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

April 13, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Apr-13 (PDF)

L160 - Wed 13 Apr 2016 / Mer 13 avr 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 April 2016 Mercredi 13 avril 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Oral Questions

Correctional services

Lobbyists

Correctional services

Fundraising

Correctional services

Fundraising

Child care

Wind turbines

Hospital funding

Ontario trails

Horse racing industry

Social assistance

School safety

Infectious disease control

Visitor

Deferred Votes

Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act (Budget Measures), 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant la création d’emplois pour aujourd’hui et demain (mesures budgétaires)

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Hemophilia

Social assistance

Vaisakhi

Gasoline prices

Student assistance

East York Skating Club

Boost Child and Youth Advocacy Centre

World Lebanese Cultural Union

2016 Equity Conference

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Petitions

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Special-needs students

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Special-needs students

Autism treatment

Personal support workers

Health care funding

Child care

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Special-needs students

Health care funding

Orders of the Day

Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des élections municipales

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 12, 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. Randy Hillier: It’s my pleasure to speak to Bill 100, Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, today. Before I start off, I want to say this: Never has there been so much controversy by so few people and never has so much misinformation been used with so few facts to create a—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Actually, you’re using unparliamentary language. I’d ask the member to withdraw and then make sure that he talks about the bill.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw. I’m not quite sure what was unparliamentary, but I withdraw anyway.

It has created a mountain out of a molehill with Bill 100. I support Bill 100, but I do understand why people are suspicious, and they have cause and they are justified to be suspicious. For the last 13 years, rural Ontario has been hurt and injured with legislation that has steadily eroded property rights, steadily devalued our properties, diminished our prosperity, and it has all been done through legislation. Typically, the legislation sounds good, things like the provincial policy statement, the greenbelt, the Clean Water Act, a number of things. So I do understand why there is fear about Bill 100.

But after over a decade of intrusive legislation, the Liberal government has actually introduced a bill that is beneficial and helps rural Ontario. It promotes and improves property rights in Ontario. This is the first bill I have seen from this Liberal government that actually helps and promotes property rights. I’d like to take a few moments to tell people why. I do understand that it is as if the world had been turned upside down by this Liberal government and Bill 100. People don’t know what to make of it.

The facts for private property owners are simple. Presently, property owners are prevented in law from suing for more than $1,000 if there are damages to their property caused by trespassers. Under Bill 100, that unfair limitation of $1,000 is removed. If Bill 100 passes, there will be no arbitrary limit on how much people can seek for damages; definitely an improvement, and it adds to the protection of property rights. Presently, the fines for trespassers on private property are set at a maximum of $2,000. Under Bill 100, that maximum is raised to $10,000; certainly another benefit and another added protection for private property owners.

At the moment, when there are trail agreements, the covenants on those agreements are not legally enforceable. Bill 100 permits covenants, such as time of use, duration of the covenant, who can access the trails and what types of vehicles. A whole host of covenants can be placed, but they also now become legally enforceable by the property owner; another benefit and another protection for property rights.

One thing that many people have found to be the scariest of all with Bill 100 is voluntary easements. They can only be created by mutual consent of the property owner. There is no imposition, there is nothing arbitrary, there is no coercion and there is no liability with those easements. But it does allow choice; indeed, a very scary thing to allow choice with legislation in Ontario.

But I think something else has been missing in this discussion, and that is the benefits and the case for rural Ontario. Trail associations and businesses that benefit from trail use are extensive and expansive. Expanding the use of trails helps our rural and small-town restaurants, motor sport dealers, motels, bed and breakfasts, and stores. Every business in rural and small-town Ontario benefits from trails as people come to rural Ontario for recreation and tourism.

The corollary of that, of course, must also be true: Reducing access to trails reduces business opportunities, reduces revenues and reduces prosperity for rural Ontario.

Certainty and security of tenure and use for both the property owner and the trails association is needed to permit and encourage greater investment and expansion in trail infrastructure, such as highway overpasses, river and stream crossings, and bridges. Certainty and security of tenure and use must be there to encourage expansion.

Rural Ontario would largely be empty and unpopulated without transferable easements registered upon title, as we have throughout Ontario today. Deeded access, rights of way and utility easements: All are registered on title, and all are transferable—nothing scary. Indeed, without easements, we would all be living in the dark without electricity and without phones, and very few would have access to their cottages without transferable easements registered on title. I would suggest that there are very few people here today, very few people in Ontario and very few people watching this who don’t already have some form of transferable easements registered on their properties.

In closing, Speaker, it would really be a dystopian world where voluntary and mutually beneficial easements are viewed as dangerous, as suspicious, as harmful for property owners, and where improving rural business opportunities is seen as a negative.

I do hope the government has learned some powerful lessons with Bill 100—powerful lessons: that it is not bad—that it is indeed good—to protect property rights, to strengthen property rights. This is a good thing.

I have to commend the Minister of Tourism for being the first minister in my time who gets it, who understands that if we promote and protect property rights, we will all be better off.

But I will also say this: I hope the rest of the ministers in cabinet understand what this minister has done, and I hope the Liberal Party understands what has happened. This great outcry over Bill 100 is because of the lengthy assault on rural Ontario in the past, the continuous, never-ending and relentless erosion of property rights, and the suspicion and fear that this Liberal government has fostered and cultivated over the last 13 years. I hope this Liberal government is now on a new trail.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s quite an amazing thing to come in here in the morning and experience something that all of us will be telling our grandchildren about in the decades to come: that the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington actually stood in this House and said that something in a government bill was worth supporting and was useful, contrary to rumour. For those of you who may not be familiar with this place, this is an extraordinary moment—an extraordinary moment.

I want to say that I had an opportunity to look over the comments from our critic the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, who in fact said “Yes, this bill does some very useful things for trails, for people in Ontario who like to wander through the countryside and for property owners.”

The decisions about the trails are in the hands of the landowners. As far as I can tell, and I stand to be corrected, there’s no expropriation here, there’s no action to alienate people from their land. There’s an opportunity for landowners to be protected in a way they may not have been protected in the past. There’s an opportunity for access to trails in a way that’s more predictable than has been in the past.

Frankly, Speaker, for those of us who enjoy the extraordinary landscape that we have here in Ontario, to be able to go out and actually roam around that landscape, and for those who own the land that we happily tread upon to have protection as well—those are all good things. In an epoch-making way, that has been established by the comments of this member.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments? The member for Kingston and the Islands.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As usual, it’s a pleasure to see you in the chair.

I would like today to introduce Patrick Connor from the Ontario Trails Council. Thank you very much for being here.

I would like to just quickly pick up on some of the comments that have already been said. The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, thank you very much for your comments, and thank you to the member from Toronto–Danforth for acknowledging the extraordinary and perhaps, indeed, historic moment about something positive that we’ve done.

But I do also want to pick up on some of the other comments that the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has come forward with. I’m getting a little bit of fearmongering in some of the statements that have been made. Despite the fact that he has said that everyone benefits from trails, he also mentions, on the other hand, that this legislation is going to turn the world upside down and that it’s harmful for landowners.

This piece of legislation has been worked on by many organizations for many years, and I’m sure that the guest in the gallery would attest to that. We also have numerous other positive comments of support from organizations like the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They represent an enormous number of people across the province. They’re very supportive of the trails act. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Niagara Escarpment Commission—all supportive of the act.

So I think we should stop the fearmongering and look at what’s positive. They are willing landlords.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments? The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of my property owners. I have to commend the member from Lanark, because he brings up a good point: We’re already seeing trails in our area that have been lost this year. It’s unfortunate, because I think the bill was there to add some clarity and to put some tools in place that should enhance this. But with the lack of consultation with the different people involved, it seems to have had the opposite effect. I think it’s a lesson, and I think the government needs to get out there and do a little bit of healing of some of these groups and landowners that are going to take away a very important resource of ours.

I think it’s important, especially in the wintertime, to get out and have something to do and be out in the outdoors. We’re seeing, in area after area—and unfortunately, with a trail that goes across multiple properties, if you lose one, you lose the trail. I know that it supposedly might have been a bill, hopefully, with a good goal in sight, but we see it’s not there—and the unintended consequences.

We encourage the government to do a little more consultation and get out there. It’s a little after the fact—we would have liked to have seen this done earlier—but the end result is what’s important here. I don’t think we want to lose these important trails. It’s good for tourism, and it’s good just for the community. As the mayor of South Glengarry—we purchased a railway track that could be used for trails.

But it really takes the multiple trails being put in place. The volunteers that work at getting these trails—it’s a lot of work. They’re seeing the loss now, so it’s got to be hard on them. I think we have to go out and give them a little bit of moral support and help them out on this one. Hopefully, we can do something that gets back and actually enhances the trails, not takes away from them.

We’re looking forward to seeing some of that consultation and some work with the government with these owners.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s always a pleasure to listen to the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. I enjoy how he looks at each

section of the bill and analyzes them and gives, really, a wonderful explanation on the pros and the cons.

This time he was pro-bill, but the member from Kingston—I don’t think she realized he was actually complimenting the government on a very unique circumstance. We don’t often do that here. We are the critics; we’re the opposition, and we’re supposed to point out the problems with bills. That’s our duty. We want to make sure that they get the bills right, because there have been a lot of bills that have come through this House that aren’t quite right.

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, exactly.

They sound good, and there are some pieces that are in there, but then there’s always that hidden poison pill. It’s hard to vote against, because it’s doing some good over here, and then it isn’t helping in other areas. So it’s always a tough decision.

That’s what our role is: to let them know about those poison pills and to try to make sure they acknowledge those. Hopefully, when the bill goes to committee, they listen to the people that this bill is affecting.

She did talk about support for this bill. There have been several municipalities who have passed resolutions on this bill. But there is something that I think—I looked in the bill and maybe the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington can comment on it. The minister has authority to designate special designation to trails. I’ve heard through some discussions that landowners who have these trails on their property are not sure what that means and what that’s going to look like for them.

If the minister has power of designation, how does that translate into seasonal use or promotion under tourism and things like that? So that’s a question; if anyone has an answer, I’d love some clarity on it.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I don’t know if I can answer all the questions from the member from London–Fanshawe in two minutes, as well as thank people—the members from Toronto–Danforth, SDG and London–Fanshawe—for coming to the House this morning and listening. I talked in my comments about this Liberal government learning some lessons from Bill 100. The member from Kingston and the Islands ought to have listened and heard about lessons, because she obviously didn’t listen to my comments whatsoever and brought her talking points from the corner office instead of her listening hat this morning. Enough of that.

I do hope the member from Kingston and the Islands may correct her record afterwards, after listening.

However, for the member from London–Fanshawe: The minister does have powers to create a special designation, but there are no underlying authorities to impinge or infringe on use or title or enjoyment of one’s private property. The minister can make a pronouncement that this is a really, really special trail, and maybe put a plaque up. They would even have to ask the property owner to put a plaque up for a really special, special trail. But there are no underlying authorities in the bill for the minister to, like I say, infringe or impinge on private property.

I do hope the Liberal government is listening and that they stay on this new path, this new trail of bringing legislation that benefits rural Ontario, and that they bring their listening cap when they come to the Legislature for debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s a pleasure to rise this morning. I want to thank my colleague the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington—LFLA, as we like to refer to it—because he’s certainly done his homework on this. Although we typically expect a really critical eye and critical comments coming specifically from him, this morning we’re hearing some positive comments that I think should all call us to support and promote the bill—with, obviously, cautious reservation, as we tend to do as opposition members, as we are charged to do.

So, the bill itself: Speaker, our trail network in Ontario really is an important cultural, social and economic component of the province; something that anyone in this House who has had the opportunity to partake in and enjoy would understand not only is it a way to be further connected with the beauty of this province—the supernatural beauty, certainly, in all quadrants of the province—but also a way to connect to people. Along these trails, you’ll find little hamlets that people rely on for their economic welfare and for their livelihoods.

I can’t name them off the top of my head, but I know they exist, and I know they’re really important components to rural Ontario and remote Ontario. Sometimes they’re even lifelines, when all else fails. It’s important that we pay some attention to them and promote them, and ensure that they are safeguarded and continue to play the vital role.

As opposition members and as members in the House, we have reviewed the bill. A couple of things stand out that I think could be easily remedied. One is simply in the naming of the bill and the intent of the bill. Very clearly, the bill has six schedules, one enactment, and amendments to five acts.

It proclaims Ontario Trails Week. That corresponds with the international equivalent, which is the first Saturday of June of every year.

It requires the minister to maintain an Ontario trails strategy; that’s a good thing. It creates a regime for the creation of easements for the use of privately held land to be used as part of the Ontario trail network, and for the users of trails—for instance, snowmobile associations—to use a portion of the landowners’ property.

Now, that’s not in the description of the bill. If I might steal this from my colleague who, very helpfully—thank you. The purpose of the bill: What I’d like to do, for the benefit of the members, is to match this

schedule that creates a regime for creating easements, which is really the most mechanical portion of the bill, to the purpose.

The purposes of the bill are:

“1. To increase awareness about and encourage the use of trails.

“2. To enhance trails and the trail experience.

“3. To protect trails for today’s generation and future generations.

“4. To recognize the contribution that trails make to quality of life....”

Nothing in the introduction of the bill states the creation of this easement portion. That should be clearly articulated. That, I guess, is what we’re talking about today. The bill should have had broader consultation. In the description of the bill, that should have been clearly articulated. That’s where I think there has been a lot of confusion.

We’ve heard clarity from the member from LFLA, but even some of those in his own caucus have been confused about it. I hope that those members themselves will, at some point, take the lead from the member and dispel some of those myths, because it’s really important that people understand what this bill does.

Speaker, we have in Ontario somewhere around 30,000 kilometres of trails in the trail network. That’s enormous; that is a huge network of trails that connect communities.

One thing that I think we should be cognizant of is the competing jurisdictions that also have wonderful trail networks. My riding is in southwestern Ontario. In Windsor and Essex county, we’re able to easily connect with trail networks in Michigan. Just a little cursory research that I did, just prior to getting up here: If you buy a Michigan trail pass, it costs you somewhere around $45 a year to access their network of trails. I’m not exactly sure how many kilometres it would be, or miles, but it certainly could be comparable, given the size of the state of Michigan.

In Ontario, an annual fee for a trail pass ranges somewhere from $180 to $260 a year. That’s a little bit cost-prohibitive, especially when you’re trying to entice folks to come here. Visitors from all jurisdictions, when they look at the cost of the trail pass—it’s prohibitive to access it. We should look at somehow making it, potentially, a little bit more affordable for those to come in. We could probably increase the numbers of people who take advantage of these trails, and, again, get a lot more recognition and promotion of the trails.

I’ve even heard some criticism from folks from Ontario who say, “Listen, they just keep jacking up the price on the trail passes, and we can’t afford to go,” given the cost of gas and the cost of buying machines—snowmobiles, ATVs and UTVs—these days. You’re looking at tens of thousands of dollars if you’re going to get a decent machine—something that, at some point in my life, Speaker, I’d love to be able to take advantage of, although I don’t have the time to enjoy it.

I know there are those in Ontario who really make it a family event, something that they all partake in and something that they invest in. Again, if we look at the contribution to the economy that our ATV, snowmobile and UTV associations and users make every year, it’s quite large. It’s something that deserves our attention, something that deserves our promotion.

I’m happy to see that this bill adds some clarity to the use of the trails for landowners and those who use them. Again, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington did a really good job in dispelling some of those myths.

One of the things that we would like to see—and I think members get the sense that this will receive all-party support; at least, it certainly will from our party—although the bill creates legal clarity in the relationship between landowners and trail users, there’s poor communication and confusion that has prevailed around the relationship between owners and trail users.

We’ve seen this time and time again. I was walking out of here the other day, contemplating the job that we do and wondering when we can ever get to a point where the government can get a bill right the first time. It’s so rare in this place that we see that they get it right. We’ve seen bills come back just months after they were introduced and passed by the majority government, where they’ve missed a couple of words and it’s totally transformed the intent and the mechanisms of the bill.

This is getting pretty close, although we think with a little bit more consultation, they could have actually gotten it right, right off the bat—something that doesn’t waste any of our time, something that doesn’t waste the time of proponents or opponents of the bill because there’s been broad consultation, and all of that has been worked out prior to it hitting the floor here in the Legislature.

We don’t think that that is quite where this bill is. We know that it’s going to need some minor tweaking, but after that, we’ve proposed—and our critic for agriculture from Timiskaming–Cochrane has asked—that the government be strategic about where they potentially travel the bill to talk to those stakeholders. We know that there has been a long history of rural Ontario being shut out of consultation when it comes to provincial decisions and land utilization. This is a way that they can make amends and show that there is some good faith and some partnership with rural Ontario.

That’s something, again, that my colleague from LFLA was very clear about. He hopes that this ushers in a new era of consultation between the province and rural Ontario, something that’s desperately needed because it avoids the confusion and the backlash that has the potential of derailing important bills like this.

I’m happy to stand in support of the bill today. I’d like to see it go through with some minor clarifications, a little bit of tweaking; but ultimately, we’re quite happy that this is seeing its way through.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I’m glad to respond to the member from Essex. I think he raised some valid points.

I just want to say that the legislation before us really is critically important in establishing protection for our trail system going forward for the next 20 or 30 years. We sometimes forget; we invest billions of dollars in road infrastructure and public transit infrastructure, but we don’t appreciate the need to make investments in our trail infrastructure.

You think, in going forward, when our young pages reach your age, Madam Speaker, what will they have to treasure? The most vulnerable part of that legacy is probably our natural environment, our ecosystem; and our trails are an integral spine through our ecosystem that we have to protect.

That is what this bill does. It tries to ensure that these trails—80,000 kilometres of trails—are there for our pages’ children and their children, because it is an investment in the future health and the economy of this province.

We sometimes think that the trail investment is like a weekend-type investment. We need to build on this bill to continue to have everybody in Ontario appreciate our trails. I would ask all the pages, all the members—and some of them already do—to walk your local trail. Volunteer at your local trail. You all have one. It’s good for your health, it’s good for the local economy and it’s good for your future. Adopt the local trail. Go and volunteer this weekend. I challenge the pages: Find out where your local trail is.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, thank you very much, Speaker. That’s the first time in this chamber that you in that chair have called on the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke to speak, and I’m really honoured to be here when you—how could I not be here, right?

I’m going to get to speak to this bill, hopefully in the near future. I always thank the members for their contributions to this debate, but I particularly also want to recognize my friend from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington for trying to clarify something that is very important in this bill. This is where the government, I believe—and I’ll articulate this in a more wholesome way when I get to speak myself.

I think the government, because it didn’t consult prior to the adoption and the tabling of this bill has, by its own neglect, created much of the firestorm surrounding this bill with respect to private landowners, particularly, obviously, in rural Ontario as it affects me, and more specifically for those rural landowners who have a snowmobile trail traversing their property. It has certainly caused a great deal of consternation in my county of Renfrew and in the portion of the district of Nipissing that I represent as well.

I’ll have that opportunity when I’m speaking. I have also written a column of my own for the local press so that the members of my constituency have a little background on how we feel about this, but I will have a chance to more completely articulate that at a later time.

With the few seconds I have left, I just want to make sure that—and to what my colleague said—these people across the hall have to remember that you measure twice, cut once, get the bill right and make sure the necessary components are there to alleviate some of these problems in the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to have a few moments to be able to comment on behalf of Hamilton Mountain and to my seatmate, the member from Essex.

Within our province, we’re so greatly blessed. It has been said that we have over 80,000 kilometres of trails throughout the province. That’s different types of trails. I know that the member from Essex was talking about 30,000 kilometres of trails, and that’s motorized trails that could take snowmobiles and different motorized vehicles.

Our member from Timiskaming–Cochrane has pointed out very clearly the concerns with landowners and the easements that are not, to my understanding, part of this bill but have become part of a problem with the government not really doing the full consultation and not spelling things out correctly in the bill.

The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane said very clearly that the property owners have nothing to gain and everything to lose when it comes to the easements. It’s something that I think we need to make sure we get right and make sure that we have these conversations while we have this debate period. Hopefully, the government will allow some of the amendments that will be brought forward, I’m sure, from New Democrats as well as the Conservatives, to make sure that we get it right and that we reward our trails and that we reward the landowners who so generously give up their land and protect that so that people across this province can enjoy it.

Thank you very much for the time. It’s always a pleasure to follow up and to comment for my seatmate, the member from Essex.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Etobicoke Centre.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I may have related this story before: I grew up in central Etobicoke, in my riding of Etobicoke Centre, and lived in a number of places as a kid, but at one point I lived close to the Humber River and a beautiful green space in our community called James Gardens. Our family used the trails along the Humber River quite often and quite extensively. In fact, I have a picture that hangs in my mum’s home of me as a kid—I’ve got to be about 10 or 11 years old, posing with my sister in this photo—and we’re along the Humber River with the trails in the background.

As a family, we used to make use of those trails quite often. I don’t make as good use of them as I probably should any longer so this is a good reminder for me to do more of that.

All this is to say, I really value our trails across the province, but, speaking as someone who represents a suburban community, the trails play an important role not just outside of our city but within our municipalities. Our family is a prime example of a family that valued that.

Of course, I think this bill not only allows us to promote trails, and in so doing, engage and involve more people—people like me who should be making more use of those trails—not just because it’s a wonderful natural resource and it’s a wonderful resource for families, as I described, but also because it supports health and wellness in our communities.

When I think about aspects of this particular bill that I think are positive, I think the classification system is an excellent way of making people aware of which trails are fit for them and which are not; it makes it more inviting—recognizing trails of distinction. I think protecting private property rights is also very, very important, so I appreciate that those measures are in the bill.

There’s a lot of comment from the opposite side about lack of consultation. There was consultation on this bill. I don’t have time to get into that; I’m sure there will be another opportunity.

All that said, I think this is a wonderful bill and I’m glad to have a chance to support it.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My colleague corrected me; I did state that there are 30,000 kilometres of trails. There are 80,000 total kilometres of trails; 30,000, I believe, that are accessible by motorized vehicles: ATVs, snowmobiles, UTVs.

In Windsor and Essex county, we don’t have access to those types of trails. We just rip up and down the lake when it freezes over. It would be nice, actually; I’m sure folks would take advantage of it if there were, but I guess just our topography and geography aren’t conducive to a network of trails. That’s why so many people from southwestern Ontario head up north to chase the snow in the winter, to be able to make use of them. Again, they’re a really important economic driver for northern Ontario.

Thanks to all members who spoke to the bill. I do want to pitch a question out there. I don’t know if members of the government are going to pass up the next rotation or not, but maybe members of the opposition can clarify: One of the questions that we have is that—easements can “be assigned by an eligible body to another eligible body.” Again, our critic the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane has asked that this clause be clarified for the benefit of property owners and stakeholders. Who is an “eligible body?” Who is “another eligible body?” That should be clearly identified.

It should be, I guess, broad enough to make sure that it’s not prohibitive to folks who currently use and plan to use the network of trails and make sure that the process is technically clear and easy to take advantage of.

That being said, again, I’m happy to stand in support of Ontario trails, the network, and those who maintain them and promote them. They’re a vital component to our economic prosperity and something that we should all be proud of.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 100,

An Act to enact the Ontario Trails Act, 2016 and to amend various acts. This bill is very important for my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka; trails are very important for Parry Sound–Muskoka, which is, I would say, the preeminent tourism area in the province of Ontario. Of course, Muskoka, a couple of years ago, was rated the number one jurisdiction in the world for—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): There’s a lot of chatter in the chamber. I’m going to ask the members from the government side that if you need to have a conversation with your colleagues please take it outside or do the indoor voice. Thank you.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you. As I was saying, Muskoka was rated as the number one tourism destination in the world by National Geographic magazine a few years ago, and Parry Sound has the Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve and the beautiful east coast of Georgian Bay. It really is quite spectacular, and I encourage all members to visit the area. But for me, personally, trails are important. I remember, in my nomination meeting speech, talking about the importance of trails.

Of course, in Parry Sound–Muskoka we have snowmobile trails—and I’m going to come back to that in a minute—which are really important, but we have hiking trails, we have ATV trails. We have trails like the Seguin trail, which was the old J.R. Booth Railway line. We have some great cross-country ski trails.

This winter, I was able to go cross-country skiing at Georgian Nordic trails, just northeast of Parry Sound. I’ve skied many times at the Bracebridge resource centre. I’ve skied at Arrowhead Provincial Park, which also has the famous skating trail that is over a couple of kilometres long.

This bill has caused problems in my riding.

It was an awful year for snowmobiling this year with the winter conditions we had. I have a couple of snowmobiles and had a couple of permits for the province of Ontario which I didn’t actually get to use this year, mainly because of the conditions. When I had time, the conditions weren’t right.

We’ve had negative reactions to misconceptions about this bill, and I want to get some of them on the record in the limited time I have.

I have the township of Perry, just north of the town of Huntsville, writing to the Premier with regard to Bill 100, saying:

“Whereas the provincial government has had the first reading of Bill 100, Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act; and

“Whereas with the possibility of Bill 100 proceeding further, private property owners are in the process of revoking land use permits with our local snowmobile clubs and other OFSC snowmobile clubs throughout the province, thereby causing safety and economic concerns for our area; and

“Whereas the harmony between snowmobile clubs and private property owners is being undermined by the act;

“Now therefore

be it resolved that the township of Perry petition the provincial government to take the necessary steps to immediately resolve the issue of snowmobile trails being closed due to the fact that private property owners feel their property rights may be taken away by the passage of Bill 100....”

I have also received a letter from the Snowcrest Riders, an independent snowmobile club in the Gravenhurst area. They wrote me a good letter with their concerns. I want to get the complete letter on the record. It’s from Mr. Bob Clarke, who is the president:

“Hello Mr. Miller.

“I have had the pleasure of meeting you a few times. I have been the president of Snowcrest Riders Snowmobile Club for the past nine seasons. We have been very successful and you spoke of our organization in the House on November 4, 2013. We are the last Canadian snowmobile club to receive the International Snowmobile Club of the Year award and be inducted into the International Snowmobile Hall of Fame in 2013.

“I felt it very important that I inform you that Snowcrest Riders Snowmobile Club in Gravenhurst will have trail closures as of April 1, 2016. One trail closure affects our Top D trail south that features the bridge that crosses all four lanes of Highway 11, and our Beaver Creek bridge that was opened in February 2010. Combined, these bridges cost $1.4 million, and were largely funded by provincial and federal dollars.

“As you are already aware, there have been a number of snowmobile trails in Muskoka that have been closed due to concerns landowners have with the proposed Bill 100, Ontario Trails Act. I anticipate there will be more closures to come. I have been on a small committee with our OFSC district 7, that has had some dialogue with you.

“A number of the local businesses that rely on snowmobile tourism dollars are suffering. We also have the Trans Canada Trail system for hiking and biking that I fear will be affected as well.

“I have had discussions with some of our landowners, and I want to share some of the dialogue with you. See below.

“I spoke to a Snowcrest landowner yesterday. Landowners have informed Snowcrest Riders by letter that they will be removing permission for use of their property as of April 1, 2016 due to concerns with Bill 100.

“Their concern is that even though the minister states that easements will be voluntary and that no government is going to impose an easement on their property without their consent, the bill is not clear on this. Their concern is that because the Bill 100 does not have this wording, it is open to

interpretation. Therefore, they believe that our current minister may interpret the Bill 100 to state easements are voluntary, but the next minister may have a different

interpretation, because the wording is not clear. Therefore, these landowners do not care about what we say, or what the minister’s statement said, they want this minister’s wording in Bill 100, so it is clear for all.

“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.”

That is, “‘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.’

“Add the above statement from the minister to

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

He goes on to say, “My personal note is, why does Bill 100 need to mention easements, period?

“There is already a process available in every municipality regarding establishing easements on private property.

“I understand the minister has offered to make available staff or himself, to speak to concerned groups if requested. I will wait for your reply, to determine if I will be making that request.”

I think that states very clearly how the bill is having the effect of closure of some snowmobile trails, and some really important ones. There has been a lot of money spent on the bridge crossing the four-lane Highway 11, which was an amazing accomplishment for the Snowcrest Riders, to get that built.

As the member from Lennox-Frontenac—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Norm Miller: —Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington stated—he’s got the longest riding association name in the Legislature, I think—there are some benefits to this bill, which have been largely overshadowed by the concerns with the easement section. There’s the doing away with the limit of $1,000 for suing for damage, for trespassing on private property, so that’s an increased protection for property owners. There’s a change in the limit on fines for trespassers on private property. It goes from $2,000 to $10,000. That’s more protection for private property owners.

There’s a reduction in liability, and clarification of liability, for landowners. That’s also a positive that is in this bill.

I just want to get on the record that trails are really important for the economy of Parry Sound–Muskoka and for rural Ontario. I hope the government will do what the snowmobile club has asked for and put the statement the minister has made into the bill. That’s a fairly simple ask, and I think it will make lot of landowners feel more comfortable with this bill.

That will make me a lot happier too, because I want to see the trails open, not just for personal use but for the benefit of the economy of rural Ontario, for the benefit of Parry Sound–Muskoka and for all those volunteers who are involved in the various clubs, and in particular, the snowmobile clubs, which are huge in Parry Sound–Muskoka. I would like to see this work out.

I’ll just get on the record in my last minute that the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs has a similar ask. They say, “Minister, to be clear”—I’m just taking one little

section out—“the OFSC supports the elements within Bill 100 which will provide landowners and non-profit recreational trail organizations with enhanced protection and rights.

“We do, however, believe that Bill 100 would be much more palatable to our important landowner partners should

section 12 be amended to provide greater clarity to the areas that are causing concern. As a consequence, we would be very supportive of any process for consultation and action that would accomplish this.”

Madam Speaker, I say to the government: Make sure, when you do your consulting—and the committee that receives this bill after second reading—that you visit rural Ontario and listen to the landowners and listen to those people who are so important to keeping our trails open in the province of Ontario.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

I’m not entirely familiar with the statement of the minister that he referred to, but I actually have to agree with him. If the minister has said there is an approach that will be of consequence, and that people should rely on the statement of a minister for ongoing administration of

an act or overseeing of

an act—the member has correctly said if you think that the statement is of consequence, is going to make a difference to landowners and to the act itself, then consideration should be given to putting it into the bill.

Ministers come and go; governments come and go. If in fact there’s a stability, an assurance about the future that landowners need to be part of this process, then what the member is asking for is entirely reasonable, something that should be discussed as this bill goes into committee.

The other day, my colleague from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek talked about the vulnerability, the fragility, of the trail system, that to a great extent it depends on the confidence that landowners have in the system to run well and to not impose undue burdens on them. It is not that hard to end a trail system.

I’ve been on the Bruce Trail—a gorgeous place—and I know there were times that I was going through farmers’ fields. People, happily, have been pretty respectful. I didn’t see litter; I didn’t see any damage. Frankly, if the farmers hadn’t allowed people to be on their land, the utility of that trail would have been dramatically reduced.

So putting in measures that will actually ensure comfort and confidence on the part of the landowners makes tons of sense for the landowners and for those who have the great and wonderful opportunity—the privilege—to wander through that countryside.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member for Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It gives me great pleasure to be able to comment on the remarks by the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka. I like to refer to him as “the member from my mother’s cottage,” up near Dorset, Ontario.

Dorset is a centrepiece of great trails up in Parry Sound–Muskoka. There is a

section of the narrows between lower Trading Bay and upper Trading Bay that rarely freezes over in the winter. Particularly in the spring, as they’re sitting at the narrows Restaurant and having a beer, the snowmobilers come by and they skip across the open water from the frozen

section of upper Trading into lower Trading. The local volunteer firefighter is also a salvage scuba diver, where every year he makes a few extra shekels by recovering some of the snowmobiles that have gone down in that section.

It’s great fun and it is an important tourism piece in the neighbourhood that I’m all too familiar with.

I appreciate the member’s advocacy in this area, particularly around the issue around easements and how the easements will be arrived at. It’s so very important, as the member from Lanark was talking about, that this will create an opportunity for voluntary discussions between the parties to sort out easements and protect the opportunities for the trails all the way across the north and rural Ontario.

Of course, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I know what an important aspect in this bill and how it’s been received—the consultation that we’ve had with various stakeholders across the province. I support very much the idea that we need to hear more from the affected communities. We’ll talk with our House leaders to see if there is an opportunity so that we can see a bit of rural Ontario have more direct input by those who are most directly affected by this bill, as we go through the committee stage.

I appreciate the member’s remarks, and I listened very carefully.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. If I may, I would like to congratulate you on your new role as Deputy Speaker. I think you’ll do an excellent job. It’s great to see you in the chair.

My colleague from Parry Sound–Muskoka raised a number of very important number issues regarding Bill 100. I’m really pleased that we’re talking about all of the great trails that are in our ridings. I wouldn’t want to compete against Parry Sound–Muskoka, although I must say that in Dufferin–Caledon we have some beautiful trails in our own right: two major sections of the Bruce Trail, of course, the Trans Canada Trail, as well as a personal favourite, the Island Lake trail.

Section 12: There is a reason why people are concerned about

section 12 in Bill 100. And as the member very reasonably articulated, there is a solution. We’re already hearing rumours about cabinet shuffles and people being moved around. So while we have a statement from the current minister, it would be very helpful to actually put it in legislation. We all know that ministers move beyond their current portfolio. We leave this place; we move on. This legislation still remains on the books.

So the clearer that we can make it, and the less opportunity for any confusion on the part of the landowners as well as the trail users and the organizations—it’s incumbent on us to do that. I think this is the opportunity to do that, when we move it into committee. Let’s make sure that the minister, who has already tried to clarify publicly how he want its changed—let’s put it in the legislation and make sure that future generations and future users aren’t trying to interpret what we were doing when we passed Bill 100.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s a pleasure to stand here to contribute to the debate after the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka talked about this bill.

I think we’re all in agreement that this bill is a positive step in the direction to bring together trail users, trail owners and maybe trailblazers. Doing that is a very productive thing, because there are people who are naturalists, there are people who want to have some physical activity; and to travel Ontario through trails in a natural setting is certainly a wonderful experience that people look forward to.

Increasing awareness and encouraging the use of trails are what this bill is about. It’s to enhance trails and the trail experience, which we all agree should be done. Then it also wants to protect trails from today’s generation for future generations. I think that’s really important as well—maintenance and the overall protection of the use of the trails.

As they get used more often, we want to make sure those trails are sustained and they still maintain their inherent natural traits, so that they’re not overused and abused, so to speak. But it is a very good thing that it’s opened up the discussion about easements and the voluntary piece of that, so that landowners can have the ability to make that decision based on conversations with the minister and people who use the trails.

It’s a productive way to put a bill forward. I do appreciate that. I also agree that if the minister is going to make a statement and commit to something, it would give peace of mind to put that item in this bill so that it doesn’t go challenged in the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I think the wrap-up is needed. The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you to the members from Beaches–East York, Dufferin-Caledon, Toronto–Danforth and London–Fanshawe for their comments.

I’d like to use this opportunity to thank our private landowners because without those private landowners, we just wouldn’t have a trails network in the province of Ontario. They don’t benefit from allowing a trail on the property; they do it out of the goodness of their heart. I’m sure in many cases they see the benefit of having trails in general, but they personally don’t benefit.

The landowners are asking for something fairly simple, I think, and that is this statement: “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.” I think that’s a fairly simple ask. I would really like to see the government put that into the bill, as the landowners are asking for that.

It’s obvious that there was a fair amount of consultation done before the bill was introduced, but perhaps representation of some of the landowners was somehow missed. I would suggest, when the bill goes and has its committee work done, that the committee travel to parts of rural and northern Ontario to make it easy for landowners to add their comments to what they would like to see changed, if any parts of the bill—that they’re given that opportunity, and they don’t have to travel to Toronto to do that. That is my ask of the government.

Trails are very important in my riding and they’re important for the province. I’d hate to see trail closures that don’t need to happen. That will be bad for the province.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to join the debate on Bill 100 here this morning.

I have heard a lot about Bill 100 in my riding. As you know, I represent a beautiful riding in eastern Ontario, Prince Edward–Hastings, which stretches from the limestone shores of Lake Ontario in Prince Edward county all the way up through Belleville, through beautiful Centre Hastings and the Tweed, Madoc and Marmora area.

We’ve got some beautiful lakes there. Stoco Lake: There are some great trails around Stoco Lake, in the GTA—the other GTA, the greater Tweed area, we call that. And then stretching up north into North Hastings as well, there are some magnificent trail systems stretching all the way through there.

The entire system is actually managed by the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance. I know they have received some funding in the past from upper levels of government, and they’re doing a great job of making sure those trails are some of the best trails not just in Ontario but in the world. They are very, very important for businesses in my region, for tourism in my region, and for sportsmen in Prince Edward–Hastings as well. People come from far and wide.

I heard the member from Essex talking earlier this morning about the fact that he can just go across the top of the lake, because he doesn’t have a trail system there, but he’s more than welcome any time. I know he’s been to my region before for some walleye fishing, but the trail system in eastern Ontario is unbelievable as well. There are actually 700 kilometres of trail in the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance, as I say, stretching from that limestone bed all the way into the granite in the north of North Hastings and Bancroft, the mineral capital of the world.

I was very pleased to have the Bancroft chamber of commerce here earlier this week on Prince Edward–Hastings day to talk about the Rockhound Gemboree, which is world-famous. If you have a four-wheeler, you should stop up in the summer, take the trail to Bancroft and check out the mineral museum that’s there. It’s first-class and you can see some of the great minerals that have been mined over the centuries up in North Hastings.

The thing is that this bill, Bill 100, has created a little bit of confusion out there—a lot of confusion, in some cases. I think what needs to happen is that there needs to be a public relations strategy on behalf of the government to ensure that all landowners understand exactly what is being proposed in Bill 100, because the confusion does exist.

I agree with the premise of Bill 100, that there should be a little bit more surety on behalf of landowners, and the trails organizations as well, when it comes to the easement issue. There are those in certain segments of the community that believe that the easement is going to be forced on them as a result of Bill 100. That’s not the case. They’re not going to be forced to agree to anything that they don’t want to agree to.

As was mentioned earlier by the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, if we didn’t have the agreements with the landowners, we wouldn’t have the trail system that we have in eastern Ontario right now. But, again, I just want to stress: No one is going to have their arms tied behind their back and be forced to sign an easement to have a trail running through their property. For decades, these landowners have agreed. What this bill intends to do, as far as I can tell, is add some confidence to the groups that are running the trails or maintaining the trails and add some confidence for the landowner as well in agreeing to an easement over a set period of time.

One of the stories that I was told by one of the organizations that operates the trails is this: There was a beautiful piece of property that a trail was running through, and on that piece of property there was a stream or a small waterway that went through the person’s property. The snowmobile organization wanted to build a bridge over that stream so that the four-wheelers or the snowmobiles in the wintertime could pass over that. There’s quite a cost involved with that, Madam Speaker. It’s not just a couple of hundred bucks; it’s several thousand dollars to build a bridge up to code over a stream like that.

What happened was, the club had an agreement with the landowner to build the bridge over the stream. I believe it was a couple of hundred thousand dollars to build this bridge. After the bridge was built, the landowner said, “No, we’re not going to let you use that property anymore.” So as you can see, the organization has put out the capital—a lot of money—-and the next thing you know, we’re not allowed to use this

section of the trail any longer. We want to protect the clubs from this type of thing happening.

On the other hand, we want to protect the property owners as well, and future property owners. If you own a glorious piece of land up on Stoco Lake, Madam Speaker, and you have a handshake agreement with a trails club to use that piece of property, and then you decide you’re going to leave Stoco Lake to move back to the city—I don’t know anyone who has ever done that; it usually works the other way around.

But if you were going to sell your property, that actual easement would be registered with the land registry office so that when that potential new landowner comes in to purchase that property, they’ll see that there’s an easement on that property for five years, if that’s what the agreement was, or 10 years.

If you bought that property and then you found out there’s a trail system running through your property and you have an easement on your land registry, you won’t be surprised. You’ll know when your lawyers, who are doing the real estate deal, look up all of the details on that piece of property at the land registry office. They’ll know that there is an easement there and no one will be surprised by that.

Unfortunately, I think what happened in this case is that—the government did it with the best of intentions, again. They brought forward Bill 100 with the best of intentions, but maybe didn’t communicate early enough in the process with those who were integral to making sure that this worked. That allowed a couple of groups to spread some information out there that wasn’t entirely correct and has a lot of people worried and contacting my office. I haven’t had droves of people, but I certainly have had a few concerned landowners who have written and called my office with really strong concerns about their land being taken away from them. That’s not the case when it comes to this bill.

I’d like to thank my colleague the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. He’s my neighbour. We share trails in that Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance. Of course, he’ll promote Silent Lake or some of the other great lakes that are in his area—mine are better—but the trail is beautiful and it stretches all the way through. He’s done a lot of work on this bill and he’s also done a lot of work in trying to correct some of the issues that are being miscommunicated to the public in regard to this bill.

I really think, in a lot of cases, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has done a better job than the government has in straightening out some of the miscommunication that exists in the community.

I give him full marks for his efforts in making sure that this bill, which is well-intentioned, ensures that we continue to have the best trail system in Ontario, in North America and even in the world—something that is a little bit more concrete and something we know is going to exist—and that those agreements are going to be in place. It gives some surety to the whole process so that our sportsmen can enjoy those trails. They’re great for walking, for horseback riding and, of course, for the use of all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles.

People in my neck of the woods, that’s what they do. They buy a four-wheeler, they buy a utility vehicle, they buy a snowmobile and they look forward to the fact that when the snow comes, they’re going to get out their Arctic Cat or their Ski-Doo and they’re going to have a great time on the trails in our region. It’s big business. There are people who come from all over to use the trails in eastern Ontario.

I commend the government for bringing forward Bill 100 to make sure that the agreements that we have with our landowners are there for years and years to come; that those who are promoting Prince Edward–Hastings, North Hastings and Centre Hastings as a great place to come and spend their tourism dollars—that those are there for years to come; and that we can continue to support our local businesses in our region.

We have many, many bed and breakfasts, hotels and restaurants that depend on people coming in on their snowmobiles and their ATVs, or just enjoying the great outdoors in one of the most beautiful places in Ontario to spend a long weekend. That, of course, is Prince Edward–Hastings, Ontario.

Thank you for the time this morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise and welcome the representatives from the eye physicians and surgeons, who are here for their annual lobby day. In the gallery today are Dr. Kylen McReelis, Dr. Andrew Budning, Dr. Tim Hillson and executive director Amanda Meek. I hope that the members will take the time to come and speak with them this evening in the dining room. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Today our page captain is Sabrina Arcuri, from the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham. In the east members’ gallery, we are joined by her grandmother, who is Reza Moridi’s lovely wife, Pari Moridi; the mother of Sabrina, Marjan Arcuri, and her sister Sara Arcuri.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Today, I think, is a very special day in the House. We all collectively, as members, hosted and welcomed the first-ever OPSEU corrections lobby day. We had a very good breakfast with many correctional workers.

I want to introduce Smokey Thomas, president of OPSEU; Monte Vieselmeyer, who is the chair of the management employee relations committee; Greg Arnold, who is a MERC member; Alex Sawicki, who is also a MERC member; Sean Dunn, who is a member of the provincial health and safety committee; Mike Lundy, who is the vice-chair of the provincial health and safety committee and local president for Thunder Bay jail; Shawn Bradshaw, local president for Thunder Bay Correctional Centre; Denis Collin, who is the local union president for the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre; Scott McIntyre, who is a Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services probation and parole officer, and the probation and parole health and safety worker rep; and Danielle Du Sablon, who is also a probation and parole officer, and secretary of OPSEU Local 221.

Speaker, most importantly, I want to welcome all the brave and hard-working correctional officers and probation and parole officers who are with us here in this House. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome Joel Bissonnette, from Sarnia–Lambton, who is the corrections officer in charge of the union in Sarnia.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is also my pleasure and privilege to welcome the correctional officers and probation and parole officers from across Ontario. I have a long list; I’ll get to it.

Welcome to Todd Snider, Joel Bissonnette, Randy Simpraga, Wendy Krusto, Danielle Du Sablon, Lorraine Skitch, Rebecca Currie, Ryan Graham, Chad Oldfield, John Mengia, Denise Sidsworth, Mike Kirlew, Glenna Caldwell, Gord Longhi, Autumn Butsch, Chris Butsch, Sean Dunn, Chris Jackel, Alex Sawicki, Richard Dionne, Todd Hockey, Denis Collin, Jonny Coffey, Vanessa Thompson, Shawn Bradshaw, Monte Vieselmeyer, Kathy Hoffman, Dianna Fedun, Joy Wallace, Rob Nimer, Jim Steenson, Jason Mushynski, Patricia Giroux, Scott McIntyre, Chantal Breton, Ken Steinbrunner, Joey Guillemette, Ian Turpin, Barb Friday, Raff Tassone, Kyla Moen, James Nowe, Mike Lundy and Greg Arnold. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: From my riding of Barrie, I would like to welcome Dr. Jonathan Douglas, president of the Ontario Psychological Association.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to again introduce Andree Martin from CUPE, with the paramedics, and Todd Snider, with OPSEU corrections division.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to introduce, in the west gallery, Craig Foye, staff lawyer for the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic; and Laura Cattari, writer and community advocate. She also sits on the round table for poverty reduction in Hamilton.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I also want to welcome the corrections workers and probation and parole officers, and adult and youth workers who are here. Some of those from Thunder Bay that have not yet been welcomed are Raff Tassone, Rob Gordon and Barb Friday. Welcome to all of you.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I would also like to welcome the CUPE paramedics I met with this morning: Randy Barnes, Adam Payne, along with Andree Martin. Welcome, wherever you may be.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I also want to welcome CUPE paramedics to the House today. Thank you for coming out.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us in the east gallery today are C.J. Jeyanathan and Conner Robertson. C.J. is the president of the Don Valley East youth riding association. Welcome, C.J.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today CUPE paramedic Chris Day, who I’ll be meeting with later this afternoon, along with three of his colleagues joining us today at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to introduce two paramedics who are here as part of paramedic day and thank them for their life-saving work: Jim Simpson and Michael Kruse.

I’d also like to introduce two visitors who are here to spend a day with their favourite MPP: Debbie Levere and Sylvia Giordino.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to welcome to the gallery today Antoin Diamond, from the Bruce Trail; Patrick Connor, from the Ontario Trails Council; Sylvain Roy, from the Ontario Psychological Association; and Gareth Jones, from the correctional officers’ OPSEU union.

Mr. Michael Harris: Today’s page captain is MacFarlane Benham from Kitchener–Conestoga. Here to watch him hard at work are his mom, Jenny MacFarlane Benham, and his father, Jeff Benham. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome correction officers Randy Simpraga, from my riding of Essex; Kyla Moen, from Kenora; and James Nowe, from Kenora.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to welcome John Mengia, who is the president of Local 252 Niagara Detention Centre, OPSEU.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome the correctional officers and paramedics from Elgin–Middlesex–London. I’d also like to welcome Dr. McReelis, Dr. Hillson, Dr. Nijhawan and Amanda Meek, from the Eye Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I see in the gallery, from my area, Jeff van Pelt and Tiffany Balducci, here from CUPE Ontario on behalf of the paramedics. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Please join me in welcoming my wife, Pari Moridi; my granddaughter Sara Arcuri; and my daughter, Marjan Arcuri.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d like to welcome paramedic Mr. Laurie Le Maitre to Queen’s Park today. I’ll be meeting with him to discuss paramedic issues right after question period.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park today Dr. Sylvain Roy and Ms. Jan Kasperski—a constituent of mine—from the Ontario Psychological Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome all paramedics here from Durham region, and paramedics from York region, since that’s where my daughter works as a paramedic. Welcome.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome my good friend Fred Hahn today, the president of CUPE Ontario—welcome to Queen’s Park—and, along with him, all the paramedics who are in the House for their lobby day. Welcome and thank you for your service to our communities.

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

With us today in the Speaker’s gallery is the new consul general of India to Toronto, Mr. Dinesh Bhatia. Please welcome our new consul general.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, on a point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Just to correct my record, this morning during debate on Bill 100, there were comments made that were not intended for, or directed at, anybody in this House but for people outside this House. I just want to correct my record.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. That’s a clarification.

I would also remind members—I can’t read minds. So if I hear unparliamentary language, I’m making the assumption that two things can happen. One is that you can try to say something indirectly that you cannot say directly. You cannot say anything in terms of quotes or whatever.

The clarification is accepted, as long as it was not a quote with an intent to make any kind of unparliamentary language. So thank you for that clarification.

Oral Questions

Correctional services

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Today, we are joined by correctional officers and staff from around the province. They are here to tell you about the growing crisis in corrections, a crisis that this government continues to ignore. The poor quality of Ontario’s jails and their persistent lockdowns are putting correctional officers’ lives at risk. We’ve already had an officer taken hostage at the Thunder Bay jail, and the government’s response was minimal.

How many more correctional officers have to be injured; how many more correctional officers have to be taken hostage before we see serious action from this government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to welcome the officers to the Legislature today. I know that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is going to want to say more, Mr. Speaker.

We’re committed to transformation in corrections in Ontario. It is what we believe in. It’s why we’re hiring more officers. Since 2013, we’ve hired 710 new correctional officers. We’ll be hiring 2,000 more correctional officers over the next three years.

We understand there is a need for more personnel. We also understand that there is a need for support for training. We’ve trained an additional 138 new correctional officers. Those trainings are under way. But beyond that, we recognize that there is a need for an overall look at how we approach corrections in this province, and that is under way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier. I remind the Premier of my visit to the Thunder Bay correctional facility. I could not believe that working conditions could exist in Ontario like I saw at the Thunder Bay jail. The mayor of Thunder Bay called it a “rathole.” The infrastructure in our correctional facilities in many parts of the province is completely inadequate.

I’m sure the Premier would never work in these conditions that I saw, so I repeat, for the third time, my challenge and question to the Premier. As I’ve done before, I’m asking, will the Premier visit the jail in Thunder Bay, the correctional facility in Thunder Bay, to truly appreciate the conditions? And if Thunder Bay is too far, will the Premier visit any correctional facility? It’s not good enough to say you went four or five years ago for ribbon-cutting. Will you see the conditions today? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reason the transformation is under way, the reason officers are being hired, the reason that in the minister’s mandate letter there is a focus on transformation in corrections is that I have already visited. I understand there is a real need for change in corrections.

I also recognize that in this country provincial jurisdictions are working under challenging circumstances, given decisions that were made at the federal level. We need to focus on how we prepare people who are in our correctional institutions for reintegration into society. We need to make sure that conditions corrections officers are working in are safe. That’s why the transformation is the focus of the minister, and that’s why the transformation is under way.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: A visit years and years ago isn’t good enough, and I repeat my challenge: Will the Premier visit a correctional facility in the near future?

Now, there’s a simple first-step solution that I could recommend to the Premier. The body scanners in the Toronto South Detention Centre should be in every correctional facility in Ontario immediately.

During my visit to the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, I was told by a correctional officer that the smuggling of drugs is rampant—17 Kinder eggs from one inmate were full of drugs. I’ve heard in other correctional facilities about ceramic knives being smuggled in.

Smokey Thomas has called on the government to take a task force beyond just Ottawa but across the whole province. This is a reasonable proposition that the government should follow.

My question is, will the government take real, meaningful steps, like setting up a task force, like having these body scanners not next year but immediately? Will you do the right thing? Will you take these steps this spring?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Interjections.

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

The Premier referred to the Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker.

On this side of the House, we’ve been absolutely clear on this issue, that the status quo in our correctional system cannot continue. We are very much focused on working along with our correctional partners. The fact that they’re here, and the fact that we have been having very productive meetings, demonstrates that we are focused on developing solutions.

Let me be very clear: Our solutions are not what—the Leader of the Opposition, when he sat, along with the Harper government, and brought on down-on-crime policies, that has resulted in the kinds of challenges in overcrowding that we are seeing. That is not the solution that we are talking about. Neither of you are talking about the solutions that the Conservatives brought by privatizing jails in this province. Those are not the solutions we are talking about.

I invite the member opposite: Stop the rhetoric and start talking about concrete solutions that are going to result in ensuring—

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

New question.

Lobbyists

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. When the Premier was scribbling her new plan on the back of a napkin at her kitchen table, there was one glaring omission.

I appreciate that the Premier has no interest in input or consultation with other parties or—

Interjections.

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

It’s very difficult to ask one side to come to order when the other side is provoking, so if you were to stop, I would be able to do something about it.

Please finish your question.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I realize input is not welcome. It’s the Liberal Party’s way. It’s the Premier’s way or the highway. But one glaring omission is about lobbying reform.

Over the last 13 years, there has been a steady stream of staff leaving the Premier’s and ministers’ offices to become influential lobbyists, lobbyists who in turn wrote big cheques to the Liberal Party from their new employers.

Although the Premier claims that she will put a stop to the donations, it doesn’t solve all the problems. It’s inadequate; it’s short.

Mr. Speaker, when the cash dries up, what is stopping Liberal friends from influencing the government’s decisions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition knows that we have made changes in terms of the rules surrounding lobbyists. One of the questions that we have before us is, are there other changes that need to be made? I would be happy to hear from the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —if he has proposals on how he thinks the lobbying process should be changed. We have made changes. We have tightened up those rules. I would be happy to hear any input that he has on that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Maybe the Premier forgot the page of her napkin on her kitchen table.

I understand that lobbying is legitimate, but a simple cooling-off period between leaving a minister’s office and working as a lobbyist makes sense. That’s the standard practice in other provinces—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I guess maybe my signalling that I’m going after individuals hasn’t come through yet. I’ll reverse my politeness to a heavy hand. I don’t care to do it, but I will.

Please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It appears I’ve touched a sensitive topic of defending Liberal lobbyists.

We can’t have senior staff advising the Premier today and then lobbying for policy changes tomorrow. There has to be a cooling-off period. If the Premier’s reform plan is so comprehensive, why has she been so silent on changing the lobbying rules in our province? Why leave these giant loopholes in the reform?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In the meeting that I had with the leaders of the opposition parties, I said to them that I was interested in hearing from them on specific changes that they thought needed to be put in place. The—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I specifically had the meeting with them in order to elicit that input. I still stand ready to hear their input on the substance of what they think should be in the legislation.

We will bring in two pieces of legislation, as I told them. We’ll bring in the legislation in the spring around the fundraising rules, but then in the fall, we will bring in another piece of legislation that will deal with other election issues.

I’m open to their suggestions. I have said that there may be changes to the lobbying process that need to be put in place. I’d be happy to hear their concrete suggestions.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: The notion that input is welcome is laughable. The only direction we got from the Premier is that this process would be dictated by the Premier’s office, run by the Liberal Party and that the opinions of everyone else don’t count with this government.

I can tell you that there are numerous examples of why we need to address lobbying reform. A senior staffer leaves the energy minister’s office only to take a job with a renewable energy company seeking project approval from that same minister. During that time, he personally donates to the Liberal Party 194 times. This just doesn’t look right to the people of Ontario. It isn’t right. They want rules. The people of Ontario want rules to be put into place to protect the public’s interest.

Will the Premier commit to a lobbying cooling-off period for former government staff? Yes or no? Do you support that concept?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, no. You come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s time that the people of Ontario actually stood where the Leader of the Opposition stands. Do you support a ban on corporate donations? Yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. To the Chair.

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Does the Leader of the Opposition support a ban on union donations? Yes or no? Does the Leader of the Opposition support controls on third-party advertising? Yes or no? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that we need to reduce the maximum—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m charged with trying to make sure that the mood is reasonable. It’s not helpful when, even if you’re attempting to use third person, you point at someone. You’re speaking to the Chair. Point at me.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’d like to know if the Leader of the Opposition supports constraints on loans and loan guarantees. Yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just when I’m able to get that directed, it starts on this side. You’re not helpful either.

Please finish. Wrap up.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: And does the Leader of the Opposition believe that we need to reform by-election donations? Yes or no? Let’s get on with it.

Correctional services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Jails in Ontario are overcrowded and understaffed, and that means too many inmates and not enough corrections workers. It’s not hard to see that this is a recipe for jails and a system that are unsafe for everyone. Riots and violence and even deaths have become the norm under this Liberal government’s watch.

But when it comes to the new PTSD legislation, the Premier left out bailiffs and probation and parole officers, even though all corrections workers are doing their best in a system that is unsafe for them and for inmates.

When will corrections workers and inmates actually see safe jails in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I say to the corrections officers, I’m pleased that they’re here.

I assume that the leader of the third party would agree with our move to hire 710 new correctional officers and 2,000 more over the next three years because we agree that there needs to be change in our corrections system. It’s why the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is working on a transformation.

As he said, we are working on supports, like mental health supports, making sure that there is training, making sure there’s more staff so that the environment is safer, so that corrections officers have a better environment within which to work. Also, we’re creating a system that will work to rehabilitate people so that they can be reintegrated into society. That has not been the focus, certainly, from the federal level. That has not been the focus of corrections in this country. It is the focus of this government, and that’s the direction that the transformation is moving in.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, everybody sees the transformation that’s happening in the corrections system. It speaks volumes when the Premier’s minister doesn’t even seem to know what’s going on in jails, not even the one in his own community. Not only was he completely unaware, but he went on to deny the fact that inmates are forced to sleep in showers in the Ottawa detention centre. Not only is this inhumane, of course, but it creates an even more dangerous work environment for the corrections officers and workers in the facility.

After admitting that he was wrong, the minister then promised that inmates would no longer be sleeping in shower stalls anymore. Has the government fixed Ottawa’s overcrowding? Where did all those inmates go?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On this side of the House, we are very much focused on working, along with our correctional workers, to make sure that we are bringing meaningful changes. Last year was a challenging year with labour negotiations. But Speaker, I will say to you that we have come a long way in terms of ensuring that there was no strike and that we were able to reach an agreement that all parties are satisfied with. But now, most importantly, we’re working together in ensuring that we come up with a concrete action plan as to how we change the system.

What we really need to do, from all members of this House, is to come up with those ideas. It’s easy to point to the problem. We all know what the challenges in the system are. A real opportunity that is in front of us is to come up with those long-lasting transformational changes that will ensure that we focus on rehabilitation and reintegration as opposed to just punishing.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Instead of actually dealing with systemic issues, what we see is things flaring up in London, in Hamilton, in Thunder Bay and in Toronto South. The Liberals chose to put their focus on taking our corrections system to the brink. This government spent millions of dollars getting ready for a strike instead of investing in solutions to fix the problems, regardless of what this minister claims.

The Liberal government has made this made-in-Ontario crisis. They made this crisis, and it is on their hands. It is bigger than just one ministry, because, for example, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care cut psychiatric beds and mental health supports—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture, come to order.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —and those vulnerable individuals often find their way into our justice and corrections system.

Will the Premier acknowledge that when she’s cutting health care, cutting education, cutting social services and cutting public housing, she’s creating brand new problems in corrections?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think this bluster undermines the good faith and goodwill that exists within our correctional system for the first time in a long, long time—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We have goodwill and a good working relationship for the first time in a long time within the correctional system from all our partners, including community partners, to actually move forward and develop a concrete action plan that will change the system. Warehousing more individuals in our corrections system is not the answer. What we need to really focus on is how to better rehabilitate and reintegrate individuals back into the community.

We have a lot of work to do to undermine the 10 years of damage that the Harper government and the Leader of the Opposition brought into our system, and to ensure—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Fundraising

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Does the Premier believe, Speaker, that rules governing democratic fairness should be made fairly and democratically, or does she believe that one person and one party should be making all the rules?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, here’s the process that we are putting forward: We will introduce draft legislation in the spring, and then that legislation, instead of going to committee hearings after second reading, will actually go to committee hearings after first reading, if we can get agreement. That will allow for two rounds of consultation with people across the province. We will be able to have consultation and input throughout the summer and into the fall. I look forward to that.

Many of the issues I raised with the leaders of the opposition parties and with the leader of the Green Party, hoping for input. I did get some input from the leader of the Green Party. I’m looking for some input from the opposition leaders. But more than that, I’m looking for input from people across the province: from experts, from academics, from members of civil society—all those people that the leader of the third party thinks we should hear from. We’re looking forward to that input.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When Mike Harris arbitrarily changed election rules in 1998, the member for St. Catharines said it was an “anti-democratic strategy, hatched in the backrooms.” Dalton McGuinty said, “You can’t change the rules of the game without the consent of all the players involved.”

Can the Premier explain why it’s anti-democratic if Mike Harris does it, but if Liberals do it, it’s non-partisan and consultative?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I understand that the leader of the third party is preoccupied with the process. On this side of the House, we want to get on with making the changes.

My question to the leader of the third party is, does she support the ban on union donations—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are plenty of people who are out of order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, that’s a yes-or-no question.

Another yes-or-no question: Does the leader of the opposition support a ban on corporate donations, yes or no? What about third-party advertising rules? How about maximum spending limits on third-party advertising, yes or no?

Do we need to reduce the maximum donations? We want an answer from the leader of the third party. Does she support it or does she not support it? How about loan guarantees? Is there support for restrictions and rules around loans and loan guarantees?

The people of this province want us to get on with it, and so do we.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Liberals conveniently pretend not to get it. We need to get the big money out of politics, obviously. It’s time to ban those corporate and union donations for sure. But we need to get there with a modicum of credibility. That’s the point. Deciding the rules for a democratic system in the Premier’s office does not pass the smell test, end of story. It is an undemocratic process, hatched in the backrooms.

Will this Premier commit to an open, democratic process and a fast-moving panel that involves all of the major political parties, civil society, academics and non-partisan experts—the way it should be done in a true democracy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The leader of the third party is again talking about process. On this side, we think it’s time to move forward with changes that the people expect us to do.

What I’d like to know is, does the leader of the third party believe that we need a reduction in overall spending limits in election periods and between elections, yes or no? Does the leader of the third party believe that we need new leadership and nomination campaign spending limits and donation rules, yes or no?

The time has come to move on with it. We have a perfectly democratic process through this Legislature, where we have already determined that we’re going to get lots of input in a timely manner because we want this work to be done.

Correctional services

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Over the past few weeks, many were shocked to learn that inmates were being housed in showers at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. What’s even more shocking is that the minister had to backtrack after he had denied that such conditions existed.

The community advisory board report that the ministry sat on for months last year directly called on the minister to address overcrowding in the jail. Why did the minister ignore all the evidence for so long that Ontario’s corrections system is in crisis and it’s leading to chaos in corrections?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, let me be absolutely clear: It is totally unacceptable to house any inmate in any shower cell. As soon as I found out that that practice had taken place, I issued a directive to ensure that that practice is permanently put to an end.

In addition, in order to deal with some of the challenges that are taking place at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, I have created a task force, which is being led by my deputy minister. The task force had its first meeting just yesterday. It has, of course, members from my ministry but it also has representation from the union. It has community members, such as from the Elizabeth Fry Society and the Mothers Offering Mutual Support group; members from the community advisory board; and, in addition, crown and defence counsel, so that we can work together and create both near-term and long-term solutions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the minister: Deplorable conditions just don’t appear overnight. The crisis in corrections may have been avoided if government officials simply listened to the pleas for help coming from the front lines.

When I raised the question about safety issues at the Toronto South Detention Centre, staff were immediately issued a warning memo on confidentiality. Speaker, that’s unacceptable. Safety concerns raised by front-line staff throughout Ontario must be welcomed and encouraged. Instead, we have a government that has tried unsuccessfully to muzzle correctional staff.

My question is simply this: Will the minister show leadership and apologize on behalf of his ministry for trying to silence correctional staff who tried desperately to get this government to address safety concerns?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I said earlier, we are very much interested in developing solutions together, and I sincerely ask the member opposite—I know he intends well—to provide solutions. Let’s work together to deal with this very complex problem in a manner that brings everybody together.

If his solution is, as his party has suggested in the past, to privatize jails, we absolutely reject that notion. That is not where we’re going to go. We need to work together, along with our correctional workers, to find meaningful ways not only to reduce overcrowding in our jails by reforming the bail system—and the federal government has a very important role to play—but also to make sure that we’ve got appropriate supports within our correctional institutions and also in a community setting by benefiting from the expertise of our probation and parole officers so that we can ensure better reintegration.

We welcome ideas and solutions. Let’s work together and make it happen.

Fundraising

Ms. Catherine Fife: This question is to the Premier. The Premier wrote her plan for how all elections will be financed by herself, at home, two days before she met with the opposition members. It’s not clear she even consulted with her own caucus. She hasn’t consulted with experts, she hasn’t consulted with civil society, and she certainly hasn’t listened to Ontarians.

Why is she stubbornly refusing a process that includes all major political parties, civil society and non-partisan experts, and instead choosing to go it alone?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve known the member for Kitchener–Waterloo for a very long time. She used to be a school community adviser with the Toronto board of education. I know she worked in the community very well and I know that she understands how process works. I know she understands that, when there are important decisions to be made, everybody needs to do their work. Everybody needs to look at the options. Everybody needs to come forward with a synthesis of the ideas that they have looked at and to sound those out with other people and then come up with a solution.

So I’m really surprised that this member, who understands that so well, wouldn’t understand that we all have to do this work. Every one of us who wants to have input into this process has to think about what the options are, has to consider those options and then has to enter into a broader process.

That’s what we’re doing, Mr. Speaker. We’re going to bring legislation forward. We’re expanding the consultation period. We want to hear input from people around the province, and we would love to hear where—

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

Interjections.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: What do you think? Tell us what you think.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: How many napkins do you want us to bring?

Mr. Paul Miller: We’ll bring our own napkins.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just when I was ready to admonish.

Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Let’s remember: In the 2016 budget, the Premier established a number of new panels. In the past, this Premier created panels on how many bottles of beer someone can buy and where they can buy them. The word “consultation” appears in the 2016 budget more than 50 times. Clearly, the problem isn’t that the Premier refuses to hold consultations or conversations, or doesn’t like independent panels. She needs to remember that our democracy belongs to all of us, not the Liberal Party.

Can the Premier explain to Ontarians why she thinks she alone should be making the rules for how our democracy functions, and why she is stubbornly refusing an open, transparent consultation by establishing a fast-moving independent panel on election fairness?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I do think that this should be a democratic process. I think that having the legislative process, putting the legislative process in place on—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is the democratic process, Mr. Speaker. It is exactly the democratic process that we’re proposing be used.

I think the third party, by suggesting that the process in this Legislature to put policy forward is not democratic—is a pretty outrageous statement, Mr. Speaker. I think that the third party doesn’t want to talk about the substance. I think that the third party wants to talk about process because they don’t want to talk about the substance, because they want to delay. I want to make sure that we have a process in place that allows us to move by January 1, 2017, to have those rules in place. I think the third party wants to delay beyond that. We’re not going to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Child care

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Education.

The Child Care and Early Years Act provides a new legislative framework to increase access and oversight in Ontario’s child care sector. Minister, it is important for our government to give children the best possible start in life.

I was surprised to hear the concerns from my constituents about changes to ratios and regulations that would impact families. Constituents in my riding of York South–Weston are raising concerns about the proposed changes to the child care regulations. Speaker, through you to the minister, could she please tell us, and tell everyone in this House, what our government is doing to address these concerns?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member for York South–Weston for the question.

The proposed regulatory changes were posted for public feedback from February 1 to April 1 of this year. During this period we engaged with families and stakeholders, and did receive extensive feedback on the proposed regulations.

I want to assure you and everyone else here this morning, Speaker, that we have heard the concerns raised, and I want to be clear that the regulations as posted will not be implemented. We will be taking another look at some of the proposed regulations and will be engaging with our sector, the child care sector, on a plan moving forward that makes changes to reflect the concerns that have been voiced. We will continue to consult and revisit where changes need to be made in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the minister for her answer. It is reassuring to hear that the concerns of my constituents in York South–Weston are being taken seriously.

I know how important it is for our government to continue to provide high-quality and safe child care. I’m well aware that our government wants to ensure that we are increasing access to child care for families across Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, through you, could the minister tell us how else our government will continue to modernize Ontario’s child care and early years system, and how we can ensure that the concerns of my constituents and other families in Ontario continue to be heard?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Since 2003, our government has doubled child care funding to more than $1 billion annually. The number of licensed child care spaces in Ontario has grown to nearly 351,000 spaces, an increase of 87% in the number of licensed spaces. We’re also creating 4,000 new child care spaces as a result of a $120-million capital investment over three years to construct new child care spaces in new schools.

But I do want to be clear: The regulation on the ratios as posted will not be implemented. Changes will be made, and we will ensure that there are options for parents. We have heard the concerns that have been raised and we will work with the sector to find a solution.

Wind turbines

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. On July 28, 2015, wpd Canada filed a court application about its proposed project to build eight 500-foot-high wind turbines near the Collingwood airport. They wanted the court to force the Ministry of the Environment to make a decision on their project; wpd had gotten tired of waiting, Mr. Speaker.

On September 22, the government filed a notice with the court saying that it intended to fight the application. Two days later, on September 24, the Ontario Liberal Party deposited a donation from wpd in the amount of $6,000. The court application never went ahead, and the ministry approved the project in February of this year.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us why the Liberal Party was accepting donations from wpd while it was fighting the company in court?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Let’s just first break this down: The process involved in this involves a director-level decision, which I do not and cannot interfere with. As I said to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, it’s our job to protect the integrity of the system.

It then goes to the Environmental Review Tribunal, another—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s a fairly clear and transparent process.

Second, we have some of the strongest fundraising rules in Canada, across this country. I’ve said this before, Mr. Speaker. I know all 107 members of this House reasonably well. I know them to be honourable people who are decent people, who came here to be honest, to work with integrity and to serve their people. To suggest otherwise is just really, really, really low, Mr. Speaker—

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

Some of the comments I heard were not—I wish I could assign them to somebody, because I would.

Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the minister: That $6,000 donation is the largest single donation that wpd had ever given to the Liberal Party. In March 2014, the ministry asked wpd for an updated report on their wind turbine application. That same month, wpd donated $3,000 to the Liberal Party, their second-largest donation. Two months later, in May, wpd submitted that updated report to the ministry, and that same month wpd donated a further $2,000 to the Liberal Party, their third-largest donation.

Every time it looked like the project was in jeopardy, a donation was made to the Liberal Party of Ontario. These facts only reinforce the need for a public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister seriously expect the people in my riding to believe that these donations had absolutely nothing to do with his approval of the wpd project?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. There are some very large temptations to speak while I’m standing and while I’ve gotten people’s attention, and it’s going to stop.

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The short answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

The second part of this: Let’s go back to the process. The member, who is a former Minister of the Environment knows how bulletproof these processes are. MOECC conducted one of its most comprehensive reviews to ensure that wpd’s proposal would meet our stringent requirements. The Ontario Renewable Energy Approval process ensures that extensive consultation takes place with the public, aboriginal groups and local governments. We extended a six-month review over two years and considered 350 public and agency submissions. Finally, again, the point I made earlier: These decisions are made by public officials.

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear about this: I have been in public life municipally and provincially. I’ve conducted myself to a very high personal standard. I know the member opposite. I know him to be a person of great character. I know him because he was a minister before, and I hope he—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A general reminder to all members: to the Chair.

New question.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Advocates for public health care released a new report this morning called Ontario’s Hospitals Cut Beyond All Limits. I think the title says it all. It lays out in painstaking detail the full extent of the Liberal cuts to Ontario hospitals.

The work of the Ontario Health Coalition confirms what patients are seeing across our province. Under this Premier’s watch, the crisis of cuts in our hospitals is getting worse: hundreds of nurses and front-line hospital workers laid off; hospital beds closed. Rural communities are forced to fight just to keep the doors open and the lights on in their own local hospitals.

People want to know why this Premier is so determined to keep cutting hospital care.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I’m determined to do is to build up our health care system, to make sure that our health care system serves the people of this province with the right health care, in a timely way, where they need it.

We have to look at the whole health care system and hospitals are a very, very important part of that, which is why there’s $345 million more of new money in this year’s budget for the hospital sector. But beyond that, there is $1 billion more in new money that we’re putting into health care, into the whole system.

Again, I know the member of the third party understands that the health care system is under transition. There’s no doubt about that. It’s changing. The way health care’s been delivered is changing. There are community services available now that were not available in the past, and there’s more of that which is necessary. So we have to look at the system as a whole.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The Premier likes to deny that any hospital cuts are happening under her watch, but the Premier’s fooling no one. Patients, families, front-line hospital workers and administrators, as well as local health coalitions, all see right through the Liberals’ talking points.

St. Joseph’s Health Care in London said they have seen almost $36.5 million cut over the last four years under this Liberal government. All those cuts mean bed closures, longer wait times for patients and fewer front-line nurses and health care workers.

When services are cut in our hospitals, they get privatized in the community. They are not available. They are not accessible. They have no oversight. It begs the question: Why is this Premier putting hospitals in the terrible position of making decisions based on dollars and deficits, rather than what’s best for patients and their families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Actually, I guess I would say back to the member of the third party, why is she not talking about the whole health care system? Why is she not talking about the way health care delivery is changing? She is a health care provider. I would think she would understand that people who are in the community, who need care, want that care in their homes. They want it through community delivery services as opposed to putting all of that onus on the hospital.

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think, given the heckling that’s coming from the third party right now, they actually recognize—

Interjections.

Miss Monique Taylor: Don’t get sick. You’ll see it for yourself.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You can hide, but I can still catch you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact that since 2003 there are 5,600 more doctors in the system—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: How about seniors and drugs? Another climb down.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We have paramedics who are in the Legislature today. I think they recognize that there are changes happening in the system that are necessary in order for us to deliver 21st-century health care.

Ontario trails

Mr. Han Dong: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Over the past few weeks, we have seen Bill 100, the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, repeatedly criticized by the opposition parties based on misconceptions related to the trail easements. Numerous times, the minister has said that an easement pursuant to Bill 100, if passed, will be a voluntary agreement between a landlord and an eligible body or bodies.

Mr. Don McCabe, the OFA president, has said that Bill 100 does not encroach on the freedom of individual landowners.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he tell this House more about the trail easements?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for the question. Trail easements under Bill 100 are voluntary and will not alter existing land use agreements. It surprises me that many of the members opposite have gone on record saying that this is actually a threat to trails here in the province of Ontario, but yet our stakeholders have repeatedly told this government that Bill 100 is a wonderful bill.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters have said that they are fully supportive of this bill. Bruce Trail has told us that trail easements are a very useful tool that will cut years of bureaucratic red tape.

This is just another example, Mr. Speaker, of the Progressive Conservatives being out of touch with the people of Ontario. I hope the opposition will get onside to support—

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: That’s all you’re doing is fuelling the flames. It’s true.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t waste it.

Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for clarifying this issue.

I cannot stress enough how important Bill 100 is to Ontario. Trail tourism contributes $1.4 billion to our economy each year. That number includes over $800 million in labour income, which supports an estimated 18,000 jobs across the province.

Bill 100 is intended to grow the trails sector by connecting and expanding trails across the province, increasing the economic benefits for local communities such as mine in Trinity–Spadina.

There have been questions on whether we did enough consultations on Bill 100. Could the minister tell the members of this House how we consulted on Bill 100?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Again, I want to thank the member for Trinity–Spadina for the question. I know he’s a huge supporter of trails here in the province of Ontario. In fact, the Bill Davis trail recently opened up in Trinity–Spadina.

To develop Bill 100, our ministry held broad, in-person consultations right across the entire province. We engaged with groups like the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance, Simcoe County Trails, the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, the Bruce Trail Conservancy, the Ontario Native Women’s Association, and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We consulted with 80 municipalities, with indigenous groups, with landowners and with trail organizations from all across Ontario. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we consulted with over 250 different groups here in Ontario. I think our government has done an excellent job—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, second time.

New question.

Horse racing industry

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Yesterday, Ontario Gaming East announced it would be relocating the slots at Kawartha Downs in my riding to Peterborough and building a new casino. The township of Cavan Monaghan will lose $3 million in annual slot revenues to fix roads and bridges, which will only continue to strain the small budget of my municipality. This government loves to talk about infrastructure, yet now that my township is faced with losing significant slot revenues, this government won’t bat an eye.

Speaker, will the minister tell my municipality where they are supposed to find the $3 million that his government has now ripped out of their budget?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for her question this morning, but let me give the member a little history—

Interjection.

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

Minister?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Let me give the member a little history.

I remember when I was a city councillor in Peterborough in 1997-98, we had started talks about annexation with that municipality to offer financial support as that process moved forward. While I’m not a member of city council today, I understand, in conversations with the mayor of Peterborough, Daryl Bennett, that there have been ongoing talks with that municipality regarding annexation proposals. Even though I’m not privy to discussions, I’m told that the city of Peterborough has made very generous offers to that municipality for their future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Wow. I don’t know what discussions have been going on, but my discussion is that the OLG and the government have repeatedly said that they were committed to the longer-term sustainability of the horse racing industry. Kawartha Downs had 100 races. It now has 18, but the loss of slots is going to ultimately close Kawartha Downs, and horse racing will be gone.

In 2013, that very minister said that he had planned to maintain a share of slot revenues to support the horse racing industry. Yesterday’s announcement shows the minister has no plan. Mr. Speaker, were the bright lights and allure of a shiny new casino in his riding just too hard for the minister to resist?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Well, if the member—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Jeff Leal: The member should do her homework. She should sit down with municipal representatives of Cavan Monaghan to find out the generous offer that the city of Peterborough put on the table for that municipality to sustain their finances for the future to come.

When it comes to horse racing, the only time that member ever showed up at Kawartha Downs was when they thought they were going to close it—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That one actually hurt my ear.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It hurt yours, too? Just saying.

The minister has one sentence.

Hon. Jeff Leal: The fact of the matter is John Snobelen, Elmer Buchanan and John Wilkinson put forward a path for sustainable horse racing in the province of Ontario. It was never supported by—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Social assistance

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Today, I’m asking the Premier to do the math. I’m asking her to estimate the minimum monthly income needed for a single person to live a healthy, dignified life in our province.

In her estimation, what is the bare minimum needed to afford basics like nutritious food, safe and decent housing, and clothing; to have access to transportation, a telephone? What does it cost for a single person to live in places like Timmins or Hamilton or Attawapiskat, or right in her own riding of Don Valley West? How much does the Premier imagine this costs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you very much to the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek for his interest in social assistance. I really welcome this, and of course, we will be debating his private member’s bill tomorrow. I look forward to having 50 minutes in this House to talk about the most vulnerable in our society.

As the member has referenced, rates are extremely important. This is why we have been increasing rates consistently over the last number of years.

In this year’s budget, we really did take the unprecedented step of saying that there would no longer be a clawback of child support payments.

We intend to take a very comprehensive look at social assistance reform. In a way—it’s the whole of government way of looking at how we can support our most vulnerable people. We will be looking at employment incentives, training—a number of different areas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: With all due respect, unfortunately it’s no surprise that the Premier can’t give me an estimate. This government simply does not understand the daily challenges faced by people trying to pay the bills in Ontario. It’s time to do the math.

During this government’s time in office, the poorest people in Ontario have got poorer. Food banks are overflowing. People on social assistance programs—including people with chronic disabilities, unable to participate in the labour market—have less real income today than they had under Mike Harris.

New Democrats believe that governments must make evidence-based public policy. We believe that we need social assistance benefits that actually reflect the real costs of living. Will the Premier take the politics out of social assista