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

April 7, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Apr-07 (PDF)

L157 - Thu 7 Apr 2016 / Jeu 7 avr 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 April 2016 Jeudi 7 avril 2016

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Fundraising

Fundraising

Fundraising

Fundraising

Fundraising

Autism treatment

Correctional services

Fundraising

Aboriginal affairs

Accès à la justice / Access to justice

Government accountability

Winter highway maintenance

Climate change

Notice of dissatisfaction

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Heeman’s

Autism treatment

Katyn massacre and Smolensk air disaster

Wilfrid Laurier University

Niagara Parks School of Horticulture

Opening Minds through Art

June Fleming

Reach Out Centre for Kids

Refugees

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Standing Committee on Estimates

Petitions

Special-needs students

Persons with communication disabilities

Caregivers

Préposés aux services de soutien personnel

Environmental protection

Lung health

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Sexual violence and harassment

Health care funding

Autism treatment

Private Members’ Public Business

Ontario Down Syndrome Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée ontarienne de la trisomie 21

Climate change

Visitors

Workers Day of Mourning Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de deuil pour les travailleurs

Ontario Down Syndrome Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée ontarienne de la trisomie 21

Climate Change

Workers Day of Mourning Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de deuil pour les travailleurs

Orders of the Day

Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 4, 2016, on the motion for 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 Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: I am pleased to rise today and speak about the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act. Bear with me: This is one hour of Paul Miller. I hope you can handle it.

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s the Paul Miller show.

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s Paul Miller Live. One is already leaving.

Before I start, I’d like to welcome the new Deputy Speaker, Soo Wong.

Applause.

Mr. Paul Miller: I wish you all—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s on the side, Soo.

Mr. Steve Clark: A point of order, Madam Chair.

Mr. Paul Miller: Oh, thanks, Stevie.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. You’re starting already.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, I just wanted to offer our congratulations to you as well. I’m glad that the member extended his thanks to you. We’re all very pleased to see you in the chair.

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you very much.

Mr. Paul Miller: And good luck, Soo. Bless you.

The history of the bill: This bill has been incubating for a very, very long time—well before the last general election. I recall, Speaker, that the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport began work on two trails-related projects in the fall of 2013.

First, they began talking about the Pan Am and Parapan trails, which were supposed to be completed in time for the Pan Am Games in the summer of 2015. The idea behind these was to close some of the many gaps in Ontario’s Trans Canada Trail—about 250 kilometres in total. Once complete, we would have a continuous trail stretching over 2,000 kilometres.

Second, they commenced consultations on a new Ontario Trails Strategy. I’m pleased to see that the ministry did reach out to consult with many interested parties and stakeholders, including aboriginal groups. The problem is that, nevertheless, the consultation and communication has not been as extensive as it needed to be.

A new trails strategy is something we have needed in this province for a very long time. Also, we need the value of our trails as common public recreational spaces where we can absorb the natural world. The definition of trails includes hiking trails, pathways, snowmobile routes and more. There are 2,500 trails in Ontario, stretching over 80,000 kilometres. You have to walk around the entire world twice to reach that distance.

Trails are not just for recreational use. In northern Ontario, people often rely on trails in the absence of passable roads or highways. We cannot neglect that, and this is one of the reasons this bill is so important to the north.

This is an omnibus bill, as it establishes one new act and includes five additional schedules that amend five other acts: the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, the Off-Road Vehicles Act, the Public Lands Act and the Trespass to Property Act.

My colleagues will know that I’ve never been a warm friend of omnibus bills. Having said that, this omnibus bill’s objectives are coherent and consistent.

The former Speaker of the House of Commons, John Allen Fraser, ruled in favour of the definition of acceptable omnibus bills as follows: “The essential defence of an omnibus procedure is that the bill in question, although it may seem to create or to amend many disparate statutes, in effect has one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.”

The schedules of this bill do indeed have one basic purpose: “To protect and improve thousands of kilometres of the province’s urban, suburban, rural and remote land and water trails network while encouraging its expansion.” To this end, this bill aims to “improve, sustain and encourage the expansion of trails by addressing liability, trespassing and crown land issues.”

The purpose of this bill is reasonable, Speaker. You would find few members in this House in opposition to this bill’s objective. The question is of the bill’s efficiency and effectiveness. Being effective is about doing the right things, while being efficient is also about doing things.

Does this bill do things right? In general I would say a qualified yes, but consultation and engagement in the communities that will be impacted by the legislation has not been extensive enough. This has created some major problems in northern and rural Ontario, most especially around the closure of some long-standing snowmobile trails this past winter.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport said this past Monday that there had been extensive consultations, and gave some brief hints at that, including a mention of five regional sessions. For legislation that could have such a profound and specific impact on northern and rural Ontario, it simply isn’t enough.

Our province is enormous, with a total area of over one million square kilometres. If Ontario went on its own as a fully sovereign state, it would be the 28th largest in the world. We’re bigger than Egypt, Nigeria and Pakistan. In fact, Ontario is more than twice the size of Thailand or Spain—really incredible.

That really should put in perspective how utterly inadequate five regional consultations are for a bill that has its major impacts in rural Ontario. I can’t imagine the people of rural Spain being happy with one consultation session on the northern coast, another on the southern coast, and maybe, if they win the flip of a coin, one more in the western mountains. It’s not enough, Speaker, when you consider the size of this province and the distances involved.

I will say that I’d be very interested in seeing the complete list of consultations, as it would give an indication of where this outreach needs to go next, and would help us demonstrate to our constituents that the consultations on this bill have been in good faith and not just limited to the usual stakeholders in the Toronto bubble. It is very important that people affected by this bill feel included in the process, because without that confidence this legislation will do more harm than good. I hope that the government will come forward and share that information with the opposition critics when the time comes.

I’m encouraged to see that the legislation has been framed such that consultation is not a one-time affair. Subsequent to passage of the bill, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry will consult on a regulation defining damage to crown land and property. There will be consultations by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport on a process for recognizing Ontario’s trails of distinction, on a voluntary classification system, on voluntary best practices and on establishing trails-related targets. On a recurring basis, the ministry will consult on the periodic review of the Ontario Trails Strategy.

This bill does have many right things with it, but some we have to look at. It promotes access and awareness of Ontario trails by making it easier for people to understand the trails available here, to understand their nature and their difficulty and by recognizing high-quality trails as trails of distinction. This is all very important, Speaker, because as of now, there is no coherent system province-wide to classify trails. Casual hikers, cyclists or ATV users have no way of definitely knowing the difficulty of a trail.

This bill aims to establish greater clarity in the relationship between landowners and trail users. It allows landowners the option of granting time-limited or permanent easements. It’s just an option, but it will be very beneficial to many landowners and trail users. The creation of this possibility as a supplementary mechanism will in fact serve to protect landowners.

However, Speaker, I will return to the question of easements later in this debate, because some of the omissions from the bill on this topic, as well as one questionable proposal, combined with insufficient consultation and communication, have allowed misinformation to seep into this debate and have really poisoned the well around the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act. I want to take a lot of time to discuss this, Speaker, but I also want to talk first about some of the other aspects of this legislation.

Further to this, the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act creates more clarity around liability on the trails. It establishes that a lower standard of care applies to occupiers of trail property which are not-for-profit or public sector organizations. This applies even if there is an incidental fee—only an incidental fee—related to access onto or use of the land, such as for parking, or if a public benefit or payment is given to a not-for-profit trail manager.

Another important change to the Occupiers’ Liability Act is that the list of lands to which a lower standard of care applies is amended to add portages.

It is important to note that the standards of care themselves are not being revised.

This is a very important change, because there are two standards of care in the province under the Occupiers’ Liability Act. The higher standard is that “an occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.” Essentially, this standard of care requires that a property owner or occupier protect a person entering his or her property from all reasonable foreseeable hazards or circumstances.

If you are a landowner voluntarily offering access to your land to a trail organization or snowmobile club, then this is a demanding standard of care. It requires a lot of time and attention and creates a liability and risk for the landowner. It is a major deterrent to landowners permitting access to their land for recreational purposes. Who can blame them for that, Speaker, really? If they don’t benefit from people crossing their land, why would they want to assume the liability? It makes sense to me.

The lower standard of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act provides that the occupier owes a duty to the person who enters onto the premises “to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his or her property and to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his or her property.”

The problem is that under the current statutes, there is some uncertainty over which standards of care apply to landowners who permit access to the trail.

Subsection 4(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act states:

“A person who enters premises described in subsection (4) shall be deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and is subject to the duty of care set out in subsection (1)”—that is, Speaker, the lower standard of care I just outlined.

“(

a) where the entry is prohibited under the Trespass to Property Act;

“(

b) where the occupier has posted no notice in respect of entry and has not otherwise expressly permitted entry; or

“(

c) where the entry is for the purpose of a recreational activity and,

“(

i) no fee is paid for the entry or activity of the person, other than a benefit or payment received from a government or government agency or a non-profit recreation club or association, and

“(ii) the person is not being provided with living accommodation by the occupier.”

The uncertainty in relation to trails has risen around subclause 4(3)(c)(i). To that end, the bill we’ll be considering today, the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, proposes to amend the Occupiers’ Liability Act by inserting a subsection to clarify that the following do not constitute a fee for entry or activity:

“1. A fee charged for a purpose incidental to the entry or activity, such as for parking.

“2. The receipt by a non-profit recreation club or association of a benefit or payment from or under the authority of a government or government agency.”

Speaker, this is an important amendment, because it protects landowners and trail organizations that are not profiting from the trails, that are maintaining these trails or permitting access for the public benefit. I’m encouraged that this legislation removes this uncertainty in order to protect community-minded landowners, both because this is fairer and because it will encourage more landowners to permit access to trails crossing their properties.

Outside this building, I’m not sure if anyone in urban Ontario has heard of this bill, leaving aside the minister’s staffers over on Bay Street and perhaps a couple of lobbyists. It’s not on the major media’s radar all—it will be. I give credit: There was one

article in the London Free Press. But the lack of coverage is a bit of a shame, because not only does this bill affect urban and suburban residents, but our media should be covering stories of special importance to rural Ontarians. In this case, it hasn’t made the major newspapers’ priority list yet, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t made it into any newspapers. I may have missed a few articles in newspapers, but I have columns and news pieces on this bill in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder, in the Bracebridge Examiner, the St. Catharines Standard, the Pembroke Daily Observer and the Manitoulin Expositor.

Some of the commentary has been well-informed. Others, unfortunately, have been influenced by the incredibly misleading statements and commentary put out by the Ontario Landowners Association. I really want to commend the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington for speaking loudly and forcefully against this misinformation, because we know of his roots in this organization. The member said:

“Bill 100 does not grant any new authorities over private land, nor does it infringe or impair private property rights. It is indeed unfortunate that the OLA”—a landowners’ group—“does not have people who are knowledgeable providing advice to them.

“They’re suggesting that easements can be imposed on private landowners, and nothing could be further from the truth. It’s not based on fact.”

I couldn’t agree more with the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. This misinformation has had some very detrimental effects already on people in northern and rural Ontario. We’ve had enough trouble with trust in government—much of it is caused by the numerous scandals surrounding the Liberal government—without people spreading patently wrong information and casting aspersions on constructive and well-intentioned legislation. We may as well close up shop and sell off the furniture here if people start believing that nothing can be done in this government or this building.

As my colleague from Nickel Belt said a couple of weeks back, the way this bill is being interpreted is very problematic and is creating great difficulties in rural Ontario, but most particularly in parts of northern Ontario.

A lot of land in the north is owned by private landowners, mainly farmers. The trails in northern Ontario are so important in winter. They are vital recreational resources for the people who live there, but they are also some of the biggest generators of winter tourism activity. The misinformation being spread has led worried landowners to cut off access to trails used for years—years—by snowmobile clubs and others. Agreements have been cancelled in Port Carling, in Athens and Gananoque.

There have been problems all over northern Ontario, in Manitoulin and Nickel Belt, among other places. What happens to tourism in northern Ontario if all the snowmobile trails, ATV trails and hiking trails start shutting down? It’s not going to be good. It’s going to be ugly. It will be bad for a whole lot of businesses, recreational, food service, accommodation, gas stations, not to mention all the other jobs that are supported by the spending of the people who work in these businesses. We need to protect jobs in the north. They have been hit hard already. We need to ensure that the north retains a viable tourist economy; it helps to protect the northern way of life.

This bill is well-intentioned. It is a piece of legislation that has been, if not needed, then desirable in this province for some time, to bring clarity and protection to the relationship between landowners and trail users and to expand the number of trails available in Ontario. It is something that I think needs some amendment at committee and certainly some very wide consultation, but it should be supported in getting there in this second reading at least. The NDP supports the objectives of the bill because we want to see trails improved, maintained and expanded.

By addressing liability, trespassing and crown use issues, the legislation is targeting important areas to achieve those goals. It is good that this bill provides the trails community with improved and expanded tools to develop, operate and promote trails.

It is important to remove barriers in order to connect and expand trails across this province. It is of great benefit to trail users and local tourism that this bill enables the recognition of trails of distinction and, for the benefit of local communities, the creation of a voluntary classification system and voluntary best practices. A classification system will also help users to find trails that match their interests and ability.

The misinformation that has been spread about this bill has created fear, Speaker—fear. It has had some very negative knock-on effects for northern Ontario that need to be arrested now, but only the government has the ability to do this.

I would like to see the bill move through the legislative process, but what I would like to see most of all is for the ministry to reach out to the public, explain what the bill is really about and talk to the people impacted one to one about their concerns, because trust in the government is probably at an all-time low, I’m sorry to say.

If people start hearing that the government is effectively going to take the land, they get very anxious. They get scared—quite rightly, too; wouldn’t you? The government is not taking anyone’s land with this bill. There is an option in here for the landowner to grant easements—an option only, Speaker; not a law, just an option.

There is a very long list of bodies eligible to have easements assigned to them. The bill sets out an eligible body as:

“(

a) the crown in right of Canada or in right of Ontario,

“(

b) an agency, board or commission of the crown in right of Canada or in right of Ontario that has the power to hold an interest in land,

“(

c) a band within the meaning of the Indian Act (Canada),

“(

d) an aboriginal community or organization prescribed by the regulations made under this act,

“(

e) a municipality within the meaning of the Municipal Act, 2001,

“(

f) a conservation authority established under the Conservation Authorities Act,

“(

g) a board within the meaning of the Education Act,

“(

h) a corporation incorporated under

part III of the Corporations Act or

part II of the Canada Corporations Act that is a charity registered under the Income Tax Act (Canada),

“(

i) a trustee of a charitable foundation that is a charity registered under the Income Tax Act (Canada),

“(

j) a prescribed donee under the Income Tax Act (Canada),

“(

k) a qualified organization, as defined under

section 170(

h) of the Internal Revenue Code (United States) and Treasury Reg 1.170A-14 (United States),

“(

l) a corporation created by statute that is a registered charity under the Income Tax Act (Canada),

“(

m) any other person or body prescribed by the regulations made under this Act....”

This list demonstrates that the easements need not be granted to the government. The list of eligible bodies is quite extensive and inclusive. The easements may be permanent or they may be time limited.

Schedule 1,

section 12, subsection 9 states:

“An easement is valid for the term specified in it. The term must be specified as a period of months, years or in perpetuity.”

That means that it’s up to the landowner what he wants to do. That’s good, because it allows a lot more flexibility for the landowner and for the users, but it also doesn’t allow wasteful ideas such as a four-day or two-week easement hearing. The months provision is clearly intended to allow a landowner and eligible bodies to come to an arrangement covering one activity season, be it snowmobiling season or summer activity season.

So whether an easement is perpetual or term-limited is the decision of the landowner. Let me make this clear: It’s up to the landowner, not these rumours that have been floating around that they’re going to take somebody’s land or they’re going to confiscate trails. It’s a load of baloney.

Time for another water break. Jeez, Speaker, only another 38 minutes. I’m flying here.

So too is the decision over whether or not to grant an easement at all. No landowner has to give any land away. No landowner will have their land forcibly taken. This bill is meant to reconcile the interests of the landowners and the trail users. It does that by providing a greater, stronger protective framework for both landowners and trail users, but that framework is of no use if people do not see it or if people don’t understand it.

People have to communicate. As the member from Leeds–Grenville said earlier in the debate, the agreements reached between the trail users and landowners are very delicate.

The

interpretations of these arrangements are very delicate. All of us in this House, I think, have a responsibility to stand up against the spread of incorrect

interpretations that are endangering this delicate balance and these delicate agreements because, if it isn’t stopped, then, trail act or no trail act, communities up north are going to suffer.

I might have a tendency to say that the member from Leeds–Grenville might be just kind of creating a bit of a buzz about the negativity of this. It’s not negative.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture does not support every aspect of this bill, primarily around what they see as vague best practices for trail operators and what they believe are insufficient fines for trespassing. But they’re not against it, Speaker. We know that it has been a concern of theirs for many years now and that some of the members of the PC Party have felt the same way. The member from Dufferin–Caledon introduced such a bill in the fall of 2014, I recall.

Despite not agreeing with every aspect of Bill 100, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has publicly and repeatedly assured farmers that easements under this bill are “completely voluntary,” despite all the rumours that are being created by certain individuals.

I think it is important that all of us in this House reiterate and clarify, clearly and loudly, and read into the record the agreement of multiple sources. I’ll repeat what the OFA has stated: “Section 12 of this legislation is clear that an owner’s decision to enter into a trail easement is their own choice and is completely”—I repeat, completely—“voluntary. The legislation clearly states a landowner may grant”—may grant—“an easement to allow use of their property and have the right to state the length or term of that agreement.

That means Ontario farmers and rural property owners will retain a choice and should not feel obligated to enter into any easement agreement for recreational trail use” if they’re uncomfortable or they feel that they might have a liability, which they won’t, but some people are going around saying that all these things are going to happen. I’m saying it for the TV audience and I’m saying it for this Legislature: It’s a load of rubbish. It’s not going to affect them.

To bring something concrete to this discussion—not that I want to be mistaken for a trail paver—I’d like to speak for a few minutes about some problems we’ve been having with trails in my community, difficulties that unfortunately this bill will do nothing to address. This is despite the problems having been caused at the provincial level.

We have a beautiful beachfront and waterfront trail in Hamilton. If you haven’t been there, you really should make the effort this spring or summer to use it. The city of Hamilton and local communities invested years and years of effort and quite a number of dollars into beautifying this long trail, which runs right along the length of my riding, along the shores of Lake Ontario and on towards Grimsby.

It’s not well known outside of the area, which we can safely say is true of most trails, but like most trails, it is cherished by the local community as a place to walk, cycle, jog, walk their dogs and get away from it all, right by the lake—a place to exercise; a place to relax. A few months ago, just before the holidays, Hydro One crews came in and started tearing up trees. They clear-cut the trees along the beach trail and sprayed herbicide all over the place to make sure the trees don’t come back. Great. Thanks a lot. Hydro One has left stumps of what was once a prized Hamilton attraction—beautiful trees.

They cared nothing for our longest and proudest trail. There has been absolutely no accountability.

As I said, the city of Hamilton had invested years in beautifying this trail for the benefit of residents and visitors alike. The city offered to maintain the trees along the beachfront trails at its own expense, but its offer was ignored, Speaker. Hydro One knows better. They’re clear-cutting. They’re cutting down trees they don’t even have to cut down because there’s some North American act, because years ago—remember the big blackout when, I think it was, a squirrel caused a big blackout in Ohio and knocked out half of the eastern corridor? A squirrel did that on a transformer in Ohio.

Those days have changed. We’ve come a long way since then, but Hydro One now has to follow a North American line act where they have to clear out so many metres underneath or close to lines in case of ice storms or whatever. That’s understandable. Trim them way back. Trees take five to 10 years to grow before they become a problem. You could cut them back or cut the ones that are directly under the towers—it’s understandable—or the ones that may fall into the towers. I don’t have a problem with that. But you don’t have to cut 50 metres on either side of it.

It also acts as a buffer for some highways like the Red Hill Expressway; now they don’t have a buffer from the noise because all the trees have been cut down. The neighbours are in an uproar, and they’ve even hired a lawyer.

“But we’re Hydro One, so we’ve got to follow the law and do what we’re told to do.” That’s the way it is: “You’re out of luck. Tough luck.” It’s not good, Speaker. It’s causing a lot of aggravation.

We may be talking a good game about trails in this Legislature. I think that the protection of our trails is something that members on all sides of the House can agree on. But what happens when our natural environment and people’s public interest in recreational trails collide with big money, hydro and their rules? Make no mistake, Speaker, now that Hydro One has been partially privatized and now that the government has taken great pains to remove all lines of accountability, Hydro One is big money, big say and big power. It’s not a public institution anymore.

Not only are prices going to go up for our hydro, but we’re losing control over our environment and what surrounds the power usage and the towers. We’re losing more control, because big business can hire big lawyers. It may not be too late to save if the government corrects their course, but as it stands today, Hydro One is all about the mighty dollar.

You see, Speaker, the reason why Hydro One has been slashing and burning the trails is that it’s looking to save a few bucks. It’s all about money. They don’t want to have to come in there every three or four years and trim. They want it for every 20 years or 15 years, so they don’t have to come back. That’s ridiculous. You’re ruining beautiful trees and the environment, because you don’t want to pay to come back and trim every five or 10 years. You don’t want to do that. For the amount you’re saving, the amount of pleasure that you’re taking away from the public is unacceptable.

The Auditor General reported that Hydro One has been cheapening out on its vegetation management cycle, operating on a nine-and-a-half-year cycle, as I said, as opposed to the average three-to-five-year cycle of all its peers and everyone else. Instead of trimming trees selectively and responsibly, Hydro One has, under the watch of the government, allowed trees to grow wild for nine years—under the watch of this government—then razed them when a critical Auditor General report was looming.

There’s no accountability, Speaker—none. Hydro One told our constituents to go to the Ontario Energy Board if they’ve got a problem. Good luck. The Ontario Energy Board told them that, thanks to the government, they no longer have any authority over these matters. It’s up to Hydro One. Wow. So any appeal body that we had is toast. They shrugged their shoulders. They threw my constituents back on the good graces of Hydro One. How did they make out? Not too good. The Ministry of Energy has nothing to say, because they say Hydro One is no longer a public institution. So you can sing for it. Have a good song, and so on.

The circle continues, and all the while, Hydro One has been getting its red pen out to target any other trails they can find in my riding, like the one along the beautiful Red Hill Valley. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Hydro One has not only razed the trees along the beachfront trail; it has sprayed large quantities of herbicide just a few metres from the shoreline. Isn’t that wonderful? You’ve got kids playing down there; you’ve got people walking their dogs; you’ve got other animals—creatures of our society, our world—being affected by these herbicides. They’re spraying it all over the place. I don’t know.

I remember, Speaker, years ago up north, they were using—are you ready for this one? Like in the war in Vietnam, they were using Agent Orange all over the sides of highways up in northern Ontario. Are there long-term effects on people? Probably, and definitely on animals and creatures. Is there going to be a latency period for cancer? Probably. Lovely.

It’s not just Hamilton, Speaker. The problem reaches far and wide. I know they’ve been in Guelph where they wrecked the Royal Recreational Trail, turning a tree-shaded walkway into a grassland which turns brown by July. It’s not too pretty. This may or may not be something that can be incorporated into this bill, but the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport needs to get a handle on this kind of reckless destruction. Put this into our trail strategy. It might be a good idea to protect some of these beautiful God’s creations.

Make sure that our trails are protected from the carelessness and penny-pinching actions of both private corporations and public institutions. Demand an accounting from Hydro One of the similar clear-cutting of trails in this province.

This government needs to find a way to ensure that instead of stiffing municipalities and local residents, Hydro One works in co-operation with them and uses responsible tree management practices to protect our natural heritage, amenities, as well as the integrity of our power transmission system in this province. These goals do not have to be in constant opposition. Trails are very vulnerable, fragile things.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): There’s a lot of chatter in this corner. The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Paul Miller: The minister over there is talking, too.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): There’s a lot of chatter here. I would respectfully ask the members on the government side to please tone down, because we have a debate going on this side. This I respectfully ask.

Mr. Paul Miller: Well done, Speaker. Maybe they want to listen about trails in their area but they seem not interested. Oh, well.

Trails are vulnerable, as I said. Trails are very long, narrow lines that thread through our entire province. All it takes is one anxious landowner to close a part of a trail to break that thread. Depending on the location, the trail could be permanently severed into two. Most likely, if one landowner is worried, others are too and they’re watching very closely. Pretty soon, you’ll have other landowners saying, “Hey, why am I leaving myself vulnerable when my neighbours are taking steps to protect themselves?” Then you’re cutting the thread in multiple locations, not just one.

We may not have a usable trail anywhere anymore. It might be too fragmented, especially if goes through difficult terrain that’s not very accessible by good roads.

We need to understand that there’s a pre-existing ecosystem here. The government needs to understand that. Even just the perception that this negotiated coexistence, a web of mutually beneficial but individual and distinct agreements, is going to be replaced with a hard legal framework will be enough to kill the ecosystem in our trail system.

I know from our reading of this bill that this is not the intention—I hope. The intention is to allow for solid legal support to be put into place within the ecosystem where it could be beneficial for both landowners and trail users. This would only be reached through more individually negotiated agreements.

But that is not the perception out there, unfortunately. Whatever we can say about good intentions, there has been a failure of communication around this bill in a lot of places. There has been a failure to shape the discourse, and the conversation has been running wild in ways that have been very negative in parts of this province. Unfortunately, some of those wild rumours are coming out of here, out of the people who are representing the people.

That’s unfortunate because the bottom line is that we are supposed to give pertinent, good and straightforward information, and not feed into their frenzy—whether it’s the landowners or whoever it is that’s being negative about it—by standing up here and saying they’re right when they’re totally wrong, off-base, don’t know or haven’t read it. There’s no threat to any landowner on his land—owning it or government taking it off him.

It’s really irresponsible for individuals to stand up in this Legislature and create havoc over something that’s not true. Whatever we can say about good intentions, there has been a failure of communication in more than one place. There has been a failure to shape the discourse and the conversation, and it has been running wild in ways that I can’t believe. Withdrawing the bill won’t fix that. There are amendments that could be made to improve this bill and clarify these issues. I would certainly support that.

What it’s going to take is communication. Communication and consultation need to be expanded: outreach and a willingness—not too common with this government—to engage in a genuine dialogue with the people in rural and northern Ontario who are affected and worried by this bill. There needs to be a greater transparency in this bill and in the outreach. People need to have confidence that this bill will be of benefit to both landowners and trail users, that this legislation is a supplement to an enhancement of the existing trail system, not something new cooked up by the Liberals in their Toronto offices to destroy our trails. It’s not true.

It’s not enough to engage with the lobbyists and stakeholders down here, either. Yes, the bill will affect urban trails, which are of enormous recreational benefit to the people of Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and other cities in our province. But the overwhelming impact of this bill will be in rural and northern Ontario, so let’s not pretend otherwise. That’s where it’s really going to play a big role, so take the committee hearings and the consultations there.

Farmers and snowmobilers—who are often the same people, I might add—aren’t going to travel in great numbers here to Queen’s Park from Timmins–James Bay or Kenora–Rainy River or Timiskaming–Cochrane. They won’t be running down the 401 or on our 400-series highways on their snowmobiles—unless we can’t move. They probably won’t even travel in great numbers from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound or Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, because it’s inconvenient and expensive for those people to come down here. They have to stay in a hotel; they have to stay for the hearings; they have to pay for gas. Take it to the people.

Take it to the areas that are affected. Take it to the north and talk to the people who live there.

I’m a firm believer, from any military experience my family has had, that if you really want to know what’s going on, you don’t talk to the generals or the captains; you talk to the guy in the trench. You go to the front lines. You talk to the people who do it every day, not the big guys who make decisions in glass rooms somewhere in downtown Toronto. It doesn’t work.

This is a huge province, Speaker, bigger than 85% of the countries on Earth. Travel here is expensive and time-consuming. It is completely out of touch and insulting to rural northern Ontarians to say that they need to take time out of their lives and spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to come all the way to Toronto in order to make their voices heard. And most times, when they come to make their voices heard, they don’t get the result they want, and then they go home even madder. That just perpetuates the poisonous idea that only Toronto matters in this province.

People are coming to the conclusion that there are two provinces: the province of Toronto, and the rest of us. I’ll tell you, there’s a movement in the north. It’s almost like the old days of Quebec. They’re getting to a point where they want to separate. That’s how bad it is. The people feel that way under this government. It has to change. I’m not saying it’s absolutely true in every circumstance, but we have a real problem with people feeling that way. It’s not to anyone’s benefit on either side to divide this province.

This is one Ontario, and we need to make sure that all Ontarians’ voices are heard equally and that they all feel like a part of the process and the decision-making. Ontario is Ontario.

So if we have a bill sitting here that primarily affects rural and northern Ontario, then that’s where the hearings need to be. Unfortunately, to our great disappointment, the comments of many members of the governing party suggest that they feel otherwise and that they’ve done a marvellous job with their consultation.

Speaker, I just have to insert something here. With all due respect to the government or other people in this building, people make decisions here—it would be like somebody over there who was a teacher telling me, after 30 years of experience, what goes on at a steel plant when they’ve never walked through the door; or like a bureaucrat in downtown Toronto telling me about Hamilton when they’ve never crossed the Skyway Bridge. You’ve got to walk in their shoes. You’ve got to feel for the community. You’ve got to know. How do we do that? You listen to the members from those areas who talk to their people.

You listen to their ideas in committee. You don’t brush them aside and say, “We know best because we’re in downtown Toronto.” Sorry; that doesn’t work. You’re going to tell somebody who has never left downtown Toronto about the bear hunt—they probably haven’t seen a bear other than at the zoo. So I’m really, really shocked at some of the decisions that are made without input from the people who come from those areas.

I wouldn’t dare to tell the member from Kenora–Rainy River—because I’ve never been there; I’d like to go there; I should—what’s going on in Kenora, and she probably wouldn’t tell me what’s going on in Hamilton. She probably hasn’t gone through a steel mill in her life. I probably haven’t fished on Lake Superior. I probably haven’t fished, period.

When we start listening, in this Legislative Building, to the people who know their areas and know the people, this Legislature will work a lot better. And that’s what committee is supposed to be about: amendments to make changes. In my years here, Speaker, I sat many times on committee. Half of them walk out when you’re talking; they’re playing on their BlackBerry; reading newspapers. They don’t care. You want to get up and bang your head on the wall, walk out, phone the people—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: They don’t like that because it’s true.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: They’re obviously listening.

Mr. Paul Miller: I was in committees long before you were, and I know how it operates. So the bottom line is—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Speak through the Chair.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m willing to help my colleagues, but if they’re not going to be helped, it’s pretty hard.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Speak through the Chair. Okay? There’s no cross-talk, please. Let’s be respectful. Let’s speak through the Chair. There’s no cross-talk.

Member, continue.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m willing to help the colleagues—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Let’s make sure that we are respectful. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, speak through the Chair. And I respectfully ask the government side—I know that there are some inflammatory words that have been used. We’re going to deal with them. I’m going to start giving people one warning, and after that you’ll be named. That’s how it’s going to be.

The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: As I said, Speaker, we’re willing to help our colleagues and are speaking very forcefully about the facts and the myths in this bill. But it’s the government’s job to promote their legislation, to ensure that the public has a proper understanding of it and to make sure that the bill doesn’t have a negative impact on the trail system in Ontario, because if it does, if it continues to result in the closure of trails, then it will have been nothing more than another failure.

Hamilton is blessed with a beautiful waterfront trail, with the Red Hill Valley Recreational Trail, the Royal Botanical Gardens and, of course, the Bruce Trail that runs along the escarpment. We’re lucky to be on the escarpment and to have access to the natural beauty of the Niagara Peninsula. We also have over 100 waterfalls. How many cities anywhere in the world can boast that—100 waterfalls? A great number of these are accessible by the trails.

We have the Battlefield Creek trail, which is rich with history. It connects to both the Bruce Trail and to Battlefield Park in my hometown of Stoney Creek. This is a major historic site, as it was the location of one of the most important battles in the War of 1812. The British victory there was crucial in preventing US troops from seizing Upper Canada. Many of the members are probably aware that I’m a bit of a history buff myself. I participate in the re-enactments every summer. So I really do appreciate the trail, not just for its natural beauty but for its connection to our country’s history.

I would suggest that some of these members might want to come down to Stoney Creek and see the re-enactment. It’s wonderful. There are 700 re-enactors. I’ll be happy to show them how to fire a cannon.

Interjection.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’ll be happy to show them how to fire a cannon, especially the member from Waterdown. I’d like to have him over there.

We have the Bayfront Park Trail. We have the Breezeway Trail running through part of my riding from Beach Boulevard to Grays Road. The Chedoke radial trail is a pedestrian and bicycle pathway on the former right-of-way of the Brantford and Hamilton Electric Railway. It’s actually part of the Bruce Trail and it links with a Hamilton Conservation Authority trail that crosses the Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area.

We have a new thing that’s going to happen in Hamilton: A boulevard is going to be named after Tesla, the famous inventor who ran some of the first electrical lines in North American, along Burlington Street.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I thought you were going to say it was named after you.

Mr. Paul Miller: No.

There’s an Escarpment Rail Trail, a real gem. It’s an accessible multi-use trail developed on an abandoned CN line that extends from above the escarpment near Albion Falls and heads west to the lower city. It has some wonderful views of the lower city, of the escarpment and the former Hamilton Brick Works. We have Spencer Creek Trail and the beautiful Spencer Gorge Wilderness Area trails. Speaker, there are many, many more.

Most people in Hamilton are aware of these trails, but the truth is that very few people have an idea of quite how many we have. I very much appreciate that there is a trails strategy in this bill, that as well as expanding the distance and the number of trails themselves, there will be a real effort to increase awareness of the trails and make it easier for people to access them.

If we protect and expand our system of trails, we can open up even more of our spectacular landscapes and scenery to the public. This is a real public good we’re talking about. At the same time, we will improve our offering for tourists from both home and abroad. We have some of the world’s outstanding natural beauty here in our province. We should do everything in our power to facilitate public access to and enjoyment of it.

The key word here is “facilitate,” Speaker; we cannot impose. Access to these trails is based on respect, trust and understanding with the landowners whose land these trails criss-cross.

The crux of the question is how to provide and facilitate access to privately owned land. How do we promote that and facilitate that in a respectful and mutually beneficial way, where all parties are protected, where liability issues and ownership rights are clarified, and where we don’t create an undue need for the services of lawyers.

Here’s an old Viking quote—that’s going back:

“Kalf: We heard you took yourself away into the wilderness. Why?

“Bjorn: I went to find someone.

“Kalf: Who?

“Bjorn: Myself.”

Now, the minister is already quoted as saying this: “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 agreed to do so.”

It is important that the government communicates this repeatedly, and that members on this side of the House do likewise in response to their constituents. But it seems to me that the concerns expressed by the landowners across this province cannot be eased entirely by spoken words alone. With all that has happened, the only way to reassure landowners of the truth of this statement is to insert clear language to the effect of this statement directly into this bill. We need an amendment that does this.

Colleagues’ contributions to the debate: One of the benefits of having deferred my lead on this bill was the opportunity to listen to many more contributions than usual to this debate in the House.

My colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane brought his wealth of knowledge and experience to this debate on Monday. I think it’s very important that the government listen deeply to his comments as a farmer, a landowner and a snowmobiler from northern Ontario. It is doubly important because there isn’t an abundance of that experience in this government caucus. Proportionately more of the opposition members represent ridings seriously affected by this bill, and that needs to be recognized.

Now, snowmobiling is both a practical means of transport in northern Ontario and a valuable tourist attraction. Northern Ontario is probably the best place in the world to snowmobile. But that isn’t just due to the blessings of nature, Speaker. As my colleague has said, it’s because of the very hard work of the snowmobiling clubs across the province that groom these trails and negotiate access to the trails with landowners.

Sometimes I wonder if the governing party misunderstands the land ownership situation in northern Ontario and assumes that there isn’t really a problem because so much of the land is the property of the crown. Yes, it’s true that a lot of the land is crown land, but certainly not all of it. In well-inhabited areas, where most of the well-used trails are, much of the land is private. What that means, Speaker, is that very many of the trails in northern Ontario are on private land. The trail-use clubs, mainly the snowmobile clubs, negotiate access with the private landowners and obtain their permission to use their private land.

As my colleague said, this opens up parts of the province that would never otherwise be seen. No roads go through many of these areas. Like some of the remote railroads in this country, such as the ones crossing the Rockies, these trails offer people an opportunity to see a part of the world that is otherwise inaccessible to the public.

The private landowners don’t derive any profit from this, Speaker. They do it as good community citizens. They want to give back to their community and to their neighbours. Many are snowmobilers themselves. Of course, everyone gains when the landowners in a community participate in that sport. It’s the very opposite of the tragedy of the commons.

Communities, especially tight-knit ones like those in rural Ontario, don’t operate purely based on laws. They operate by norms, by custom, by recognition, by trust and by goodwill. It can be very dangerous to a community if you try, without good reason, to impose laws to replace some of those informal mechanisms. Now, I don’t believe that this bill is attempting to impose legal arrangements such as easements on rural communities, but we have seen that even the perception that this is the case has upset the fine balance that keeps a community healthy and public-spirited.

There are many good reasons why a landowner and a private trail-user organization might want to agree upon an easement as the best protective arrangement for both parties, and this bill facilitates that. But there will equally be a great number of situations where this is not the case, where the arrangements based on trust and mutual respect are enough and should be allowed to continue. This bill will allow them to continue.

But people around this province are now worried that this is not the case. They’re worried that their agreements of goodwill will be converted into legal claims of one party upon the other. When that happens, when the seed of fear is planted, the trust that sustains these agreements breaks down. Again, no involuntary easements will be created as a result of this bill. I repeat: No landowners are under threat.

My colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane gave a great example of where an easement might be of great benefit to both a private landowner and an association of trail users. He got the example from the president of the Tri-Town Sno Travellers, so I’d like to recognize him as well.

If there’s a farm or a piece of land that you’re going to go across and the snowmobile club needs to put a bridge there—and the bridge is a quarter million dollars right now—there’s no guarantee, other than a handshake with the landowner, that they can access the bridge after it’s up. If the snowmobile club could have an easement to get to that bridge, they’d have more confidence in their investment of time and money, which would improve the trails all over our province. The bridge would be more likely to go ahead, and both the club and the landowner could gain from it.

The landowner could maybe drive his tractor across it to get to other parts of his property. There are mutual agreements that could work for both sides that should be looked into deeply.

As he said, words like “easement” and “covenant” are trigger words for lawyers. The fact that this is optional is somewhat lost through that trigger, so we need a lot more clarity in the language and a lot better communication and outreach so that people can see for themselves and be reassured that existing arrangements are not affected. The cloud of lawyers and the possibility of losing power over your land are blown away. As for the options around easements, those need to be written and communicated very clearly as well so that everyone is clear about their rights.

Now we’ll talk about assignment of easements. Something that many of the members and their constituents found problematic is the ability of an eligible body to assign an easement to another eligible body. There simply aren’t enough conditions on this, Speaker. This is the kind of provision that will have landowners dead set against this legislation. If a provision of this kind has to be included, then it should be conditional on the consent of the property owner. If no consent can be obtained, then perhaps in this instance there should be a provision for the parties to agree on termination of the easement.

Let me read this problematic subsection aloud.

Schedule 1, subsection 12(8): “An easement may be assigned by an eligible body to another eligible body, but the assignment must be in writing and must be registered on title to the land.”

If and when the committee hearings and consultations are taken on the road and around this province, which is what needs to happen, then I expect you will hear a lot of opposition to this, and it is important to hear the opposition. We need to listen to the people it will affect and listen to the people’s ideas to fix the problem and make this subsection more acceptable to both sides.

Alienation of rural and northern Ontario—and you would hope that if not out of respect for the people of rural and northern Ontario, and if not out of genuine desire for good public policy, the government might be persuaded to engage more deeply with these communities out of pure political self-interest because nothing’s going to alienate them further from this government faster than the perception that they’re ramming through a bill for rural Ontario designed in Toronto and that the only consultations they’ll hold or that matter to them are with other people who live in Toronto; that they won’t have the decency or respect to go and have open, two-way conversations with the people and communities most directly affected by this legislation.

That infuriates people, Speaker. It alienates them, and it causes great resentment. And that mood is growing in this province. Every so often, we receive letters calling for northern secession. That would be awful. But it’s not just geographic. This government is going out of its way to alienate so many demographics and segments of the population across the province, and that includes people here in Toronto, believe it or not.

There is a perception that when the government wants to make a policy, it talks to people in Toronto, it holds some sort of consultations here in Toronto and makes the decisions here in Toronto. There’s a lot of truth to that, Speaker, but I think we’re looking at this through the wrong lens. It’s not about Toronto as a place. The government is not talking to the 99% of regular people in Toronto. It’s talking to a very small group of influential people in Toronto with a particularly high concentration on Bay Street.

It’s an old, tired government that is speaking to an echo bubble that is growing even smaller in diameter, and getting closer to the inner circle, a circle of powerful, influential and wealthy people.

The ordinary person in Ontario doesn’t have a say in this government’s policy, whether they live in Windsor, Timmins, Hamilton or Toronto. It’s the big corporations’ interests and the top 1% that are driving many of these decisions. It’s a sad state of affairs, Speaker.

Like I have said, this is a well-intentioned bill that we can support at second reading, provided that the government is willing to accept constructive amendments, and provided that the government is willing to take consultations on the road to communities impacted by this legislation. But the culture and—I hate to use the word—sleaze surrounding the government have created a deep distrust among the people of Ontario, and rightly so. Now they’re hearing about a bill that might take away their rights over their land. They’re willing to believe it, or at least consider the possibility, because the government’s track record doesn’t give them any confidence in its good faith or good intentions.

Remember that the farmers and the landowners don’t gain personally from allowing access to their trails, so when they hear bad stories about the bill, they rightly get nervous, because they have a lot to lose if it’s true—a lot more than they have to gain if it’s false. It’s going to require very honest, good-faith outreach from this government to reassure private landowners that they have nothing to fear about this bill. I know it can be done because last year, when this bill was introduced, I had a very constructive, open round-table meeting with the minister’s staff about the bill.

From that meeting and from the comments by the minister, I do believe that it’s a well-intentioned bill. But it’s going to take a lot of engagement and communication to reassure people around this province and dispel the doubts that groups like the Ontario Landowners Association have stirred up.

Speaker, I see I have only a few seconds. This bill has a lot of potential, but as I said before, the people in this Legislature, especially the governing body, have to start listening to the people who represent northern Ontario. I wouldn’t dare to go into Kenora–Rainy River and tell their town council, their farmers or their hunters and fishing people what to do. It would be totally off base. Hopefully, when this goes to committee, the government listens to the people who represent northern Ontario. Then—just then—it might work.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I don’t often get a chance to follow my colleague from Hamilton in the assembly, but I’m pleased to do so today. As part of that, I want to take a minute to introduce Antoin Diamond, who is here from the Bruce Trail Association. Thank you for coming today.

The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek talked a bit about alienation from government. I understand that. I get alienated from government when I think of the Red Hill Valley and putting a freeway down the middle of it. I get alienated from governments at different levels when I see 85% of our wetlands paved over—these precious resources we have that we need to be protecting and seeing as a treasure.

I appreciated the honourable member’s remarks very much, particularly his reference to the Bruce Trail. When I leave my house, I’m about from here to the honourable member’s seat away from actually walking onto the Bruce Trail, and it’s something that my wife and I enjoy very much. It’s one of the longest and oldest hiking trails in Canada, and it provides a continuous opportunity all the way from the Bruce down. It’s wonderful.

I really appreciated the member’s comments about respect, trust and a shared sense of interest. I think we share that in common. I just want to say to the honourable member that I’d love to join you on a trail somewhere in Hamilton.

I’ll end with this, honourable member:

Happy trails to you, until we meet again.

Happy trails to you, keep smiling until then.

Mr. Paul Miller: Roy Rogers.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: You’re right: Roy Rogers. I was eight years old. I watched it every Saturday morning. It got me hooked on trails.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norm Miller: Let me begin by congratulating the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, the other Miller, on an excellent one-hour presentation on Bill 100. I think he did a good job of raising concerns.

I especially liked his points about consultation. I think a lot of the problems with the misconceptions with this bill have come about because the government didn’t do a very good job of consulting. They say they consulted with 250 groups. Well, they missed the Ontario Landowners Association. That’s kind of a key group that they missed. A lot of the trails are open because of our landowners that generously—they don’t get benefit from it, really; they just do it out of the goodness of their hearts, allowing snowmobile trails etc. on their land.

I absolutely agree that we need clear language that makes it very clear that easements are voluntary. In fact, I have a letter from Bob Clarke, the president of the Snowcrest Riders in Gravenhurst, saying that they are having trail closures as of April 1, some that affect major bridges that cost millions of dollars to build.

He says, in his letter here, “Mr. Miller, the landowners I have talked to want

section 12 of proposed Bill 100 to be amended to include the simple wording below that Minister Michael Coteau has already stated:

“‘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 agreed to do so.’”

He says, “Add the above statement from the minister to

section 12 of Bill 100, and we may address the concerns of the landowner.”

I completely support what the member is suggesting. I also completely support the idea that this has got to be—if ever there was a bill that needs to be taken around the province by committee, this one needs to go around northern and rural Ontario so that those groups that have concerns about it can have a say and deal with that. I sure hope the government does that in this case.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to turn to the member from Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker, and congratulations on your new role.

I want to thank the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek for a good bit of debate there for an hour. He raises a few good points. The consultation and the engagement piece is very important. The piece about amendments that are already coming forward as we’re having this debate to make sure that the legislation reflects some of those practical, I think, solutions should be forthcoming.

The problem has been, though, the last couple of times I’ve been in committee, none of these practical amendments that groups, agencies and stakeholders are putting forward are actually getting approved at a committee level under a majority Liberal government. Just this week in the budget committee, some amendments were put forward to address communication of budgets and policies that would have fallen under the AODA and would have improved communications for people with disabilities—those who are blind and deaf—and the government members voted those amendments down.

A couple of weeks ago, a number of amendments were put forward on the PTSD bill, and once again the government members voted those amendments down. It’s fine for stakeholders to come forward, and it’s good. I think we need to travel the bill and make sure that we are reaching out to those people in rural and northern areas that are going to be affected.

But if they’re going to put forward solutions that will make this bill palatable for them, we need to be assured that, when those amendments actually come to committee, the government members are not going to just shake their heads and vote those amendments down, as they did with the PTSD bill and as they did with the AODA amendments in the budget deliberations earlier this week.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Madam Chair—sorry, Deputy Speaker—and congratulations on your ascension to this role.

I would like to add comment to the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek on his excellent presentation. He’s very passionate, obviously, about this issue. I appreciated very much the passion he brought to it, but I would like to lay to rest this notion that this has not been widely consulted on.

Starting in 2005, there was a whole series of consultations, with nine full-day sessions and 14 regional consultations. In 2013, 80 municipalities were contacted and 48 trail organizations, including the Moonbeam Nature Trails, Kawartha Trans Canada Trail Association, Forest Lea Trails Association, Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance, the Peterborough-Hastings Trans Canada Trail Association, Simcoe County Trails, Voyageur Trail Association, Rainbow Routes Association, Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, Kawartha Lakes Green Trails Alliance, the Dufferin-Grey ATV Club Inc., and it goes on and on and on.

In addition, other non-profit organizations were widely consulted on this bill in 2013 so that we did get the bill mostly right. If there are to be amendments, let’s make sure they’re good amendments and not some of the spurious kinds of puffery amendments we often see from the other side.

Speaker, we also had nine not-for-profit organizations, including the O’Hara Volunteers Association, the Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy, the Ottawa River Institute, Ottawa Riverkeepr—and so many more: the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; the Toronto to Algonquin Greenway. We had aboriginal consultations taking place. Let’s be clear, this has been widely consulted upon.

I think there might be a great opportunity to hear more in terms of the bill and what the current bill looks like. I look forward to hearing from all across the province of Ontario on ways that, if it can be improved, we certainly would like improve it.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to return to the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to wrap up this round of debate.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ted and I—Minister McMeekin and I—share a love for Hamilton, its trails and its Royal Botanical Gardens. It’s a hidden treasure that most people in Ontario don’t realize. We have the most waterfalls of any city in, probably, I would say, North America. And so I recommend that you come and visit us. Believe it or not, in spite of the grumpiness, we can be hospitable.

I’d also like to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for his insight. There’s the perfect guy to talk to. He probably rides snowmobiles. He’s from rural Ontario. He understands his people. He’s been here a long time. It’s because his name’s the same, but I certainly respect Norm’s knowledge of his surroundings and the people he represents. Certainly he would be beneficial to any discussions.

Of course, my good friend from Welland is well aware, being close to Niagara Falls, that there are a few trails down there, too, and in Welland. Being a former mayor, she’s well aware of what people face, whether they be landowners or recreational groups.

Now, my friend from Beaches–East York: Well, I have to say to him that he did rhyme off a lot of people. I’m not sure where the consultations took place, whether it was mostly here or in the particular areas he meant. You can have consultations, Speaker, but if you don’t listen to the people in the consultations—if you would have talked to all those people, who in the world would have put

section 12 into that bill? That is the worst thing you could have done. If you were listening to all these people, you would have heard that, I’m sure, because the landowners have made it quite clear. So I’m not quite sure who was listening at those consultations or how many people actually attended them and came back.

Thank you so much, Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Before I recess the House, I just want to remind the members that you are not to use first names. Remember that? The rules? You are to use the riding and not the first name. You know the rules.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thanks so much, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing it’s almost 10:15, we’re going to recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bob Delaney: Would members please join me in welcoming three prominent members of the GTA’s Turkish community? Sitting in the members’ gallery to my right are Mr. Erdeniz Şen, the consul general of the Republic of Turkey in Toronto; Ms. Rüçhan Akkök, the director of the Turkish Society of Canada and a resident of my riding of Mississauga–Streetsville; and Mr. Cenk Sayın, the vice-president of the Turkish Society of Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: On behalf of Minister Chan, the MPP for Markham–Unionville, I’d like to introduce the page captain for the day, Samantha Su, and her mother, Elaine Cheung. She will be in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: In the members’ gallery here today we have Caleb Ellis and his wife, Kelly Semkiw. They are here with their Jersey of Courage, making Ontario workplaces more safe.

After question period, Speaker, we’ll have a jersey out here for all the MPPs to sign to show support for safer workplaces in Ontario.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to welcome the recipients of the Leading Women Building Communities award from my riding: Adeena Niazi, who is the executive director of the Afghan Women’s Organization; Dr. Barbara Landau, who is the CEO of Cooperative Solutions; Ricky Goldenberg, the principal at Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute; and Dr. Nasreen Khatri, a psychiatrist at Baycrest.

I also would like to introduce Afie Mardukhi, who works in my constituency office and makes all these things happen. Thank you, all of you, for what you do, and welcome.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to introduce two guests who are here to spend a day with their MPP: Mr. Bill Doyle and Mr. John Ricci.

Mr. Han Dong: On behalf of the honourable member from Willowdale and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I would like to introduce the mother of page captain Barton Lu, Jing Shu Natasha Wang; and father, Ping Lu. They’ll be here in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Lucille Kyle, vice-chair of the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board, along with my staffer Travis Hoover, EA to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to introduce and welcome, here in the members’ gallery, my husband, Germinio Pio Politi, who is here visiting this morning.

Ms. Cindy Forster: In the members’ gallery, I’d like to introduce Nick Bodo, chair of youth service for the Rotary Club of Welland. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I would like to introduce my good friend Scott Sutherland, who is joined here by Alfred Josef Baldacchino, the Prince Grand Master of the Byzantine Order of the Holy Sepulchre, and his colleagues from all over Europe. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s an honour to introduce Troy Russell. He’s a constituent and the father of page Vanessa Russell, who I personally think is doing a fantastic job. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I wish to acknowledge Jennifer Crowson and her son Owen Crowson; Irene Turpie; and Ingrid Muschta and her son, Alexander. I’m not sure if they’re in the audience yet, but they’re on their way here to support Down syndrome today.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Monsieur le Président, ça me fait plaisir d’accueillir aujourd’hui, dans la galerie de l’ouest, Jean-François Morin, qui est un professeur à La Cité collégiale dans ma circonscription. Bienvenue, Jean-François.

Oral Questions

Fundraising

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Multiple police investigations, corruption charges in Sudbury, allegations of government contracts being awarded in exchange for hefty donations to the governing party—the people of Ontario work hard to pay their taxes, and they don’t deserve a government mired in scandal. They deserve to know that their tax dollars were not given away in exchange for donations to the Liberal Party.

Will the Premier give the people of Ontario the truth they deserve? Will she call for a commission of inquiry to investigate the fundraising practices of the Ontario Liberal Party?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to just remind this House, and remind the people of Ontario, in the wake of this question, that this whole discussion about the changes to fundraising rules was in this context, first of all, that all parties—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Both sides are not doing me a favour, nor anyone else that needs to hear. This will be my last generic comment. I’ll move to individuals, one at a time, and I’ll get there.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that all parties—I can only assume, with integrity—have been operating within a set of rules. I had made an indication that we were going to move to change those rules. We had already made some changes in terms of real-time disclosure and putting limits in place. We are making those changes. We are moving ahead with those changes. We will bring legislation in the spring.

But I think it’s important to remember that the context of this discussion was a need to change the rules for everyone, rules that we were all operating in with integrity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: Just because this government brought in new rules for Ornge Air, it didn’t stop the OPP from investigating a shady business deal.

Just because the government brought in new rules for saving emails, that didn’t stop the OPP from charging senior Liberal staffers David Livingston and Laura Miller for wiping away evidence of a scandal.

Nothing this Premier can promise about reform is going to change the fact that how this government has given out contracts and grants has to be subject to a full investigation.

I will repeat my question, because for two days I have not gotten an answer. To the Premier: Will she do the right thing? Will she call a commission of inquiry, or is she going to wait for another police investigation into her government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to go through, once again, what it is we are doing. I’ve talked about the context in which this conversation has begun and is taking place.

As I said, we have already taken a number of initiatives. In 2007, we were the party that introduced third-party advertising rules for the first time. We introduced real-time disclosure for political donations. As I announced last June, we’re committed to making further changes.

As I have said, our government plans to introduce legislation on political donations this spring, including transitioning away from union and corporate donations. That’s why I made the decision, that I talked about in this House, to immediately cancel upcoming private fundraisers, which I have done. Ministers can continue to do small-group, high-value fundraisers, but those events have to be publicly disclosed before they happen—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Wrap up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and the second stipulation is that ministers will not be fundraising with stakeholders in those meetings from their own ministries.

It’s important that we get this right. I look forward to the meeting on Monday with the leaders of the opposition parties.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Once again to the Premier: There’s an expression, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” And boy, there is a lot of smoke right now.

All the Premier’s talk of reform is really an admission on her part that there is rot in this government. The people deserve to know if this government is rotten to the core. They deserve to know if the companies felt obligated to donate in order to receive grants and contracts. They deserve to know if companies were made to feel that they had to donate in order to get a government meeting or a contract.

Why won’t the Premier give the people of Ontario the truth? I will repeat again: Will the Premier call a commission of inquiry?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, let’s be clear. The Leader of the Opposition is talking a big game, with lots of bluster about this issue, but the truth is that there’s only one leader who is taking real action and that is the Premier.

So I ask you again: If you really believe what you are saying, why aren’t you cancelling your secret private fundraiser? I just do not—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville: second time, and direct your comments to the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he’s not cancelling his $5,000-a-person fundraiser at Barberian’s Steak House. It puts a new meaning to “stakeholder”: the “steak holders” at Barberian’s Steak House.

Why wouldn’t he prove that this is not just political gamesmanship and that he sincerely believes we should put an end to that kind of fundraising?

Fundraising

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. If the thought of calling a public inquiry is just too scary for this Premier to consider, then let me try a smaller step. This Premier said she would be open and transparent. She made mandate letters to her ministers public—well, almost public; she didn’t include the part about fundraising quotas.

Will the Premier—and this is a very important question—release a list of every company that received a grant or contract from her government, and a list of every company and association that successfully lobbied her government for a policy change? Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The way that contracts are awarded and the way that grants are awarded—there are very strict rules around those. There are procurement processes. They are not political processes any more than, I assume, the development of policy on the part of the opposition parties to do with their fundraising.

The fact is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have an understanding of the seriousness of the issue. It’s not helpful when it gets to the point where I literally cannot hear the response, nor is it helpful when the members of the same bench are shouting out. It does not help me in dealing with the opposition, and the same goes for the government on that side. So I’m going to ask everyone to tone it down. Thank you very much.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it’s very important that people know who gives money to government parties and who gives money to opposition parties. I think the real-time disclosure of those things is very important. That’s why we moved to put those rules in place and now we’re going to go farther and change the rules further.

Interjections.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I recognize you, it’s not helpful that I speak to somebody and seconds later they start up again.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: My question was about the contract the government is giving out. If this government really had nothing to hide, the answer to that question would have been a no-brainer. The people of Ontario deserve to know these lists. They must be made public so they can compare the lists with the lists of those donating to the Liberal Party. Based on what the media has been reporting, the public might find those two lists are pretty similar.

I ask the Premier this: Will she direct the Ontario Liberal Fund to return every donation received from the companies that got grants and contracts or that successfully lobbied for a policy change? Will the Premier pay the money back, yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. As the member was finishing the question, I was going to stand to admonish, for the second time, the deputy House leader.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Leader of the Opposition is behaving like he is as pure as the driven snow, but let’s look at some questions. For his leadership campaign, he received donations from estate planning companies. Then he brings forward his very first private member’s bill, which benefits only them and their clients. The OMA sponsors the party convention and the next thing you know, they’re standing up, demanding that doctors be paid more. We know that the Leader of the Opposition is being—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have been hearing a couple things in there that I’m not impressed with and I sure know that the members know they shouldn’t be saying it.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We know the Leader of the Opposition is being investigated by the Integrity Commissioner because he tried to sell off access to the west lobby.

So my question to the Leader of the Opposition is, how much do you have to donate to get a private member’s bill? How much do you have to donate to get a question asked in question period?

Interjections.

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

As I have said in the past to other people asking questions that are borderline impugning motives, I’m going to tell the member that she has not helped herself and it will not happen again.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: I’ve been asking serious questions about making the contracts the government gives out public and about paying the money back. Instead, I hear smears and attacks. I’m hoping that this time I can actually get an answer. If the government really wanted to show the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, second time.

It sounds to me that there’s going to be a discussion amongst all of you as to how fast you want me to get to warnings, so I’m going to get to warnings. From here on in, individuals I hear—not that there’s a lot of you—will get a warning.

Please finish your question.

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: If the government really wanted to show the public that money didn’t buy a meeting with a cabinet minister, they would give the money back. If this government really wanted to prove to the people of Ontario that decisions they made had absolutely nothing to do with the millions and millions of dollars in donations to the Liberal Party, they would give the money back. But the Premier won’t do that and that is why we need a public inquiry to shine a light on—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is warned. Who’s next?

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The government doesn’t want me to finish this question.

The reason we need a public inquiry to shine a light on the rot is just to find out how deep it goes. The Premier knows full well where the latest scandal is heading. Why doesn’t the Premier cut her losses, do the right thing and call the public inquiry?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: And don’t dodge the question. Don’t dodge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would suggest not getting yourself in trouble when I’m standing.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Associate Minister of Finance is warned.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s time for the Leader of the Opposition to show some leadership on this. They are still stuck in the old ways. Exhibit A: the Toronto Leader’s Dinner is—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Toronto Leader’s Dinner is coming up. I’m sure the caucus will all be there. Potential—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry is warned and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned. And you can turn sideways all you want.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Potential donors are being encouraged to pay $25,000 for a so-called victory table, $10,000 more than the normal table. But it’s worth the money: The extra $10,000 gives you the opportunity to host a caucus member. When it comes to the PCs, though, the more you pay, the more you get. By donating $30,000 or more, attendees will score an invite to a private reception—

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

New question.

Fundraising

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier tasked the Ministers of Energy and Finance to sell off Hydro One. They then hired a group of bankers to manage that sell-off, and those bankers made a lot of money doing that. Then those same ministers called up those same bankers and said, “Come to our fundraiser and give us money.”

Just yesterday, that pattern repeated itself. Those same bankers are going to make millions more selling off the next batch of Hydro One shares. Is the Premier really okay with this?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy is going to want to talk about the process.

I’m very aware of the young people in the Legislature right now, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am. Well, you can heckle all you want. I just want to say, and I want to say it about every member in this House: Every member in this House came into politics because they believe that there’s more they can do to help the people of Ontario.

The fundraising rules that have been in place in this province have been followed by all parties. We believe that they need to be changed. I am going to work and meet with the leaders of the opposition on Monday and I am going to get their input on how they think those changes should happen. But I just want to be clear that it is my belief that this discussion is in the context of every party in this Legislature following a set of rules and following the same set of rules. I have made the assumption about the opposition parties. I hope they’ve made the assumption about us that we have all done that with integrity—

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

Interjections.

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

I want to take a moment, please. I’ve noticed a couple of people in the House have devices that are open during question period. I remind you of the rules regarding the use of devices. They are not to be used in any way, shape or form during question period with regard to photos, taping or that kind of stuff. I just give you that warning now because if it appears on Twitter or if it appears anywhere else, I’ll be dealing with it very severely.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Minister of Energy said that everything was fine with how the government picked the banks to sell off Hydro One. He said so because that process had been overseen by the former Auditor General, Denis Desautels.

Did the Minister of Energy at any time inform the auditor that once the sale had started, ministers would be going back to the banks involved in the sale and asking them to contribute $7,500 a plate in a $165,000 fundraiser?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: As I said yesterday, I’ll state again today: The former Auditor General of Canada looked at the whole selection process and he signed off on it as being objective and fair.

But really, what’s getting under their skin is the success of the Hydro One IPO and the secondary offer. We’re meeting our targets to get $5 billion to pay down debt. We’ve already paid down enough to save $100 million a year in interest payments. So it’s paying huge dividends. We’re already ahead of our plan to invest the proceeds into the Trillium Foundation to build infrastructure. And she’s probably really disturbed by the fact that the price of the shares of Hydro One since the IPO has gone up by over 15%.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m sure the Minister of Energy didn’t answer my question—which was whether or not the Auditor General was made aware of the things that were coming afterwards, which was the request for these bankers to raise money for the Liberal Party. That was the question. I’m sure the auditor didn’t actually have that information.

After this small group of bankers attended a $165,000 fundraising dinner, the Ministers of Finance and Energy gave them another slice of the Hydro One pie for dessert. How much will these bankers be earning for selling off the next batch of Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m sure that the leader of the third party has heard a lot about what happened to the original IPO and the secondary offer.

The reality is that the fees that these bankers—and there were 16 of them who were in the syndicate. There was not one or two or three; there were 16, as is normal in the process. The amount they paid in fees was almost unprecedented in terms of what they saved the province for a transaction of this size. We should be proud of what they were able to deliver in terms of low fees.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. No, actually, keep the clock going.

It’s difficult when both sides are having conversations back and forth while the question is being put or the answer is being put. This announcement is for anyone, from any party: The warnings will come even if you’re trying to have a conversation across, if it’s disturbing.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I’ll just read from the Globe and Mail, after the IPO. The Globe and Mail noted that our government had “persuaded Bay Street to accept some of the lowest IPO underwriting fees imaginable.” The same thing happened in the secondary offer yesterday.

Fundraising

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. This isn’t just about cabinet ministers’ suspect fundraising activity; it’s about the people across Ontario.

After facing a criminal investigation for the Ornge scandal, a criminal investigation for the gas plants scandal and a criminal investigation for the Sudbury bribery scandal, the same Premier has now created a fundraising scandal that’s shaking people’s faith in our democracy. But she says only the Liberal Party can solve the problem that they created.

Does she really think that’s okay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me go back to where I started at the beginning of question period today, and that is to say that quite contrary to what the leader of the third party is saying, this whole discussion has come about because we were already on a track to change the rules. We were all operating—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek and the member from Barrie are warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We had already introduced third-party advertising rules for the first time; we had already introduced real-time disclosure. I said last June that we were going to be moving in the direction of changing donation rules. I said in June that we were going to move in that direction; that’s exactly where we are moving.

We were all—all of us in this House, all the parties in Ontario—operating under the same set of rules. I think there’s a fair degree of consensus that we all need to change the rules, and I look forward to the input from the leaders of the opposition parties.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, a democratic system means that everyone has an equal voice, but people see a system here in Ontario where wealthy donors with deep pockets get one level of access to the decision-makers and everyone else gets shut out.

I believe the facts say that ministers have broken the Members’ Integrity Act and the Legislative Assembly Act, and I look forward to the Integrity Commissioner’s investigation and report.

In the Sudbury bribery scandal, we have people on tape saying that they were following the Premier’s instructions. Do we again have a situation where the Premier is responsible for giving direction that may well prove to be against the law or in violation of the act?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s interesting. The third party is trying to leave the impression that all the money they raise comes from bake sales and rummage sales and garage sales and spaghetti suppers.

Let’s just look at some of the other fundraising that’s happening. Recently there was a fundraiser at the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts—I’m sure it was lovely—limited to 10 guests at $9,975 a person. That happened in December. That’s not all; there have been other lovely events like a private stakeholder social at the Gardiner museum—I’m sure that was lovely too—limited to 10 guests only at $9,975 per person in April.

Let’s just understand: One Premier—one leader in this Legislature—has taken real action—

Interjections.

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

As a follow-up to my concerns, I will also start looking at the members of the same bench with warnings if they’re interjecting while the answer is being put.

New question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I actually have a third part, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker.

I don’t think big money should be able to buy special influence over government decisions. That’s the bottom line. I think that Ontarians actually agree—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians agree and I think that they’re concerned when they see a government selling access and then saying that they—and they alone, by using their majority—should be in charge of changing the rules. I don’t—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m insistent that we’re going to do things the way they’re supposed to be done. The Minister of Education is warned.

Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don’t think people trust a government facing three criminal investigations to be in charge of changing the rules about fundraising ethics all on their own. I don’t think people trust the party that created this ministerial quota system and the sale of access to decision-makers to fix it. Does the Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The leader of the third party knows that the Premier has invited herself and the Leader of the Opposition to have a meeting next week to talk about exactly this issue. Nonetheless, the party opposite is—it’s time for them to walk the talk.

There is another event coming up, which means another opportunity for the leader to show some leadership: a fundraiser at Liuna Station coming up on April 13. Guests who are interested in joining the leaders’ circle are asked to pay $9,975. But it must be worth the money because it includes access to the private reception taking place before the main event.

My question really is: Will the leader of the third party continue with this event—this exclusive access at the private reception—or will she show some leadership and cancel the event?

Interjections.

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

Again, I apologize to the leader of the third party for missing her final supplementary.

Fundraising

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The minister is one of the largest fundraisers for the Liberals, by tapping into companies in his ministerial portfolio. He has one of the highest fundraising quotas in the cabinet. In his own words, he believes he’s exceeding that quota. The minister to the Liberal Party is like a living, breathing ATM machine.

Does the minister believe that it is appropriate for a minister of the crown to raise large sums of money from stakeholders bidding on projects that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, where he has the power to give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down? Is that appropriate, Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m not sure whether I’ve ever had a fundraiser that required $10,000, like the Leader of the Opposition. Like everybody else in this room—like the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition—I’ve hosted fundraisers and raised funds for the party, as all of us in this room have.

But I think the anger and the angst over there comes as much from the success of what we’re doing on the job, and it’s a great, great deflection.

I think that the critic for the Conservatives is very surprised that the wind prices came in at 8.5 cents a kilowatt hour, which is unprecedented. They never would have expected that wind would come in lower than the average price of generation in the system.

I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Again to the minister: There’s a reason why ministers’ personal assets are managed by blind trusts while those of backbenchers and opposition members are not. It is because ministers hold a tremendous amount of power that backbenchers and opposition members don’t. It is to protect the public from the influence of money in politics.

Combined, the seven successful bidders in his Large Renewable Procurement, round 1, gave the Liberal Party over a quarter of a million dollars. Those companies who gave no donations were unsuccessful. As the saying goes, something smells fishy in Denmark.

How can the public have any confidence that the same favouritism won’t be the order of the day in Large Renewable Procurement, round 2?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The Independent Electricity System Operator conducts all of the procurement for the renewables—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We find out who the successful bidders are after the IESO has notified the winners and after it has been made public.

We have a fairness adviser to act as a neutral, disinterested and independent adviser for the procurement process, and who published a report on March 10, 2016, following the announcement of the contracts. This report is available on the website, and this is what the fairness adviser said: “We are satisfied that the evaluation of the proposals was conducted strictly in accordance with the process set out in the LRP/RFP. We detected no bias or favouritism towards or against any particular proponent.”

Mr. Speaker, that fairness commissioner, or the Auditor General, Denis Desautels, could have checked—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. A week ago today, the minister proudly announced she was reducing the wait-list for autism services by kicking kids off the wait-list.

More than 10,000 parents have signed an online petition, pleading with the minister to reverse her decision to take essential therapy away from kids ages five years and over. The minister is actually telling parents that her only option to deal with the wait-list is to start fresh. Really? The only way that this government can deal with the mess that it created is by forcing kids five and over to pay the price twice?

The minister should be embarrassed, Speaker. Parents and medical professionals are not buying it. Will the minister do the right thing and immediately grandfather all children who were on the wait-list at the time of her announcement? Yes or no?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank my critic for the question. I hope she takes advantage of our offer from last week to attend a briefing to get the facts—the facts of the $330-million investment in this program and the 16,000 new spaces.

I’ve heard her in the media about her suggestion to grandfather kids that are on the IBI wait-list, kids who are over five. I’m actually happy she agrees that the appropriate development window for intensive intervention, based on what the experts are telling us, is appropriate. She seems to agree with that.

But, Speaker, let’s be clear: What she is suggesting actually prevents children under the age of five from receiving the services they need and, if we follow that plan, it will take four more years before children start accessing the intervention services they absolutely need. That is not good, Speaker. We have to have children in the right developmental window, based on what the experts say.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s all about this government’s priorities, what is important to this government.

Children are our future. We’ve heard story after story from parents and families about the turmoil that they are experiencing. It’s heartbreaking and, quite frankly, it’s devastating. One parent asked the Liberals to imagine being told that your child is too old to benefit from the therapy that, just last week, would have given them the greatest hope of their life.

A sibling of a child with ASD begs, “Please do not take away my little brother’s voice for his future.” A parent of a child who started therapy after the age of six and became verbal wants to know why this government is trying to silence other children’s voices and futures. Parents wonder why this government doesn’t think that their kids are worth that investment. Parents want to know why this minister is punishing vulnerable kids with autism.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: This government does care about children with ASD. This government is investing more and creating more spaces.

Again, it’s important that the member of the third party actually gets the facts straight. We are giving $8,000 per family immediately to those children who are on the list.

Interjection.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: If you want to listen, I’ll tell you what it will do. It will take kids off—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Children who are transitioning from the IBI wait-list will receive $8,000 immediately for treatment. That means they’re getting treatment now if they’re coming off a wait-list. And—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I’ll identify the individual with a warning.

Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: When services from that $8,000 expire, they will continue to be in the enhanced behavioural therapy program. Most of those children will be at the top of the list, if they’re not there already. That service will be enhanced by three times—

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

New question.

Correctional services

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Minister, in my riding of Halton we have two large correctional facilities that play an important role in our community: Maplehurst Correctional Complex and the Vanier Centre for Women. They house close to 1,800 inmates, and that’s a considerable number of people and a huge responsibility.

I’ve met on several occasions with correctional services staff, and they often bring up the need for more officers in our institutions. We know that our correctional staff work hard every day to keep our communities safe. It is a difficult and important job, and we thank them for their tireless efforts. But we also know that to support the good work that they do every day, we need to continue hiring more correctional officers. In fact, correctional officers often explain that additional staff will help improve safety, expand programs, and build a positive correctional system.

Could the minister please explain what the government is doing to address this need?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I really do want to thank the member for Halton for her advocacy on behalf of our correctional workers in the province of Ontario.

It is absolutely clear to me and to everybody that I speak to that the correctional system must be transformed. We know that the status quo cannot continue. We also know that our correctional services staff, including our correctional officers, are the backbone of our correctional system. Government recognizes that hiring additional correctional officers must be the first step in this transformation. That is why we have already hired 710 new correctional officers since 2013.

We’re not stopping there. Last month, I had the pleasure to join the members from Halton and Burlington, along with Alex Sawicki and Gord Longhi from OPSEU, at the Ontario Correctional Services College, where we announced that we’ll be hiring an additional 2,000 new correctional officers over the next three years.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Burlington.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

I was also pleased to join you for that announcement, because to me it symbolized how our government is moving forward with the transformation of corrections in Ontario. It was also a powerful opportunity to witness public service in action, and to talk to corrections recruits about their desire to make a difference in the lives of those they hope to help on a daily basis. I know, too, that the addition of these new corrections officers will make an important difference in the safe and secure operations of institutions across our province and help to put “corrections” back in “correctional services.”

That said, Mr. Speaker, as the minister works hard to add new corrections officers to the system, there are other challenges that need to be addressed. In addition to the need for more staff, we are hearing about the need to increase mental health supports for inmates and to develop more effective rehabilitation programs across Ontario.

Minister, we already know that building bigger jails in Ontario is not the only answer to addressing these challenges, nor is it the way to build safer communities in our province.

So, Mr. Speaker, through you, will the minister please explain his plan to continue transforming corrections in Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: That’s a very good question. The member is absolutely right. We need to make sure that we transform the system, and the way we deal with the capacity issue is not by building more jails, but in fact by reducing the demand for jails. That’s where the success will lie, and that’s what is going to ensure that our communities are safe. It’s important for exactly that reason that we invest in mental health training for our correctional officers and services for inmates, so that we can provide them the appropriate care they need while they are in our care and custody.

That’s why we have added 32 new mental health nurses across Ontario and worked with CAMH to develop additional mental health training for those who work in our institutions. A comprehensive review of our segregation policies is also under way. In addition, we are building a 122-bed regional intermittent centre at EMDC, which is going to help further.

Speaker, there is a lot more to do. These transformations will not happen overnight, but we are committed at our end to get the job done.

Fundraising

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is for the Premier. Earlier this week, the Toronto Sun reported on the dozens of private corporations that have both donated to the Ontario Liberal Party and received government grants. This includes corporations like Linamar, who donated $9,300 to the Ontario Liberals and afterwards received $1.5 million from the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund. Many other corporations, like OpenText, have also made significant donations to the Ontario Liberal Party, only to receive significant government grants afterwards. Why does the Premier support and engage in this type of pay for play?

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll accept that transfer—but again, we’re getting darn close to the same kind of accusation of impugning motive. So I would ask you to be cautious and find other ways to say what you want to say. I’m trying to be as free as possible, but I need to have control of that as part of the parliamentary process here.

Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let me just say, Mr. Speaker—and I can say this without any doubt, unequivocally—that our business support programs are completely depoliticized in their decision-making process. Absolutely, completely, without one shred of doubt I can say that.

What I can say as well is, the majority of our—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re adding yourselves to my list. The member for Beaches–East York is warned, the leader of the third party is warned and the member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex is warned.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The question for Ontarians that they deserve to know is, does the Leader of the Opposition support those investments we’ve made that have brought $29 billion of private sector investment to Ontario, created or retained 160,000 jobs? We know where the critic stands. Where does his leader stand, Mr. Speaker? Or is he going to flip-flop on this issue like he does on all the others?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: Despite the fact that in less than 10 years Ontario’s debt has grown by 91%, this government continues to send taxpayers’ dollars to private, for-profit corporations. In fact, this government has implemented a rigid fundraising scheme where it appears that Ontario Liberal donors are receiving preferential treatment and inappropriate government access.

In order to clear the air, I requested a list of all corporate grants from the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure back in January, but this morning I’d like to make a wider request. Will the Premier disclose all government grant and contract recipients and immediately refund all donations for any organization that received grants, subsidies or contracts for which they lobbied the Liberal government?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Our government has invested $2.8 billion, which we’re very proud of, in support for business investments. That has attracted $29 billion in business investment and helped to retain or create 160,000 jobs.

The question I think Ontarians deserve to know—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not stopping.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned and the member from Nipissing is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not suggesting challenging the Chair. Thank you.

Carry on.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The question that Ontarians deserve to know is, is the Leader of the Opposition standing with his critic in opposition to 160,000 jobs that we’ve created, or is he standing with us? When he was in Ottawa, he supported a government that partnered with us on many of those investments. Is he going to flip on this, is he going to flop on this, or is he going to flip-flop all over the place so Ontarians have no idea where he stands—

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

New question.

Aboriginal affairs

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is for the Premier. People living on reserves in Canada are 10 times more likely to die in a house fire than in the rest of Canada. The community of Pikangikum knows this reality better than most after last week’s deadly fire that wiped out nine lives—three generations living under one roof.

Does the Premier support the community’s calls for an immediate coroner’s inquest that will look into the social, economic and cultural factors that led to this tragedy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is going to want to speak to this, but I want to just say that this was a terrible tragedy, and I agree with the community members and with the member of the third party, who suggests that there are very deep-rooted and connected challenges that a community like Pikangikum is facing.

I have been to Pikangikum. I have met with the band council and I am very aware of the advances we must make on education. Pikangikum is one of the communities that doesn’t have running water. There is clean water on the reserve but it isn’t connected to all of the homes. Those are the challenges that we need to move forward with.

We have strategies in place in terms of investment on the part of the provincial government. I’m very optimistic that now that we have a federal government that is paying attention to this issue we are actually going to make even more progress.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: The community needs to know that just because there are fewer stories being written in the media today that there won’t be any less action from the government.

Pikangikum has a fire truck but no running water to its homes, as the Premier mentioned. It has overcrowded, dilapidated homes. The conditions are there today for another deadly fire.

My question is, what is the Premier—not any other level of government, irrespective of any other level of government—going to do to prevent another needless, deadly fire in not only Pikangikum but in other remote First Nation communities throughout Treaty 9 and beyond?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will say that the challenges confronting a community like Pikangikum, but Pikangikum in particular, are multifaceted, as the member has said. That is why our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is working across government in terms of economic growth opportunities and health outcome improvement issues. We’re developing an aboriginal education strategy because we know that aboriginal indigenous kids are graduating at a much lower rate than the rest of the population.

All of those things are critical. But also critical are very tangible issues like housing, like water, making sure we get communities off boil-water orders, that we hook up the clean water in Pikangikum to communities.

This is a high priority of ours. As I said, now that we have a federal government that’s interested in this issue, we’ll be able to move forward more quickly.

Accès à la justice / Access to justice

M. Yvan Baker: Ma question est pour la procureure générale. Madame la Ministre, je sais que notre gouvernement est profondément résolu à garantir l’accès à la justice pour tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes. Le financement des programmes d’aide juridique est l’une des nombreuses façons dont nous démontrons cet engagement. L’aide juridique permet aux personnes les plus vulnérables de se prendre en charge, en leur donnant le soutien et les services juridiques dont elles ont besoin.

De la représentation dans la salle d’audience elle-même, aux services locaux dans les cliniques communautaires au sein de différents domaines tels que l’aide sociale ou le droit du logement, à des conseils sur les droits et les processus juridiques, Aide juridique Ontario assure que les Ontariens et les Ontariennes à faible revenu ont accès à des services juridiques de haute qualité.

Madame la Ministre, pourriez-vous informer l’Assemblée de la façon dont notre gouvernement améliore l’accès aux services juridiques en Ontario?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais remercier le député d’Etobicoke-Centre pour sa question, une question très importante et très appropriée.

Alors, tout comme dans le secteur de la santé et dans d’autres secteurs, je crois que l’accès aux services juridiques doit être basé sur les besoins des gens et non sur les avoirs des citoyens.

La semaine dernière, l’Ontario a augmenté encore une fois le seuil d’admissibilité de l’aide juridique de 6 %. C’était la troisième augmentation de 6 % depuis trois ans. Ensemble, ces trois augmentations permettront à 400 000 Ontariens de plus d’accéder à l’aide juridique. Lorsque cette augmentation de 6 % sera en place, un million de citoyens à faible revenu de plus se qualifieront pour l’aide juridique.

Monsieur le Président, l’amélioration des services juridiques pour les Ontariens les plus vulnérables fait

partie des efforts de notre gouvernement pour créer un système de justice plus juste et plus accessible pour les Ontariens.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d like to thank the minister for her response. I’m thrilled to hear that close to half a million Ontarians will benefit from our government’s commitment to legal aid.

Like the minister said, access to justice should be determined by need, not by income. Access to legal services improves outcomes in a number of ways for not