongoing investigation and let it run its course.” Speaker, I agree with him—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I agree with his earlier statement that there is an independent investigation and to let it run its course. I think the PC Party should focus on building a plan for Ontario as opposed to just scandalmongering in this House.

Correctional facilities

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The government’s recent agreement with correctional officers only addressed one of the serious concerns facing our corrections system. Monte Vieselmeyer, the corrections chair of OPSEU’s ministry employee relations committee, said this recently to the finance committee in Windsor: “The crisis is very real and is compromising the safety of staff, offenders and all Ontarians we serve.” He said that in one year, “the ministry recorded over 900 staffing-related lockdowns across the province.” Lastly, he said, “We have seen a significant corresponding rise in inmate-on-staff assaults,” 855 in 2013 alone.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government failing to protect the hard-working men and women who work in our corrections system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services will want to speak to this, but I want to have the opportunity to say that in the reaching of a collective agreement with OPSEU and with respect to the correctional bargaining unit, the work will be ongoing. Part of that agreement was that we would continue to work with them on things like better mental health supports and enhancing rehabilitation and reintegration programs, and building safer, stronger communities right across our province by doing that. We recognize that there is more to be done. We recognize that there needs to be transformation within the system.

Having said that, we have hired hundreds of new correctional officers—571 new correctional officers since the fall of 2013; 144 new recruits are going through the training right now. That’s the largest group ever.

We recognize there’s more to be done, but we are already in that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: In December, I toured the Thunder Bay jail along with several members of our PC caucus. I could not believe such deplorable conditions could exist in a jail like this in the province of Ontario. The mayor of Thunder Bay was being generous when he called it a “rathole.” Mike Lundy, the head of the local correctional officers, said, “Toilets don’t flush.” They “regularly back up and overflow down into our kitchen area.” “Sinks have no running water. There are holes and mould throughout the crumbling structure.” There are no working sprinklers or smoke detectors.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Premier would never work in such disgusting conditions. Why, then, does she expect our correctional officers to work in these conditions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want our correctional institutions to be safe for the people who work in them and for the inmates. I want a transformation that actually leads to rehabilitation. I want changes within the correctional service, which is why, in the mandate letter to the minister, he is charged with making those changes.

But I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition, I believe—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Are your wants just stretch goals?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: He was a member of a government in Ottawa, in the Harper regime, who had no interest in rehabilitation, no interest in working with the provinces on corrections, and no interest in ensuring that there was justice or transformation in our correctional institutions. I don’t remember the Leader of the Opposition speaking up when he was a member in Ottawa for nine years.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Throwing insults at past federal governments doesn’t help correctional officers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock. Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Dodging and deflecting doesn’t help correctional officers. Mike Lundy from the Thunder Bay jail said it’s “a death trap for staff and inmates, packed in like human sardines.” Mr. Lundy said, “Severe overcrowding and chronic understaffing led to a full-blown riot....” There was a correctional officer who was taken hostage for 12 hours.

I saw the first-hand account. I visited the jail. So my question is very sincere: Madam Premier, will you visit the jail? Will you go to the jail? Will you see it yourself? Don’t send someone else because, if you see it, you won’t stand for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Leader of the Opposition to do his homework and recognize I have been in jails. I visited jails with the Attorney General when she was the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. That’s exactly why, in the minister’s mandate letter, there is a charge to transform that system. I have visited jails. I understand that there are concerns—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: But our solution will never be to throw more people in jail. Our solution will never be to increase the overcrowding. Our solution will be to focus on rehabilitation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Your time is up, but I’m going to wait until I get some quiet.

New question.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. People expect the government to share their priorities, like creating good jobs and protecting health care that we all rely on, but this Premier just doesn’t seem to get those priorities. She doesn’t seem to share those priorities with Ontarians.

More than 400 registered nursing jobs have been cut from our hospitals since the start of January, and almost every day we hear of another Ontario hospital that is being forced by the Premier to cut patient care.

People want to know: Why is the Premier cutting health care when she knows that these cuts are hurting Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is, as I have said over and over, and as the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has said, that over 24,000 more nurses are working in Ontario than were working here in 2003—a growth of 21%. Over 10,800 RNs have been added since 2003.

As I said yesterday, there are hospitals and health sciences centres that are hiring full-time nurses right now: Ottawa Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences centre, Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital and the Royal Ottawa mental health care group. The fact is there are institutions all over the province that are hiring.

We’re going through a transformation. There’s no doubt about that. Health care is being delivered in-community, where people need it, but we are increasing funding year over year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, similar to what the Premier’s last comment was, yesterday she had the audacity to say that her plan doesn’t include cutting health care. The Premier should actually pay more attention to what she’s doing and spend less time selling off Hydro One and helping Liberal insiders.

Here’s what’s happening in Ontario that the Premier doesn’t seem to think much about: Patient care is suffering—end of story. Patient care is suffering. Nearly 1,200 registered nursing jobs in this province have been cut in just over a year. Those Liberal cuts, no matter which way you look at them, mean longer wait times for patients, fewer nurses in our hospitals and even less care for Ontarians when they need it the most.

Why does this Premier think that patients should pay the price for her deep cuts to our health care system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m absolutely amazed by the allegations coming from the third party.

Once again, here are the facts—and they’re not even ours on the government side; they’re from the College of Nurses of Ontario: Ontario nurses held 86,794 employment positions in the hospital sector in 2014, and by the end of 2015 that had increased by almost 1,000 more positions, to 87,513.

They fired nurses when they were in power in the 1990s. We’ve added—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West and the member from Hamilton Mountain, come to order.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: They actually reduced the number of full-time positions for nurses when they were in power.

We’ve increased the proportion of nurses: 30% more nurses working full-time since we came to government in 2003. The numbers increase year after year after year.

I’m happy to give more facts and truthful statements.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s another thing the Premier said yesterday: She said her changes to health care are causing “some disruption in the system.” But “disruption” does not begin to describe the damage that this Liberal government is doing to our health care here in this province: 1,200 nursing jobs cut, less care when hospital patients need it the most, and seniors waiting hundreds of days for home care and years upon years for long-term care. That is not disrupting; that is devastating for patients and for their loved ones.

When will this Premier start thinking about the priorities of patients, about the priorities of families, about what’s happening in our health care system, and stop cutting health care in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, Mr. Speaker, I’m flabbergasted.

The facts are, when you look at the outcomes, when you look at the wait times that are being measured in this province and across the country, Ontario remains in the first place of the shortest wait times. I could go on and on in terms of the outcomes. We have one of the best cancer care systems and best cancer outcomes in the world. I’m proud of that, and I’m proud of the hard work that all our health care professionals do day after day after day in this great province.

The truth is simply the opposite of what the third party would like to portray. We’re increasing investments. We’re increasing staffing across the health care system. We’re making those important investments: 270 million additional new dollars in home and community care this year alone. We’re making those important transitional reforms, but it’s resulting in better care.

Ontario economy

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. For most Ontarians, life is getting harder, and the Liberals just aren’t helping. People want good jobs—the kind of jobs that come with good pay, decent benefits and the security of knowing that you can pay the bills. But families are struggling and good jobs are hard to find. The government should be focused on helping families, but instead, this Premier is more focused on selling off Hydro One.

Why is this Premier more interested in helping private investors turn a profit when she should be helping the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely focused on job creation. We’re focused on working with businesses so that they can expand. I was at Morgan Solar yesterday, which is a very innovative solar panel manufacturer. They are expanding their operation in Ontario. We made an announcement today that will have an effect on the wine industry in Ontario, that will create more jobs in the wine industry.

We are absolutely focused on how we can play to the strengths of Ontario to create those jobs that are going to provide security for families in Ontario. That is our number one focus. In the budget next week, it will be very clear that that is what our plan is doing, and we continue to work with the private sector, with organizations around the province to make sure that we grow.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier should know what’s actually happening here in the province of Ontario.

In Ontario today, youth unemployment has been above the national average for 12 years running. The whole time this government has been in office, youth unemployment has been running above the national average, and fewer than half of the workers—fewer than half—in the GTHA are working in permanent, full-time jobs.

The Premier should be helping people and focusing on job creation, but she is more interested in the private investors and the profits that they can make off her sell-off of Hydro One. Ontarians deserve to know, why is this Premier not working for them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The leader of the opposition needs to get her facts straight. This province has grown by 208,000 net new jobs since the global recession, and don’t be telling me those aren’t full-time jobs. Every single one of those jobs is full-time because we’re migrating from—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Questions are to the Chair; answers are to the Chair.

Finish, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the challenges that our economy has right now is that we have an opposition in this Legislature that’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Hon. Brad Duguid: —advocating jacking up corporate tax rates, which is going to kill jobs. We have an opposition leader in this Legislature who is opposing the important investments we’re making: $130 billion over 10 years to create 110,000 jobs per year. If you were to support those policies, then we might have sympathy with your concerns—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Although the minister is finished, I’m going to ask the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to come to order, second time.

And a reminder to everyone: You always refer to members in this House either by their riding or by their title; that helps with the debate, hopefully.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I find it astounding that the minister of economic development and trade could say he has no sympathy whatsoever with the opposition’s concerns over the lack of good jobs for the people of this province. That is astounding, Speaker.

This minister can come here with all the bluster in the world, but the reality is that the youth unemployment rate has been higher than the national average for 12 years running under this Liberal government’s tutelage all that time. They have done nothing to help young people with work.

But Ontarians have clear priorities. They expect the Premier to protect health care and to focus on creating jobs, but she doesn’t seem to share those priorities. Over the past year, she has started selling off Hydro One to help a small group of private investors turn a profit. At the same time, they failed to create the 32,000 jobs that they had promised in last year’s budget. So again, lots of plans but no action.

Why can this Premier stretch to help her Liberal friends but not stretch at all to help Ontarians?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This government is absolutely committed to helping our young people find opportunities in this growing Ontario economy, an economy that’s leading this country in growth, leading this country in job creation. That’s why the Premier has put in place a youth jobs strategy; 30,000 young people have seen employment opportunities as a result of that strategy.

Did we have support from the NDP when we brought in these policies? Absolutely not. In fact, they continue to harp on antiquated—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Waterloo will come to order.

Please finish.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Speaker, if the NDP really cared about youth employment, they would have the courage to make the investments that we’re making in infrastructure, which are providing our young people with apprenticeship opportunities right across this province. They don’t have that courage; we do. We’re standing up for young people and jobs across this country—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Human trafficking

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Premier. I’ve stood in this House and said to the Premier repeatedly that she needs to do more to combat human trafficking in Ontario. I’ve called for a co-ordinated task force, I have flagged numerous instances demanding action, but this government has done nothing.

As my private member’s bill, Saving the Girl Next Door Act, outlines, a number of things can be done immediately, without further delay. Right now, although police units want to combat this crime, they do not have the resources they need. Very few police units are able to dedicate officers to deal with human trafficking and most don’t have the resources to start.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier immediately commit to providing the financial resources police services need to effectively combat human trafficking?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opposition member’s focus on human trafficking. She knows full well that we are following up on the recommendations of the select committee.

When we brought in our anti-sexual violence and harassment policy, It’s Never Okay, I said at that time that the select committee was working on initiatives that were going to complement and continue the work of that policy.

We’re already taking steps on the ground. We’re building on the work of the committee. We’re setting up that multi-ministerial advisory panel that was recommended. It will be co-led by Minister Naqvi and Minister MacCharles. They’re going to work closely with the experts who were recommended on the front lines to bring forward a strategy that we will bring forward by June.

I’ve also asked the violence-against-women round table co-chairs to convene a special meeting on human trafficking. Our officials are already in conversation with Manitoba.

It’s clear to all of us that information needs to be better co-ordinated, and this work connects with the work on the inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women. There’s more to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: The crisis is now. We can take some actions now. We don’t need to wait until June.

In addition to the action items in my private member’s bill, Saving the Girl Next Door, we know the fight against human traffic is woefully underfunded. I’ve heard time and time again that more financial support is needed on many fronts.

As it stands, our police colleges have no routine training on human trafficking. Police units need adequate funding for dedicated officers and further training. Since 2012, Manitoba has committed to at least four times what this province has.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier immediately commit to financial resources comparable to Manitoba’s levels and make human trafficking a priority?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is very much a priority, as I have said. I have already said that we are in conversation with Manitoba to understand what they are doing. I’m sure that some of the measures in the private member’s bill that the member is bringing forward will be part of the conversation as we develop the strategy, but they will only be part of it. I understand there are two or three things that are being suggested by the member. There is a much broader strategy that needs to be put in place. We’re going to do that.

We’ve already begun that work, so when the member opposite says, “The crisis is now,” we understand that. That’s why the work has started now. That strategy will come forward, but it will be a complete strategy. I appreciate the input of the member opposite.

Ontario economy

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. This government speaks about economic growth, but it is so out of touch with Ontarians that it doesn’t even realize that millions of people are being left behind.

This government failed to meet its job creation goals last year not once, but twice. They failed to create more than 32,000 jobs that they themselves had forecast in last year’s budget.

For nearly two years, Windsor and Essex county has remained among the top regions with the highest unemployment rate in the country. Windsor has also had the highest youth unemployment rate in the country for the fifth straight month.

Speaker, my question is simple: What will it take before this government stands up for Ontarians instead of prioritizing its powerful insider friends?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question.

Look, the fact of the matter is that, since the recession, we’ve created 608,000 net new jobs, all full-time, in this province. The challenge we have, though—the member is not completely off-base—is that there are regions in this country that were hit harder during the global recession than other regions. That’s why we’ve created the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund and the Eastern Ontario Development Fund. That’s why we partner with companies, many in the Windsor area, to create much-needed jobs there, in particular manufacturing jobs.

That’s why we partner closely with the auto sector, many of those jobs being created in southwestern Ontario. That’s why we have very good relations with companies like Chrysler, which just recently announced 1,200 new jobs in the Chrysler plant there.

Mr. Speaker, there’s more work to do—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Message sent, I hope?

Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Time and time again, and as we’ve just seen, this government toasts itself on a job well done, but Ontarians feel the service cuts. They feel the job losses and the increase in energy costs due to the sell-off of Hydro One. People are struggling, and this government doesn’t really seem to care.

Just yesterday, Speaker, Bombardier announced that 430 jobs would be cut in Ontario. Up to 350 of them would be directly in Thunder Bay. In the past three months, another 400 people were laid off at Bombardier’s Downsview plant in Toronto. These are not just numbers, Speaker; they are real people with real lives. They are families that are forced to start all over again.

Minister, when will your government stand up for hard-working Ontarians and make meaningful change in their lives and in this province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This government has always and will continue to stand up for hard-working Ontarians. That’s why it’s so important for us to make $130 billion worth of investment in our infrastructure, something that your leader doesn’t support. But we’ll continue to make those important investments.

We also will stand up for those communities that are struggling. That’s why we are proud to make a $3.5-million investment in London—nearly $30 million in all in private sector funds, creating 1,400 jobs. That’s why in Windsor, we are proud to invest $4.5 million, leveraging $22 million in jobs and creating and sustaining over 420 jobs. In Essex, your own riding, our Southwestern Ontario Development Fund invested $1 million, leveraging $7 million and creating and sustaining 513 jobs.

I point to these examples. They are examples of many—I have a long list of examples where we have gone to bat for the people of Windsor—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Energy conservation

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Énergie.

An issue that is important to my constituents of Ottawa–Orléans concerns the environment and, by extension, energy conservation savings. During the campaign, I heard about this from many of my constituents who live in the older neighbourhood of Orléans. They told me they wanted government action to help increase residential conservation efforts, and also help them lower their energy bills and save money.

I know that our government recognizes the importance of conserving energy and has been working to create a culture of conservation savings in the province. Every action across every sector will help us achieve our GHG reduction targets.

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve heard our government discussing a home energy retrofit plan that will help fund the Green Investment Fund. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could he please inform the House about this program?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for the question.

In addition to a wide range of existing residential and industrial conservation programs, Ontario is investing $100 million more as part of our Green Investment Fund to help homeowners upgrade their homes, reduce their energy bills and cut greenhouse gas emissions. This investment is expected to enable audits and retrofits of up to 37,000 homes and save an equivalent of 1.6 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Funding will reward actions by homeowners, like replacing furnaces and water heaters and upgrading insulation, that will save consumers money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Every dollar invested in natural gas efficiency has resulted in up to $4 in savings for natural gas consumers.

Mr. Speaker, this investment will help homeowners save money while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we know climate change is not a distant threat to Ontario. It is already costing the people of Ontario. It has created more unpredictable weather patterns, which have devastated communities, damaged homes, businesses and crops, and increased insurance rates.

We know that we had to meet this challenge head-on and that good climate policy is good economic policy. That’s why in the fall economic statement we introduced the Green Investment Fund. It will demonstrate how proceeds from a cap-and-trade program will benefit our environment, our economy, our homes, businesses and communities.

I know that recently there was an announcement through the Green Investment Fund to help Ontarians with home energy retrofits. Can the minister please inform the House how this announcement will help our efforts in combatting climate change?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would just like to make three points, and I want to thank my friend from Orléans. One is the impact of this. We’ve been debating employment—and my friend the Minister of Economic Development makes these points—and what is the government doing? We have to retrofit every single building in Ontario over the next couple of decades. We’re retrofitting them with better insulation, ground-source heat pumps and pollution-free home heating and cooling systems, things that will lower electricity and energy costs for Ontarians over the coming decades.

But what’s most important: Can you imagine how many hundreds of thousands of people have to be employed to do that, what this means to our building sector, what it means to our energy and our technology companies? What we’re embarking on, Mr. Speaker, will be one of the biggest job-creation programs in the history of Ontario, one that will result in more modern buildings and lower pollution.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: My final point is this—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There isn’t a final point to be made. Thank you.

New question.

Violence against women

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I don’t have to remind the minister of the terrible events that took place in my riding on September 22 of last year. The murders of three women have been well documented and broadly discussed since then.

On November 5, my Bill 130 passed second reading. My bill would have afforded greater protection to victims of abuse if and when their abusers were released from custody. At the time, I asked for one of two things: that the government move my bill quickly through the process or draft a comprehensive piece of legislation to give greater protection to victims of abuse. Can the minister tell me what progress has been made, and when we might see some concrete action on this file?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I do want to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for his work and advocacy on this very important issue. Speaker, we all know that what happened in Wilno was shocking and devastating for not only that community but for all Ontarians. The member opposite knows that I’ve been engaged with him. He and I have had a few very constructive conversations. He also knows that I support his bill.

In fact, as part of the work that my ministry is doing—the part of the work that the Premier was alluding to earlier, which is contained in my mandate letter—is around transformation of our correctional services, this is very much in active consideration. Part of that transformation planning is to look at our legislation, and identify the deficiencies and how we can strengthen it. I can assure the member opposite that his private member’s bill is very much an active part of those discussions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the minister. Since my bill passed second reading, I’ve met with advocates in my riding who are looking for action. I’ve also met with Lara Kuzyk, the sister of Anastasia. They have all expressed a strong desire to see this enacted into law. While I respect that this is only one part of the many things we can do for women who find themselves in abusive situations, it is nevertheless an important piece.

This afternoon, my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock will be debating her Bill 158, the Saving the Girl Next Door Act, which deals with the scourge of human trafficking.

Speaker, it is time that this government tackles abuse from every angle and takes all measures to ensure that the children of today grow up in a society that will simply not tolerate any form of abuse or violence against women. We need a commitment to action, not words. Can we count on the minister’s commitment today?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Absolutely. We have an activist agenda on this side of the House in not just talking about these issues but actually coming with concrete strategies to address them. I think the time for more task forces and studies is not what is needed here. We know what some of the challenges are. Our probation and parole officers do incredible work on the front lines, making sure that those who have been released from our institutions have the services available to them to better reintegrate in the communities.

That’s why one of the things I have been doing is meeting with probation and parole officers directly to hear from them about their front-line experiences. I had an incredible meeting in Thunder Bay a few weeks ago, where we had a very constructive discussion. I will be in London, Ontario, this afternoon visiting the local probation and parole office and meeting with the officers there to understand their perspective, so that we can collectively transform the system that really focuses on reintegrating individuals back into society and breaking the cycle of re-offence in our communities.

Air-rail link

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this month, we learned that ridership on the Union Pearson Express is not growing; it is, in fact, shrinking. The president of the Union Pearson Express blamed Torontonians for not getting on board, but had Metrolinx bothered to listen to Torontonians, it would have known long ago that what they want is an electrified public transit service that is affordable and is accessible.

Why is Metrolinx blaming the people for low ridership on the Union Pearson Express instead of listening to us?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for the question. As I said yesterday in the Legislature, and as both I and the Premier have said over the last number of days, we understand that ridership numbers are lower than anticipated and lower than we’d like them to be, which means that we are all working hard, both within this government and also at Metrolinx, to make sure we analyze the entire situation so that we can get ridership up.

I did mention yesterday that this past Family Day weekend, the UP Express was free and we saw literally tens of thousands of people take advantage of it. What we do understand is that when the UP Express is used, the research demonstrates that it is a service that is very well regarded. Collectively, we have to work hard to make sure we get those numbers up, and we’re looking at every aspect of the service to make sure we produce that outcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the Premier: There are 10 times the number of riders on the Dufferin bus and it doesn’t have its own marketing department. The Union Pearson Express was originally supposed to be run by the private sector, at no cost to the public, but the private sector understood that this business model wouldn’t work.

Despite this, the Minister of Transportation at the time insisted that the air-rail link proceed as planned under the same flawed business model and asked Metrolinx to take over the project. That minister is now the Premier.

Does the Premier now regret her decision to ignore all the warning signs, ignore the experts, ignore the people and push ahead with an expensive, empty, dirty diesel train?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I’ve said on many occasions, what we have to remember, above all else, about this service, Speaker, is that because of the leadership of this government, because of the leadership of this Premier, it was an infrastructure project that was delivered on time and on budget, in time for the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games, as promised.

Having said that, as I said in my earlier answer, there is broad recognition by this government and by the team at Metrolinx that we have to work hard to make sure that we use every available tool, including looking at the fare structure, to drive ridership up. Because, again, we know that when the people of this region—tourists or residents who live here—use the service, they like the service.

I should also mention that it is part of our 10-year commitment to electrify the UP Express, as we are electrifying that portion of the Kitchener corridor that we own. I would say that members like the member from York South–Weston and the member from Davenport on this side have been strong advocates to make sure we get this right, and we will—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Health care funding

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Health care is a top priority for our government. As a registered nurse and former care co-ordinator for the CCAC in Cambridge, I was concerned by some of the things that I’ve heard from the opposition in the last few days about health care.

Under the last NDP government, I was one of many nurses who were laid off because they slashed the home care budget. They also short-sightedly cut nursing school and medical school places. The Conservatives made further cuts, firing nurses and closing thousands of hospital beds.

Last year, our government increased the health care budget by over $500 million, to $50.8 billion. In home and community care, the government announced a 5% increase which will grow by over $750 million.

Can the minister please set the record straight regarding our government’s investments in the health care sector?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Cambridge for this very important question.

I, too, have to admit I was alarmed by some of the accusations and innuendoes coming from the official opposition and third party members with regard to our health care system. We remember when the PCs were in power: 6,000 nurses, of course, were fired; hospitals were closed. In the last election, we were reminded of their commitment to cut 100,000 jobs. Thousands—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You will get to government policy. Thank you.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: That’s right. Get to government policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me, leader of the third party, I’ll take care of it.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I apologize, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s get there, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thousands of personal support workers, nurses and other hospital support staff would have lost their jobs.

The truth is, we’re far from making cuts. We’re increasing funding every single year to the health care sector and we’ve invested more than—as an example—$4.3 billion in the home and community sector this year alone. We’ve increased funding by a further $270 million. Our investments in community care will keep people healthier and away from hospitals and in their communities, where they want to be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Setting the record straight in this House is important. Thank you, Minister.

The increased investments that we’re making in home and community care as well as in the hospital sector speak to the high priority that this government places on health care. Because of the government’s commitment to health care, 24,000 more nurses are working in Ontario since taking office, a growth of 21.6%, and over 10,800 registered nurses have been added. Nurses play such a valuable and important role in our health care system in Ontario.

We know that one in five Ontarians will experience a mental health illness in their lifetime and that this is a critical issue here in Ontario. I know that since 2003 our government has increased annual funding for mental health and addictions to more than $2 billion.

Can the minister please inform the House of the investments the government has made in mental health and addictions?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again to the member from Cambridge for this question.

I can firmly say that this government is wholly and absolutely committed to increasing access to mental health care for Ontarians. Our government created a comprehensive mental health and addictions strategy to support Ontarians, from childhood through to old age, living with mental health and addictions challenges, and each year we’re increasing funding to that sector. Last year we committed to increase funding to mental health and addictions by a further, new $138 million over the next three years.

We’re also increasing our adaptability to meet the genuine needs of our patients. Just last month, we announced that we’re investing $16 million in 1,000 new supportive housing units across the province for individuals with mental health and addictions challenges.

Ground current pollution

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, it’s a known fact that there’s a major problem facing rural Ontarians. It concerns the future of family farming businesses. It’s a known fact that farmers raising livestock are facing a major crisis that threatens the future of farming in Ontario. Ground current pollution is maiming and even killing their livestock. It’s crippling their financial opportunities to live the Ontarian dream. They feed cities. They feed you and me, our families and our neighbours.

Minister, are you willing to enforce recommendations from the OEB’s staff discussion paper of May 2008 that stipulates that LDCs cannot put current into the ground? Thomas Edison said it, and who knows more than him? Speaker, to the minister, are you willing to save the family farm?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the honourable member for Chatham–Kent–Essex for asking the question this morning.

I know there will be a debate this afternoon. He’s bringing forward a private member’s bill on this topic, a bill that was previously introduced in this House by a former colleague of ours, Maria Van Bommel, the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, I believe. I also have the advice of a professor from Trent University, Dr. Magda Havas, who is in the members’ west gallery today.

This is a very serious problem for livestock owners in the province of Ontario. Just recently, Hydro One and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture are working together to study this issue in detail, and I’m pleased that some steps have already been taken to address it.

I encourage, of course, livestock owners—when I’m chatting with my friend Ralph Dietrich, head of the dairy farmers in the province of Ontario; and just last night at the Beef Farmers of Ontario, I had a discussion about this important topic.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Minister, voltage won’t kill, but current does. We have to ensure that we’re measuring the right thing.

My bill is directly inspired by the work of former Liberal MPP Maria Van Bommel from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. She attempted to pass the bill back in 2006. All three parties spoke in support of the bill, including you. I believe that a good idea for Ontarians—it shouldn’t matter who presents it.

Speaker, this afternoon, we will be joined by members from numerous farming associations that, frankly, really don’t care whose name is on the bill. They just want to see action now.

To the minister: Will you keep the spirit of co-operation alive and pledge support for Bill 161, the Elimination of Ground Current Pollution Act?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his supplementary question today. I can assure him that the government caucus will be supporting his bill this afternoon—

Interjection: Because we’re reasonable.

Hon. Jeff Leal: —because it’s a very reasonable bill, and we’re very reasonable people on this side of the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about the pilot that’s going on with the OFA. We’re making progress on this. The pilot will help: identify, assess and mitigate instances of stray voltage and current; assess alternative approaches to testing; look broadly at how electrical systems contribute to current and voltage on farms; and address how standards and procedures are applied.

In fact, we’re doing a pilot in Little Britain, Ontario, in the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock—the member right across the road here.

Après des mois de consultations auprès d’un millier de francophones de toutes les régions et services de l’Ontario, le résultat des États généraux sur le postsecondaire est criant et sans équivoque : on veut une université pour et par les francophones. Le document final a été remis à la première ministre le 18 février 2015. Ça fait un an.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Question?

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: La ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Ça me fait plaisir de répondre à cette question parce que le gouvernement libéral, présent et passé, y travaille depuis très longtemps. La première ministre a demandé un comité aviseur. Le comité aviseur s’apprête à remettre son rapport. Alors, on est très intéressé à voir ce qu’a le comité aviseur.

Maintenant, je ne prendrai pas de conseils de ce parti-là. Quand ils étaient au gouvernement, ils ont établi un Collège des Grands Lacs, un collège qui n’a mené à rien, qui a coûté des millions et des millions aux Ontariens et qui n’a mené absolument à rien. Le gouvernement par la suite—le gouvernement qui est maintenant le premier parti d’opposition—l’a fermé et on ne pouvait rien dire parce que c’était tellement une structure chancelante.

On veut être sûr que la prochaine université postsecondaire francophone en Ontario sera bâtie sur une base solide et va assurer une pérennité—

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please.

New question.

Student achievement

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Aujourd’hui, ma question est pour la ministre de l’Éducation, l’honorable Liz Sandals.

Speaker, as you will appreciate, the education of our children in Ontario’s schools benefits when we have parents involved, excited and engaged, and contributing. In my own riding of Etobicoke North, I have seen how good schools can graduate up to become great schools by the increased engagement of parents. Psychological and sociological research demonstrates that there is a positive link between student achievement and parents’ involvement, expectations and guidance. Schools in my own riding have benefited from some of the more than $60 million we’ve invested since 2006 to support parent engagement.

Speaker, my question is this: Minister, this very week you announced grant applications for the 2016-17 school year which are now open. Can you please tell this House more about what this means for Ontario students and families?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Ontario is helping parents get more involved in their children’s education by supporting local parent-led projects that encourage student learning and promote well-being.

In the 2015-16 school year, the province funded more than 2,200 projects that helped identify barriers to parent engagement, and found local solutions to help more parents be engaged in their children’s learning. In fact, since 2006, the government has awarded over 17,000 grants to school councils and over 680 regional or provincial grants, a total investment of over $27 million to parent-led projects. Parents Reaching Out Grants demonstrate that parents are working to find local solutions to enhance parent engagement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Merci, madame la Ministre, pour votre réponse et aussi for your commitment to this file. I have myself seen the on-the-ground benefits. For example, Albion Heights Junior Middle School, Claireville Junior School and, in fact, 22 schools in my riding have benefited from these particular grants. Given the knowledge-based economy of tomorrow, I believe that the Parents Reaching Out Grants are a key part of Ontario’s family engagement strategy, and this is embedded throughout the goals of our renewed Vision for Education in Ontario.

Minister, would you please elaborate on what projects are included and how you envision they will benefit children’s education in Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The Parents Reaching Out Grants include funding for parent involvement committees and school councils, for local projects like family math nights, resources to welcome parents who are new to Ontario to learn about the Ontario education system—a whole host of things.

For example, for some of the projects that parents have chosen, we help parents with resources to help them support their children’s learning: information on topics like bullying, child care, math homework, and the new health and phys-ed curriculum. We’ve made a lot of parent resources available, a lot of resources around online social networking safety and how to be safe on the Internet.

We know that when parents are engaged, their children do better. That’s why we are encouraging parents to get involved in their children’s education.

Accessible parking permits

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Last year, over 1,000 counterfeit accessible parking permits were confiscated in Toronto—up by 28% in just one year. Apparently, motorists are able to easily access or create these fake permits. This government’s response was to tighten up security on newly issued permits only.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain how bar codes on new permits will help to alleviate fraud, since the old permits, which are easily counterfeited, are still accepted until they expire.

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question. I think the member knows full well the importance of these permits to Ontarians and to those who need them and need access to these spaces in Ontario. The last thing we want to see is anyone counterfeiting or fraudulently using these types of permits in Ontario. We think that is a despicable practice, for somebody to fraudulently take a permit and take a spot or a space from someone who has a disability or needs to have that type of access.

On this side of the House, we’re concerned about that issue. We’re taking steps within our government and our ministry to tighten up the security of these permits, to make them tougher to counterfeit. That was the purpose of the announcement. That’s what we’re aiming to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Gila Martow: Thank you very much. My question really didn’t address the fact that we’re trying to tighten up security. I mentioned that we’re tightening up security. My question is, why aren’t we tightening up security on the existing permits, and not just waiting for those permits to expire?

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Ontarians, we know, struggle with mobility issues. Many face additional burdens when accessible parking is taken up by these fraudsters. When designated spots are unavailable, motorists with permits are sometimes allowed to park in no-parking or no-stopping zones.

Unfortunately, our accessible parking rules vary from municipality to municipality, resulting in much confusion. For example, Thornhill resident Michelle Zaldin received a ticket in the city of Vaughan for parking with a permit in an area that’s acceptable in Toronto.

I’d like to know if the minister plans to streamline accessible parking regulations so that Ontario residents struggling with mobility challenges don’t need to carry with them a copy of every municipality’s parking regulations.

I should remind the member, and I think the member knows, that not all of these disabilities in individuals are visible disabil