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

March 24, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Mar-24 (PDF)

L153 - Thu 24 Mar 2016 / Jeu 24 mar 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 24 March 2016 Jeudi 24 mars 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Senior citizens

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Dangerous offenders

Executive compensation

Health care funding

Wind turbines

Special-needs students

Affordable housing

Tenant protection

Crown attorneys

Northern Ontario Heritage Fund

Organized crime

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Flooding

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Supply Act, 2016 / Loi de crédits de 2016

Supply Act, 2016 / Loi de crédits de 2016

Introduction of Visitors

Private members’ public business

Members’ Statements

Purim

Search-and-rescue helicopter

Trillium Health Partners

Epilepsy

Rural schools

Greek Independence Day

Greek Independence Day

Nutrition Month

Insurance fraud

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Petitions

Health care funding

Affordable housing

Doris Ward

Hydro rates

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Elder abuse

Health care funding

Rural schools

Water fluoridation

Services for the developmentally disabled

Ontario Municipal Board

Lung health

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Private Members’ Public Business

Albanian Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine albanais

Rae Luckock and Agnes Macphail

Commission of Inquiry into Illegal Trade and Trafficking of People, Drugs, Money, Tobacco and Weapons Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 concernant la commission d’enquête sur le commerce et le trafic illicites de personnes, de drogues, d’argent, de tabac et d’armes

Albanian Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine albanais

Rae Luckock and Agnes Macphail

Commission of Inquiry into Illegal Trade and Trafficking of People, Drugs, Money, Tobacco and Weapons Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 concernant la commission d’enquête sur le commerce et le trafic illicites de personnes, de drogues, d’argent, de tabac et d’armes

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 February 18, 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. Steve Clark: Good morning, everyone. As the Ontario PC critic for tourism, culture and sport, it’s an honour for me to rise on behalf of Her Majesty’s official opposition to give our leadoff speech on Bill 100,

An Act to enact the Ontario Trails Act, 2015 and to amend various Acts, or as the bill has been more commonly referred to, the Ontario Trails Act, 2015.

Off the top, I just want to say that it’s really with mixed emotions that I’m standing here today. On one hand, as the MPP for Leeds–Grenville, I’m always so very eager to raise awareness about the hundreds of kilometres of year-round trails that run through my riding. I could spend an hour speaking about these trails and why everyone in Ontario should take some time, visit my riding and experience these wonderful recreational opportunities. But I can’t do that, Speaker.

I can’t do that because I have a responsibility as a member of this Legislature to discuss the very serious concerns I have with Bill 100 and how the bill is actually a threat to Ontario trails. I’m going to outline why the bill’s method of establishing easements for trails on private property—this is very important—actually overshadows some of the very positive aspects that are in the Ontario Trails Act.

I want to acknowledge right off the top—right at the very beginning of the speech—that there are some very good things in this legislation. As my leader has said many times, if there are some things that are good for Ontario—no matter who brings them up in the Legislature—we should mention it, and I want to acknowledge that there are some good things in this bill that we want to support. However, there are some things that I think are raising very valid concerns.

Our party, I think most people acknowledge, is a very strong advocate of the incredible trail system that our province boasts today. In Ontario, the system is made up of some 2,500 individual trails that stretch over 80,000 kilometres through some of the most beautiful scenery we have in this province. Our caucus supports initiatives that would enhance and expand this network of trails. We understand that these trails can play an important role in encouraging Ontarians to lead healthy, active lives.

When we talk about our ability to control health care spending, there’s no question that prevention measures are absolutely the best investment we can make. A healthier, more active population is something that we all want to see. And if we want to talk just straight economics, we all know that trails are so very good for our economy. Already, Ontario’s network of trails help to generate an estimated $2 billion—that’s billion with a B—in economic activity in this province.

Whether they live in Ontario or are coming from another part of Canada or from somewhere else in the world, people are eager to get out and explore our province and our province’s trail system. There’s no better way to do it than by hiking, biking, skiing, riding a snowmobile or an ATV or a horse, or even paddling a canoe or kayak on one of our world-class trails, especially—I have to give a plug—in my great riding of Leeds–Grenville, because we’ve got some great things happening in the riding.

I’m going to speak later about how Bill 100 can benefit Ontario’s trails, and those outstanding organizations and individuals who maintain and promote them. The minister mentioned last month in his lead-off that there are almost 1,000 clubs in every corner of the province playing an active role in looking after our trail system. I want to take this opportunity this morning to personally thank these volunteers for their dedication and for their tireless work to make sure those 80,000 kilometres of trails are accessible and are safe for all Ontarians to enjoy.

In fact, the reason that I have such mixed emotions about this bill is based on what I’m hearing from some of those volunteers. Over the past few months, they’ve been telling me that Bill 100 is actually a threat to the future of our trails network.

When we debate legislation in this House, usually we’re talking about the impact a bill is going to have if it gets passed into law. That’s what we usually talk about. As opposition MPPs, it’s our job to outline the possible problems we believe legislation will create if it gets passed as is. Maybe some of the government members might even rise today to tell us how unfounded some of my concerns or my colleagues’ concerns are, and that they’re going to be okay. But what we’re seeing, and this is what the crux of the issue is today, is something completely different with Bill 100.

Even though we’re in the very early stages of debate on second reading, the bill has already had an impact on trails in this province, and for reasons I’m about to get into, unfortunately the impact is not a good one for those who maintain and enjoy using Ontario trails.

We can think of any trail network as being like the links in a chain, so think about that when I’m speaking this morning. If those links are intact, the bond is strong. We know that in Ontario, many sections of trails run on private property. That means the links in that chain are held together by a relationship between the property owner and the trail group. The fact that we have such an incredible network of trails linked in Ontario is all the proof that we need to know that the system’s working. But Bill 100 changes the dynamic in the relationship between property owners and trails groups. It’s a dramatic change.

What we’ve seen already happening is that the links in the chain that are trying to hold this trails network together—some of them have gone missing. The chain is broken, and what is happening with these relationships is a direct result of concerns that property owners have with

schedule 1 of the Ontario Trails Act that we’re debating this morning.

I’m asking you, Speaker, and I’m asking members this morning to think about that. We’ve only had one hour of debate—well, we’ll have two hours after I’m finished this morning—and we’ve already had concerns about this bill that have shut down some trail sections. In many other cases, trail groups have been put on notice by property owners that if Bill 100 does pass as is, they’ll be locking their gates too.

That’s not idle speculation from the opposition benches about what might happen; it’s the reality. It’s what’s happening right now in Ontario. Snowmobile and ATV clubs in my riding of Leeds–Grenville and other parts of the province are dealing with this issue today, after just one hour of debate, and it all has to do with the fact that

schedule 1 of Bill 100 creates a process for the establishment of easements and covenants.

Before I get into any detail on the specific concerns with those easement provisions, I want to recap, because I think it’s very important for the debate today, how we got to this point.

Most of us in the Legislature know that the Ontario Trails Act was tabled for first reading almost a year ago. In fact, it was May 12, 2015. Bill 100 languished on the order paper without much notice throughout the fall session. It wasn’t called for debate by the time the House rose in December. Certainly it was a bit of a surprise to me. After all, the bill was prominent. It was featured prominently in the minister’s mandate letter from Premier Wynne. Introducing trails legislation is listed as the very first priority for the minister: “creating a healthier Ontario through sport and active recreation.” But as I said, this bill was flying under the radar throughout the fall session.

It wasn’t until we were preparing to come back to Queen’s Park after Family Day that I began to receive the first rumbles of concern. In late January and early February, my office was hearing daily from snowmobile and ATV club officials about the increasing number of property owners who were threatening to tear up trail access agreements. As I mentioned, some were actually notifying the clubs that they were closing off access immediately. That is not perceived; it actually happened.

This e-mail from Greg Potvin, who is president of the Thousand Island ATV Club in the Gananoque area, was typical of what I was hearing:

“As president of the Thousand Island ATV Club we are being bombarded with requests from landowners to shut down our trail system....

“The landowner agreements for the Ontario Federation of All Terrain Vehicles can be a delicate one. Most of our agreements come with a one-year trial.

“Luckily we have not had an issue and have not lost a single part of our trail due to abuse. However the minute Bill 100 was presented to us in a newspaper article, we are struggling to survive.

“The bill will not only make it hard to keep what we have right now but it will make it impossible for us to create a much larger trail system.

“With the ATV and power sports industry growing with much-needed trails that you yourself have played a

part in will be gone forever.

“I understand what the bill is trying to do but it is more damaging than good. Our goal is to have one ATV trail system across Ontario for the enjoyment of the outdoor enthusiast.

“This bill will bring that goal to its knees.

“As a small club in a rural farm community if this passes the second reading we will be done. I know of a few other larger clubs who might be in the same situation, but I will let them speak for themselves.

“So I ask you to think about your stance on this issue and realize the negative impact it will have on all trail systems.

“Any encouragement you can give to stop Bill 100 would be appreciated by myself and our club.

“Yours truly,

“Greg Potvin, president,

“Thousand Island ATV Club.”

As I said, that was one of the many e-mails, calls and letters I received. The bottom line from each of them was that Bill 100 may be well-intended, but as Greg wrote, “it is more damaging than good.”

There’s something else that jumped out at me in Greg’s e-mail. That was the fact that his club hadn’t even heard about the trails bill until a newspaper

article appeared in late January. Local snowmobile clubs told me the very same thing, exactly the same thing. Not one of the property owners who were calling and stopping into my constit office knew anything about Bill 100 either. I know the minister in his lead-off talked about the consultation process that the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport undertook before the legislation was tabled, but let’s take a closer look at just what this consultation looked like.

First off, those discussions the minister referred to in his lead took place way back in the fall of 2013. Based on what the clubs and property owners in my riding were reporting to me, they obviously weren’t part of them. I certainly don’t recall meetings at the Athens snowmobile club or the Grenville snowmobile club to let their club members and the property owners whose lands their trails cross know that they were going on. Nobody knew. Of course, even if they were brought into the conversation back in 2013, what good would it have done? They weren’t discussing a bill and its specific provision to fundamentally alter the relationship between trail groups and property owners.

What they were discussing was the concept of legislation to promote and enhance the Ontario trails network. So of course ministry staff were going to return with plenty of reports that groups were supportive of a concept to raise awareness and public support about trails. In the absence of something specific, who is actually going to disagree? Who is actually going to disagree at one of those consultations?

I’m always frustrated with this government and their view of what meaningful consultation actually looks like. Taking a vague idea for a bill to promote and enhance trail usage out for a tour and then posting it for comment doesn’t represent consultation. People can’t provide comment until they actually know what you’re proposing.

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: The minister can have his two minutes to comment after I’m done. I can’t wait to hear what he has to say.

The government’s approach to consultation would be bad enough at any time, but it’s absolutely shameful when it’s combined with the arrogant way this Liberal government manages the legislative process once a bill is introduced. We see them invoke closure more and more often to choke off consultation and debate in this Legislature. What they actually do is deprive our members of a chance to tell the government what our constituents are actually saying about pieces of legislation. Then, after they’ve programmed a bill at second reading, the government schedules a few days of hearings at Queen’s Park.

Holding them here in Toronto, once again, makes it almost impossible for Ontarians outside this bubble to be involved.

Let’s use Bill 100, which is in front of us today, as an example of the process this government is following. Its so-called consultation took place two years ago. We’ve started debate, and I expect we’ll get notice shortly that the bill is going to be programmed. I suspect the minister has already had a chat with the government House leader, and the motion is probably drafted, for all I know. Even though this legislation is having a huge effect on rural Ontario, they’ll probably have a couple of hearing dates scheduled for Toronto. They certainly won’t agree with what I want to see.

I’ve said it many times: I want to see a committee that travels to some parts of this province where the actual legislation is causing concern.

We had a short meeting with the minister the other day after question period, with my friends from Parry Sound–Muskoka, from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and from Nipissing. I’d really love the government to actually have some meaningful travelling hearings dates where this bill is actually causing concern. But, you know, the very last thing this government wants to do is provide an opportunity for Ontarians to validate what I’m saying.

I’m going to wait and see. I’m still convinced that the government will operate like they do with every other bill. There will be coffee-cup type hearings—there will be a couple of days; it won’t be very much. Then, after we table our amendments—they’ll probably get shot down; I hope they won’t—the bill will come back for third reading, it will get programmed and off they go, just like that. The minister can sit back and check a box in his mandate letter that he has done it, without any concern for snowmobile clubs and ATV clubs, and they will be left to deal with the fallout.

It’s a shameful process, and it completely excludes the voices of rural and northern Ontario on an issue that concerns them greatly. If government members wonder why they have such a huge credibility problem, I suggest that I’ve outlined a way they can deal with it in rural and northern Ontario. I really hope that we start having some meaningful travel and meaningful discussion at the committee level on some bills.

Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to return to the fallout from Bill 100 that happened as MPPs were preparing to come back for the spring session. I said earlier that ATV and snowmobile clubs in particular were facing a major problem. Their trails were being shut down right at the very point when we were starting to get some actual winter weather conditions in eastern Ontario. Suddenly, property gates were being locked. As a result, sections of trails in Leeds–Grenville were closed for public access.

Instead of being out there grooming trails, club volunteers were forced to talk to property owners, to plead with them. There was a lot of pleading going on in rural Ontario for those property owners to allow clubs to be able to access those trails.

As the opposition critic, I was being contacted by clubs in other parts of Ontario that were experiencing the same thing. The member for Nickel Belt actually mentioned that this was happening in her riding during the questions-and-comments

section of the minister’s leadoff. I know, and I mentioned earlier, that my colleagues from Parry Sound–Muskoka and Nipissing were dealing with the same issue I was.

That’s why I felt I had to act, Speaker. That’s why on February 8 I wrote to Minister Coteau. I told him he had a problem on his hands with Bill 100, and I asked him to take it off the table. Given that we were talking about a piece of legislation that clearly hadn’t been a priority for the government, I didn’t think that was an unreasonable request, given what was happening in rural Ontario. This bill had sat on the order paper throughout the fall session and had not been called. It seemed reasonable, in my opinion, to ask the minister to take a step back, to get out there and meet with these groups, these snowmobile and ATV clubs, these property owners who were concerned with the bill.

Taking that initiative to have some meaningful consultation would have been a sign of good faith. It would have shown both sides of the issue, both property owners and trail groups, that the minister took it seriously. I truly believe that if the minister had chosen to take my advice and had decided to do what I asked, those questions and concerns on Bill 100 could have been addressed. The people would feel like their voices weren’t ignored and that they weren’t shut out of the process during that so-called consultation process two years ago on Bill 100.

I just can’t for the life of me understand why the ministry would not want to take that advice and would not want to try to stop those gates from being locked. So, you know, it is what it is, Speaker. He didn’t take my advice; he didn’t take my suggestions. Those property gates in many cases are still locked, and others are threatening to follow suit if this bill does pass.

I’ve read Bill 100 so many times, and I know what

schedule 1,

section 12 says about easements. In fact, here’s exactly what subsection 12(3) states, and this is very important to the discussion we are having this morning. Subsection 12(3): “An owner of land may grant an easement, with or without covenants, to one or more eligible bodies.” To the minister, the word “may” is the key word here; it means that a granting of an easement is voluntary. So, in his mind, as minister, he thinks the problem is solved. I understand that no property owner who currently has an access or a land-use agreement with an ATV or a snowmobile club or any other trail organization will wake up one day with an easement suddenly in place. I know that that’s not going to happen.

I want to stress that I’m not only saying it in the House today. When the trails in my riding were threatened with closure, I was doing what I could, I felt, to keep them open for the season. In fact, I wrote a letter to my snowmobile clubs in the riding and asked them to take it to property owners who were locking their gates. I’m going to read the letter that I sent, because I think it’s important to know that outside of the House I was saying the same thing that I’m saying this morning. Here was what I said in my letter at the time:

“It is my understanding that Bill 100, if passed, will not automatically convert existing land-use agreements a property owner has with your club into an easement registered on title. That process would be voluntary.

“Nonetheless, I remain concerned that questions about this legislation threaten to put even more of Ontario’s trail network at risk....

“Legislation to establish in law a new process to create trail easements represents a fundamental change to the relationship between property owners and trails groups.

“Clearly, the government should have recognized the potential for these concerns before tabling Bill 100 last May.

“Unfortunately, Minister Coteau has failed to heed my request to delay second reading, which began on February 18.

“As the opposition critic on this file, I’m going to continue to press the minister to hold direct consultations with those affected by this bill.

“We will also be proposing amendments to clarify the parts of Bill 100 that have caused property owners to terminate access agreements with your club and others.

“In the meantime, Minister Coteau has offered to have his ministry staff connect directly with property owners or trail groups to address their questions.

“I’d be pleased to put any of your club members or land-use-agreement holders in touch with the ministry.”

It’s important that I say that, because I was saying the same thing to property owners who were coming into my office, who attended my constit office in Brockville. They wanted me to tell them what to do about access, and my response was the same: “The bill won’t force an easement, so give me some time. Give me some time to work on this with the government.”

I told them that if I couldn’t get the bill taken off the table, I’d fight to make sure there were some changes. I certainly wasn’t trying to stoke the fear of property owners, so I can stand here today and tell the minister that even more trails in my riding were closed down.

But even if we all agree that easements are voluntary, the minister has failed to recognize why there is such a concern out there. They begin—and I said it before—with the word “may.” In my opinion, this leaves this

section of the bill far too open for confusion. It’s all well and good for the minister to say that the word “may” is clear enough in his mind, but it’s not his property we’re talking about.

At a minimum, we want to keep those trails open and reopen the sections that were shut down. If we want that, we need to rewrite this

section of Bill 100. The legislation must clearly state that any easement agreements will be voluntary: not “may,” Speaker, but “will.”

Even better, the minister could incorporate the same language into the bill that he used in a statement he released in an attempt to quell the fears of property owners. 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.” That’s the minister’s own words, Speaker. They should be incorporated in the bill.

I’m pleased the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs has also recognized the problem with this

section of the legislation. In a March 10 letter to the minister, Mike Clewer, director of strategy and business development with OFSC, wrote:

“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.”

The letter also makes clear what I’ve been talking about this morning: There is just so much at risk with this bill. OFSC notes that it manages 32,000 kilometres of groomed trail in Ontario, 60% of which is under land use agreements. Writes Mr. Clewer, “The threat caused by uncertainties about Bill 100 is all too real and it risks our ability to continue generating the $1.7 billion in economic activity snowmobiling brings to Ontario each year.”

The OFSC is right, Speaker. Those land use agreements are the backbone of the trails network in Ontario, and they exist only because of the years of trust and mutual respect that have developed between those property owners and those trails organizations.

These agreements are not negotiated with lawyers or real estate agents representing the parties. They’re worked out over a cup of coffee at the kitchen table, and they’re sealed with a handshake, representing both parties. Property owners open their gates. They allow trails to cross their land because they know and they respect these organizations, Speaker. Property owners maintain their trails and work together with trails organizations, and for the most part, they are their friends. They are their neighbours. They want to provide access and they’re comfortable doing it because if there’s a problem, they can just pick up the phone and they can just deal with it.

Bill 100 fundamentally alters the dynamic, because it introduces the government into the picture through a formal process to create easements—and not just any government, Speaker: this Liberal government, one with a well-established track record of running roughshod over rural Ontario and the people who live there in the pursuit of their agenda.

Don’t take my word for it; just visit any rural community that has had an industrial wind farm forced on it after declaring themselves an unwilling host. We saw this happen once again with the recent latest wind farm contracts that were announced.

Here’s a quote for you, Speaker. Here’s what Mayor François St. Amour of the municipality The Nation had to say about this government’s lack of respect for rural Ontarians. Here is His Worship’s quote:

“Since we declared ourselves unwilling hosts, we thought we had it made ... Because there was some talk in the last provincial election that they would honour municipalities that declared themselves unwilling. But I guess that was just another electoral promise.” Mayor St. Amour was responding to the fact that his unwilling municipality will now get a 32-megawatt wind farm.

Another eastern Ontario municipality that declared itself an unwilling host is North Stormont—there’s my friend from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. North Stormont is getting a 100-megawatt wind farm. That’s the kind of behaviour that causes rural property owners to distrust this government and what they’re doing. It’s why they fear what’s lurking in sections of this legislation that hinge upon the word “may.”

Postmedia’s Jim Merriam, whose columns on rural Ontario appear in many, many newspapers, examined this distrust when he wrote about Bill 100 this month. He started out by noting Bill 100 isn’t a conspiracy by the government to confiscate private property, but he continues. Here’s his quote:

“If Bill 100 ... was not hatched out of a conspiracy it must have resulted from incompetence, breathtaking incompetence.

“Who in their right mind would gather 250 organizations together to begin crafting a bill to support and sustain the vast system of trails throughout Ontario and not include a single landowner?”

It’s true. Jim is very much in touch with what’s on the mind of rural Ontarians. He knows the fallout that’s going to happen if Bill 100 passes the way it is. That’s why he called on urban Ontarians to speak out. Here’s his quote about that:

“The residents of cities such as Toronto, Ottawa, London and North Bay should be just as upset as rural landowners about Bill 100.

“Many of those landowners are likely to start closing trails across their land, up to and including sections of one of Ontario’s greatest assets, the Bruce Trail, if this bill isn’t repealed.

“With help from city folks who have an interest in trails as well as an interest in what’s best for the province; rural Ontario might have a chance to get through to Queen’s Park on this critical issue.”

I’ve discussed the problem with the wording on

section 12 that deals with the granting of easements. However, that’s not the only part of the

section that’s a concern to property owners. Subsection 8 states:

“Assignment

“

(8) An easement may be assigned by an eligible body to another eligible body, but the assignment must be in writing and must be registered....”

Again, this has a major impact on property rights, and it’s a big change in the relationship between property owners and these trails groups. Under the legislation, eligible bodies are defined as including some of the following: the crown; an agency, board or commission of the crown; a municipality; a school board; a conservation authority; or a charitable organization. There are many other groups on the list, too.

Let me be clear about what this

section means. If a property owner enters into an easement agreement with one organization, that agreement can be transferred by the organization to another. You can understand why this would have alarm bells going off among property owners. Many feel comfortable formalizing an easement agreement with an organization like a snowmobile or ATV club, but there’s no way they would have that comfort if the easement was suddenly transferred to a municipality or a conservation authority, for example.

They like their agreement the way it is, but, ultimately, many have expressed to me that they would be uncomfortable with a transfer. Again, I simply fail to understand why the transferability is included in the legislation. If any member from the government side wants to clarify that, I’d be more than happy to listen to their explanation. I can’t imagine anyone agreeing to sign an easement with such unpredictability about who might end up holding it.

On that basis, I see no reason to include assignment provisions in the legislation. In fact, I call on the minister to agree with me that the entire

section dealing with easements should be removed from Bill 100. That would provide the assurance to give property owners the comfort to restore those land use agreements and it would ensure that the links in Ontario’s chain of trails stay strong and stay connected.

I have to say I was disappointed, given the controversy expressed about easements, that the minister didn’t really address the issue in any form of detail during his lead-off. That left the work to his parliamentary assistant. I mean no insult to my neighbour, the member for Kingston and the Islands. We work together on a number of issues, but Ontarians deserve to hear directly from the minister about why easements were included in this part of the bill.

We certainly didn’t hear it either from his PA. In fact, her remarks, in trying to defend the inclusion of

section 12, ended up proving why it’s such a problem. She said that we need to provide this method of establishing easements because, without them, “trail managers may lose access to the land. or face costly rerouting.” Well, Speaker, I can tell you exactly what those trail managers are dealing with right now. They’re having to deal with rerouting; they’re having to deal with sections that are closed. Exactly what she said it should be there for is what’s causing the absolute opposite effect.

She went on to say, “Setting out a mechanism for trail easements would help address this issue.” No, it’s not going to address the issue. As I’ve explained, if the bill passes, it’s going to make matters worse. We’re trying to fix a problem with this bill that doesn’t exist. The bill has caused trail sections to be closed down. It has caused those friendly agreements to be cancelled.

There are some other things that troubled me in the remarks that day of the government’s lead-off. The PA dismissed the concerns expressed by property owners about the bill as merely confusion based on what she called “misinformation.” At the same time, she noted that the easements were necessary because they align “with stakeholder requests for a legislative mechanism to allow trail easements.”

The message here is that during the government’s consultation, some trail groups and organizations thought easements would be a good idea, but what about the other side of the equation, Speaker? The people who actually give those agreements on their land, the people who actually have those trails cross their private property, weren’t the ones who were consulted. I think most people on the other side acknowledge that those property owners weren’t consulted about this easement provision in the legislation. The government now says that they must be confused, but they were never consulted.

I ask you: Is it any wonder why there’s this level of distrust when those voices were not part of the consultations two and a half years ago?

Before I move on, in the time I have left I want to discuss some of the other details in Bill 100. I want to be clear what I wanted to see in order to give this bill my support: First, we need the minister to accept the invitation of my caucus to attend meetings. We spoke to him again yesterday about meetings in Nipissing and Parry Sound–Muskoka, so I take him at his word on the floor of the House that his staff are going to have those meetings. There are concerned ridings, there are public meetings and we think the ministry needs to deliver on their promise to see those people.

We need to revisit

section 12 in

schedule 1 of the bill. As I’ve said, I’d like to see that

section removed entirely, but at the very least the language needs to state clearly that any easement is voluntary and that no property owner would be compelled to sign one.

Finally, I’d like a commitment from the government that the minister is going to support my call to hold committee meetings in rural and northern parts of Ontario.

I’m going to take a significant amount of the time I have left to talk about some of the things we support in the bill. As I said at the outset, I’m largely supportive of what I see in schedules 2 through 6. The schedules contain amendments to five separate pieces of legislation: the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, the Off-Road Vehicles Act, the Public Lands Act and the Trespass to Property Act.

I want to particularly say that I was pleased to see that Bill 100 does strengthen the Trespass to Property Act to give more protection to property owners. The bill does incorporate measures that my caucus colleague the member for Dufferin–Caledon, Sylvia Jones, put forward in her private member’s Bill 36, the Respecting Private Property Act, 2014.

If passed, Bill 100 would eliminate the current $1,000 limit on compensation for damages. There’s no question that that $1,000 limit, set in 1980, was completely inadequate in compensating property owners for damage caused by a trespasser. If passed, it would raise the maximum fine for anyone convicted of trespassing under the act to $10,000. Currently, the maximum level is set at $2,000, a figure that was established, I was told, in 1989, 27 years ago. Again, I think we all agree $10,000 is a more acceptable deterrent, and it’s overdue that we establish this higher ceiling. It’s a message that an offence of trespassing is one that is taken seriously by the courts.

I know that farmers I represent in Leeds–Grenville have questioned—we met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture yesterday in our caucus lounge for a breakfast meeting. I think most farmers wanted more of Ms. Jones’s Bill 36 to be adopted. The OFA, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, has called for a minimum fine of $500 to be set, something that the member for Dufferin–Caledon included in her bill. In our meeting yesterday with the OFA, they also pushed for the Trespass to Property Act to give police broader powers to focus on farm safety and biosecurity implications associated with trespassing.

Under

section 5 of the bill, there are actually some significant updates to the Public Lands Act in order to enhance the protection to crown lands and strengthen enforcement. The bill adds

section 69.2 to the act, which states that any person who causes prescribed damage to crown land or crown property on crown land is guilty of an offence, but it’s important to note that the prescribed damage isn’t defined. That’s being left up to regulation. Again, these updated protection and enforcement measures are necessary, but it shows that the government is going to deal with at least part of this bill through regulation. It’s going to ensure that those who cause damage to our treasured public resources are going to face, I believe, more appropriate consequences than before this bill was tabled.

It would include not only the fines but it would also empower the court to order someone convicted to rehabilitate or repair the damage.

If the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry were required to do the work, the amendments would allow the government to recoup any cost in court. Further, we see amendments to increase the majority of penalties for offences under the act, including maximum fine for first-time offenders and higher fines for repeated convictions.

There is one other change with regard to penalties under the act that I want to mention. In addition to higher maximum fines, the act is amended to allow that anyone who gained a monetary benefit from an offence on public lands would be handed a fine equal to that benefit. In terms of enforcing these new provisions designed to protect crown land, we see two major changes being brought in: First, MNRF officers empowered under the act will have new authority to stop vehicles and conduct inspections on crown lands; and it would give the officers the authority to arrest an individual without a warrant if they suspect that an offence under the act has been committed.

In terms of the changes to one of the other sections, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, it’s trying to reduce the risk of liability on trails groups and property owners. It clarifies that payment of a fee incidental to entering the trail or participating in an activity such as parking does not prevent the free-entry standard of care from applying to the individual. In other words, someone coming onto a trail under those circumstances, if the organization maintaining the trail has received public funding, does so at their own risk. So there’s that liability risk factor that’s there.

Of course, the requirement of a trail organization to not intentionally injure a trail user or act with reckless disregard for their presence remains.

Having spent so much time earlier on the portion of

section 100 dealing with easements, I should also highlight some of the other components of

schedule 1. I think most people will agree that, if passed, having the opportunity to proclaim an annual Trails Week in Ontario, which begins on the Monday before the first Saturday in June—it would coincide with International Trails Day. I think most people realize that a proclamation

section of the bill—pretty warm and fuzzy, Speaker; I don’t think you’re going to get much anger on the opposition benches over that. The bill also would authorize the minister to recognize a trail as an Ontario trail of distinction, as well as establishing a trail classification system and best practices.

So, in general, these schedules of the bill move us in a direction that’s going to allow us to create awareness and use of the trails. Listen, I said before those sections are pretty warm and fuzzy. It’s an admirable goal that we’re trying to accomplish. This is a great economic driver, our trail system.

We all like to boast about the scenery we represent. I’m going to take a few minutes to talk about some of the trails in my riding; I’m pretty proud of them. This stretch of highway has some of the most impressive vistas you’ll ever see, so I want to give a shout-out to the stretch of Ontario’s waterfront trail that’s a 36-kilometre stretch. The Thousand Islands Recreational Trail is just east of Gananoque. It runs along the St. Lawrence River, offering incredible views of the Thousand Islands.

Our local municipalities, the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, along with the former Harper government, teamed up with the St. Lawrence Parks Commission two years ago. They gave this trail an incredible facelift. It was repaved, it was widened at a cost of $2 million, and the results, Speaker, can be seen on any weekend; almost every day you’ll see the results. In the spring, summer and fall, cyclists of all ages, horseback riders, hikers, runners and rollerbladers flock to the trail. In the winter, snowmobilers and skiers show that it’s truly a year-round facility.

It’s far from the only destination in my riding for those looking for a trail adventure. Brockville’s scenic Brock Trail has an incredibly dedicated group called the Friends. The volunteers have already worked with the municipality to expand the trail and reinstall a bridge over one of the most picturesque sections. Hikers of every level of experience will find a trail to suit their tastes at the Charleston Lake Provincial Park, and Limerick Forest, managed by the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, celebrated its 75th anniversary last year.

It features incredible trails for cyclists, ATV-motocross drivers, horseback riding, skiing, snowmobiles and hiking. The northeast corner of my riding is the municipality of North Grenville, and it has an extensive and well-identified trails network that covers an incredible 150 kilometres.

In every corner of my riding there is something for hikers to explore. I want to give a shout-out to Foley Mountain Trails. They get a bird’s-eye view of the village of Westport and the UNESCO world heritage Rideau waterway. For anyone interested in paying us a visit, there are two great resources they can turn to for more information. The united counties of Leeds and Grenville’s website at leedsgrenville.com has a great listing of the trails and links to trails in Leeds and Grenville. I also want to recognize a wonderful group, the Frontenac Arch Biosphere.

The Frontenac Arch Biosphere has a FAB trails tour section. They maintain a very detailed listing of trail experiences on their website at frontenacarchbiosphere.ca.

I hope that in my time this morning, I’ve explained why I can support some of what’s in Bill 100, but when it comes to what I call the poison pill—and I believe very, very strongly that this bill does contain a poison pill. By introducing the process of establishing easements, the government has taken, I think, a step too far, particularly having done so much work on this bill without properly consulting property owners. I think it’s very important that we take those property owners’ views to heart when it comes to crafting a bill of this magnitude.

We’re going to spend a lot of time during the debate on this bill, I hope, praising the thousands of volunteers who give so freely of their time to maintain our trail system. I welcome that opportunity and I heartily join in praising those men and women who work so hard to keep the trails open in my riding. But you know, Speaker, this debate is too important, and I think we cannot lose sight of what property owners contribute to Ontario being able to boast such a world-class network. We have to listen to what those men and women who allow access to their property have to say in this debate. I’ve told this to the minister; I’ve told it to the minister’s staff.

I remember, during the Pan Am Games, the minister chastising our former critic, saying, “You didn’t show up for the briefing.” Well, I actually asked to have a briefing on this trails bill, because I wanted to meet with the staff to let them know what they were doing and let them know the concerns. I let them know, that day, the same thing I’m letting the House know today. That was weeks ago, and I haven’t seen a meaningful recognition that those concerns are valid.

The minister stated in the House that he would meet and that his staff would reach out to those that felt disenfranchised by this bill. We did see some of that, but there were some significant players—northern Ontario. When I look at the trails system that the member for Nipissing, the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka and the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke have—the amount of trails that they have—when they have a public meeting, and they read the minister’s words in Hansard, there’s an expectation that that word is going to be significant, and that the ministry is going to take it seriously.

I believe very strongly that without those property owners, without that agreement, we’re going to lose so much of our system that we’ve worked so hard to maintain and that we’ve worked so hard to enhance. The problem here, once again—I hate to it keep saying it—is that this government is ignoring that very significant part of the debate, the side of the coin that I think is very important. The government has focused so much on what trail groups want that they haven’t spent any time talking to property owners about their concerns.

I think the minister is missing a real opportunity to generate some goodwill by doing the amendments and by having those public hearings that I’m suggesting. Instead, his decision to rush ahead—and I say rush ahead—by calling for second reading debate really stirred the concerns that I had farmers talking to me about when I attended the annual Leeds Federation of Agriculture banquet in Lansdowne last Friday night.

I had one gentleman in particular who engaged me on this bill. He is far from an activist or an anti-government individual, but you know what? He’s genuinely tired of what he sees happening all around him: All levels of government, along with an assortment of agencies and organizations, are dictating what he can and what he can’t do on his own property. As he put it to me, “They’re trying to control our lives, Steve.” That’s what he said to me.

Again, he wasn’t an activist, and he wasn’t someone who I would categorize as anti-government, but he looks at Bill 100 and, with all the other red tape he has to put up with, he doesn’t have time to ponder what the word “may” really means when it comes it his property rights. He knows that this is just one more thing for him to worry about. So in his case, he just said to me, “You know, I might just as well just cancel my agreement on April 1. I’m not going to worry about it.

I’m just going to jump away.” He knows that there’s already a process in place to allow trails to go across his property, so why would the government then introduce the concept of easements if they weren’t up to something? That’s honestly what he feels.

What is he going to do if this bill passes as it’s written today? You know what he’s going to do if it passes exactly the way it’s written today, if we have what I said is going to happen, if we have a closure debate and the bill goes to committee for a couple of weeks in Toronto? He’s going to call up the snowmobile club, and he’s going to say, “I’m out.” He’s going to close his mind to it. Then we’re going to have a situation that I believe no one in this Legislature wanted, where we’re going to have significant chaos, frustration and confusion over a bill that languished on the order paper.

Let’s face it, Speaker: The government has bills that they rush through. Regardless of how this was placed in Michael Coteau’s mandate letter and how much of a priority, if you read it—and I invite anyone listening today to go on the website, read his mandate letter, see how prominently this bill was placed as a priority for him and then go back and think of a consultation that took place two and a half years ago. Not one single property owner was part of the discussion.

When the minister did his lead-off, he introduced me to all the stakeholders who were sitting in the government gallery—and I’m looking around. There are not too many people in the gallery this morning to hear my comments, but—

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’m here.

Mr. Steve Clark: I appreciate it, Gatesy.

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: I appreciate it, guys.

Again, it just fundamentally changes people’s faith in the government by not having meaningful consultation, by not having all voices at the table on a bill that significantly changes a relationship.

Speaker, I talked about it earlier. These aren’t agreements that are drafted by lawyers. They’re friends; they are neighbours. They sit down and discuss what they’re doing to the trails that season and how they’re going to access property. The minister can write all the letters to the editor he wants; it’s not going to change the fact that trails were shut down in this province because this bill was brought for second reading. No one on the government side can argue with my comments that just the simple tabling of this bill, without the proper consultation for those individual clubs—and don’t take my word for it.

Call a club yourself. Have members call clubs in other members’ ridings and ask if they were part of the consultation. Maybe the parent organization was. Maybe they were involved in this high-level discussion about promoting trails.

I even said that there are sections of this bill that I call “motherhood and apple pie.” Who’s going to be against proclaiming a trails week? Who’s going to disagree with the government taking on a priority to promote all of the good things that 80,000 kilometres of trails provide our residents in the province? No one is going to say they don’t agree with that, but I’ll tell you what they’re going to disagree with: They’re going to disagree with property owners not being part of the conversation. Again, it just feeds into the cynicism that’s in rural Ontario and feeds into this concern that this government doesn’t care about their voices.

This is a very significant part of rural recreation in my riding. This is a big deal for ridings like Leeds–Grenville. To have individual agreements basically torn up because the government couldn’t get out of the bubble in Toronto and actually explain to people and communicate to people what’s going on is ridiculous, Speaker.

Do you know what? They need to basically listen to property owners, they need to listen to the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, and they need to listen to me. If they were listening, they’d make a commitment to, first of all, amend the bill, to look at those sections of the bill that I spoke about this morning, to go out to those property owners, those ATV clubs, snowmobile clubs and those other trails organizations and make an effort to communicate to them on what they would like to see changed in the bill, how they would like to see that relationship continue for many years to come.

They would not continue to do what they’ve always done and call the legislation—because this hour this morning by myself is a signal to rural Ontario and northern Ontario that this government doesn’t care.

I would ask members of the government side—I see a number of members here today. I would ask you to talk to Minister Coteau about this bill, about ensuring that the voices of those men and women who allow access on their private property for snowmobile clubs, ATV clubs and trails organizations are heard, and not just allow 10 hours of debate and a closure motion or a time allocation motion or two days in Toronto for hearings to try to fix this problem, because the problem won’t be fixed.

I want the problem to be fixed. I want those trails in Leeds–Grenville to reopen. I want trails in Leeds–Grenville to expand. I see the benefit of these trails in my community, but what I get very angry about is the government ignoring those rural voices. This is a big change—perceived or otherwise—in how trails are being managed in the province.

I will tell you something: If we only have eight more hours of debate and the minimum amount of time at committee, this is going to be a disaster. You know, Speaker, if I see that the government isn’t going to take any of my amendments, maybe I’ll try to amend the title to say the “Ontario trails disaster act,” because that’s what it’s going to be. There will be more trails shut down, there will be more frustration, there will be more anger in rural Ontario.

So my message today—and I’ll close up with just this. My message today is: We need the government to listen. We all talk about the things that are inscribed here on the wall: “Hear the other side: Audi alteram partem.” I think that’s the right term: “Hear the other side.” This is a bill that they need to hear the other side of. They need to bring in those property owners involved in this.

I want to thank my caucus for indulging me in my speech this morning, and I really, truly look forward to comments and questions by all three parties.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’m just sitting here reading a letter from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It doesn’t look to me like they’re asking for tons of amendments, but what they’re really looking for—and we often see this with legislation that is introduced in this House: a lack of real consultation in the beginning, before the bill is tabled, and then a lack of enforcement at the end of the day once the legislation is passed. We see that in all ministries. I have over the last five years.

We have a great trail system in Niagara, a trail system through Welland, and I can tell you that the issue of enforcement there as well is a problem on the trails. It’s 140 kilometres of trails between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. They run along the Welland Canal and the Welland River as well. They’re non-motorized trails for the most part. Unfortunately, motorized vehicles like ATVs and, in the winter, snowmobiles try and use these trails.

Early on, when the 10 kilometres or so was built right in the city of Welland, it wasn’t open for very long when an ATV actually ran down a woman on rollerblades who was very, very seriously injured; she had to be airlifted to a critical care hospital outside of the region of Niagara.

The problem always comes down to the fact that there’s no enforcement. We’ve put up signs saying, “No motorized vehicles,” but it if there is no police presence at any time on these trails, if it no one is ever receiving a fine, if it’s never in the local media that somebody has been fined for using trails illegally, then people just continue to do those kinds of things.

I invite people to come and bike or walk or rollerblade along the Greater Niagara Circle Route. It is amazing. You can hit 96 wineries and breweries along that trail, all kinds of museums, and of course the great activities in Niagara Falls. I invite people to come and enjoy them, but I ask the government to pay attention to the amendments that the Federation of Agriculture is looking for.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I was listening to the member from Leeds–Grenville carefully, with a grain of salt, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the minister is out consulting regularly. I know he’s been talking to members opposite regularly. I saw him within the gallery with the member opposite and those concerned parties. The minister has agreed to attend public meetings. This is hardly arrogance. As the environment minister, I am going out across the province on climate change. The member from Leeds–Grenville is being absurd, calling it a disaster. The disaster for trails in Ontario is climate change. Over 30 years, our mean temperature in most of the trail areas will be eight degrees warmer, and four degrees warmer in the south, and that’s based on two IPCC reports.

How much snow do you think there’s going to be in eastern Ontario in 15 years for ATVs? Almost none. This is one of the great casualties of climate change: that we are going to lose a large part of our winter trail system.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Now they’re all jeering me. Why are they doing that? Because they don’t have a position on climate change. They’re posing on climate change. You can hear it when you hear them on topics like this. They don’t understand that what’s at risk here, what the disaster is, is that we’re losing our cross-country ski trails.

This is the party that forced amalgamations on cities, completely redrawing boundaries—no consultation. When I was mayor of Winnipeg, which they like to tease me about, I watched them download health and social service costs onto municipalities without compensating revenue, while in Manitoba they were uploading health and social services costs because the municipal property tax couldn’t bear it. In the member’s own area, his own party—after being a mayor in an area where 42% of highways and provincial roads were downloaded unilaterally without consultation on those municipalities, he talks about arrogance? That’s the pot calling the kettle black.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I guess I was going to have a different tone, but I think the issue about this is the arrogance of this government. Just listen to them.

We’re of the opinion that the bill was probably put there for good reason or good intentions, but look at the way people are responding to it. Listen. It’s not like this government ever listens, but we’re going to lose these trails. Rural areas have been very happy to have their neighbours come out and cross their land, but now they’re looking at this and they’ve been threatened by it, at least by perceived issues in this bill. The OFA is coming back. Obviously they weren’t talked to; landowners weren’t talked to.

Regardless of that, our comment is: Let’s get out and fix this bill. We have some amendments. If we sit there and talk about climate change as an issue—we’re talking about trails here, and people getting out. I heard our member from Leeds–Grenville talk about trying to get people out to exercise. That’s the basis of this bill.

This government has the idea that if we don’t do it, we don’t go out and purchase easements and create these vast trails, it’s not good enough. We have many times more of these private trails out there, or public trails, that don’t belong to the government. The landowners in rural areas have been very good about creating these and giving a place for these people to go. I enjoy them myself. But to think now that we’re going to lose them—just in my own township of South Glengarry, we have numerous trails across properties.

I encourage the government to get off their high horse and get out and listen to people and see why they’re upset and why they’re concerned, and reassure them. If there are some issues—the OFA have amendments; consider them. I’ve been at too many meetings where we go through amendments and, without even looking at them, they’re voted down by this government because of the majority. Sit down and listen to the people, or we’re going to lose a great natural resource that’s not costing the government anything.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’ll take some of those high horses down at the Fort Erie Race Track, if you want to send them my way.

It’s always a pleasure to stand up and talk about my riding, particularly around trails in Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie. One of the things that makes my riding so incredible is that it’s very vibrant, it has exciting cities, but it’s beside some of the best-preserved nature and historic trails in all Ontario.

For example, you can come down to Niagara-on-the-Lake and take a stroll through the beautiful old town and then find a trail just a few minutes up the road in Queenston Heights. While exploring the Bruce Trail, you can walk through a historic battlefield from the War of 1812 and still experience the natural beauty of Niagara. It has incredible history with our trails. You can explore the Niagara River. I know that some people in the House have been down to Niagara-on-the-Lake, using many of the exciting trails that take you around the Niagara Gorge.

You can walk, you can bike—and my colleague from Welland had an interesting comment. She said that you can bike through six wineries. That’s interesting to me, because if you stop at every winery, I don’t know how the biking’s going to go, but that’s something that we can look at.

Or you can go to Fort Erie and explore the Friendship Trail, which takes you to historic Fort Erie and Ridgeway. It’s what makes Niagara so unique. You can literally walk through our nation’s history, while at the same time explore our beautiful, preserved nature. I encourage everyone to come down this summer and come to Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Having said that, we have an opportunity to continue to grow the tourist industry through trails, for locals, for tourists and for jobs, so I’m looking forward to continuing this debate. What’s important under Bill 100 is that we have to make sure we have that debate, we have that consultation, and that the bill doesn’t hurt our trails, it doesn’t hurt our tourism, it doesn’t hurt our jobs. That’s why we need to make sure that we don’t cut off debate on this very, very important bill for all of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Leeds–Grenville for final comments.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to acknowledge the comments of the members for Welland, Niagara Falls and Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

It’s interesting with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I really hope that the government does not continue the rhetoric to deflect back to the mid-1990s. This is an issue that’s happening today in Ontario. There is a great opportunity for this government to make a connection. I’m just a little worried that with some of the rhetoric I heard this morning—and it may have been just that member—we’re not going to get where I think we need to be.

I know the government members think that those land use agreements based on a handshake are an outdated notion in today’s world, but let’s look at what those old-fashioned agreements they mock me for supporting have accomplished. They’re the basis for the trail system that we have in Ontario right now, which I think is the envy of many in the world. What has this government done with its ham-fisted attempt, I suggest, to modernize these agreements? And I’ll use the word again: I know that the minister doesn’t agree with me, but they’ve created chaos. They’ve put those trails in jeopardy.

Speaker, with all due respect, I’ve laid my comments on the record. I’ve laid, I feel, some reasonable amendments and suggestions on the table. The member from Welland echoed some of the concerns that the OFA has expressed to both of us. I’ll take those handshake deals anytime—anytime—over what this government is offering today with Bill 100. It needs to be changed, and again, I’ll take those handshakes over what they’ve given me today.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Visitor

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order?

Mr. Chris Ballard: A point of order: I’d like to introduce Patrick Connor, who is the CEO of the Ontario Trails Council. He’s in the members’ gallery. Welcome.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since it is now close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a delight to have Zachary Gan’s family here in the public gallery: mother Patricia Gan and sister Zoey Hodgins. They will be in the public gallery this morning.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome two friends from my great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham who are in the east members’ gallery: Ming Man and Lisa Lai.

Hon. Mario Sergio: We have a nice young man in the House today who wants to pay some attention to our question period. He is from Revera retirement living: Adrian Kupesic. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your stay with us this morning.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I wish to introduce a committee of delegates visiting us from Portugal this week on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the Peniche Community Club in my riding of Davenport. With us today are Dr. Antonio José Correia, mayor of the town of Peniche; members of the musical group Os Nemanus; their host, João Freixo, president of the Peniche Community Club of Toronto; his wife Isabel; and Diana Maria, a volunteer. Welcome all to Queen’s Park. Bem-vindos.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted this morning to welcome Chris Neal, Peter Neal and Theresa Laird from Neal Brothers Foods, and also Nick Saul from The Stop, in the members’ gallery. Welcome.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to welcome Carol Barltrop, who helped out in our office the last little while, and Steve Hyndman from the great riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, the former CAO of the city of Belleville. Welcome.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to introduce two very important people who are visiting in the House today: Tom and Dawn Davidson, who are visiting from Thornton, Ontario, and are the parents of my very hard-working chief of staff, Drew Davidson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to be sure to introduce page captain Chandise Nelson’s parents, Rose Nelson and father Chris Nelson. They are in the members’ galleries this morning. I know them well; I am so happy to have them and welcome them to Queen’s Park. Thank you.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us in the west gallery today is a staff person in my constituency office, Andrew Green, and joining him are Naveed Tagari and Virginia Tucciarone. Welcome.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear purple ribbons in recognition of Epilepsy Action Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to wear purple ribbons for Epilepsy Action Day. Do we agree? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, this government’s attack on doctors continued. The Minister of Health blamed so-called out-of-control billing by doctors as a reason for his mismanagement. He said doctors are overbilling hundreds of millions of dollars.

Is the minister insinuating that doctors are creating patient demand? Is it not true that doctors are billing for services they have delivered? If the minister’s implying that doctors should deny service to patients to balance the budget, is that not rationing? If the minister wants to ration care and prevent patients from accessing care, then why does he just not do that and stop blaming the doctors?

Mr. Speaker, why is this government blaming doctors for their inability to manage the health care system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to weigh in on this. I just want to say that we very much hope that the Ontario Medical Association—the OMA—will come back to the table. We want to have that conversation. This is a conversation about physician compensation. That’s what it’s about. I know that there are some who would like to make it about something else, but it is about physician compensation. It’s entirely appropriate that the minister would talk about physician compensation, because that’s what the discussion is about. We look forward to a productive discussion with the OMA.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Premier, we understand that managing costs is a challenge, but your minister needs to take some leadership, stop playing the blame game in the media and sit down with doctors and come to an agreement.

Back to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: The government has been trying to divide this profession. It’s been two years since these doctors have had a contract and, in these two years, this government has unilaterally slashed doctors’ fees to a tune of $815 million. Because of this, clinics have closed, practices have shut down and doctors have left the province. This government is trying to divide and conquer, rather than sit down and negotiate.

Mr. Speaker, there are a handful of doctors sitting over there on the government side. Why are they letting their government slander doctors and cut services to patients?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, our position hasn’t changed at all. What I did yesterday is I implored our doctors, through the representation to the OMA, to come back to negotiations with us, as I have done many, many times over the past one year—more than one year, Mr. Speaker. It’s important that we get back to formal negotiations so we can work out an agreement which treats all physicians fairly.

What I was speaking of is how technological changes, for example, have resulted in procedures and services being done much faster, in a much more expeditious way than in the past. With cataract surgery, for example, it used to take more than an hour; now it takes less than 20 minutes.

We need to make sure that we’re being fair to all physicians and that the compensation that we’re providing to them reflects the work that they’re doing and values that work. What happens is, if we’ve got certain high billers who are billing in advance of those technological adjustments being made, it’s unfair to other doctors, like our family doctors, our pediatricians, psychiatrists or medical officers of health, who are working just as hard.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: The Minister of Health is in charge. If he thinks that doctors are defrauding the system, he has the power to fix that, not to attack them in the media.

Back to the Premier: When the Minister of Health and the government re-launched their attack on doctors yesterday, I found it pretty rich. This is the government that gave us Ornge; it gave us eHealth; it overspent on smart meters. It’s a government that budgeted $40 million to cancel a gas plant that ballooned to over a billion. This is a government that has run nine straight deficits. This is a government that launches baseless attacks to smear doctors. It’s disrespectful, but this government just doesn’t get it.

Will the government tell us what the billions of dollars squandered in scandal, waste and mismanagement could have done for our health care system?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I mentioned, our position has not changed. We continue to implore the OMA to come back to the negotiating table. We need to, and we want to, work with them to get an agreement that is fair to all doctors and also helps us continue to provide the excellent care that our primary care physicians and our specialists across this province provide. It’s important that they come back to the negotiating table and, to date, over the last year, they’ve refused to do so. I have repeatedly asked them and my ministry has repeatedly asked them to come back to the negotiating table.

We believe that there’s an agreement that can be found, an agreement that provides us with a sustainable, predictable increasing budget, year after year after year, for physician services, but we need the OMA at the negotiating table. I don’t know if the member opposite is suggesting they shouldn’t come back. We need them at the negotiating table so that we can reach agreement on a fair deal for all doctors.

Senior citizens

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. There was a time in Ontario when families looked forward to their golden years. They worked hard, they provided a better life for their kids than they had growing up, and they were looking forward to looking back on what they have. But today, that Ontario is very different for our seniors. They now worry about being able to pay their bills, the ones brought on by this government: skyrocketing hydro bills, doubling costs for medication, gasoline taxes, increased natural gas, and the list goes on and on, all because this Premier cannot control spending.

My question is, when will the Premier stop making seniors pay for her waste, mismanagement and scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s talk about—just in our most recent budget—what we have put in place to support seniors. We put in place an additional $250 million to expand capacity to deliver high-quality home and community care, and an additional $75 million over three years in community-based residential hospice and palliative care, for a total of about $155 million. We’re expanding access to a low-income seniors’ benefit for 170,000 more seniors. That means that 170,000 more seniors will pay no deductible on their drug costs.

We’re making the shingles vaccine free for eligible seniors between the ages of 65 and 70. That saves $170 each for each of those people. We’re removing the debt retirement charge on electricity bills, which will save Ontarians and seniors—and an additional $10 million annually in behavioural supports to help long-term-care home residents with dementia and other complex behaviours. We understand that serving seniors is our responsibility.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: This government has made life more unaffordable for families, especially seniors. In my office last week, a large group of seniors gathered to talk about what life in Ontario has become under this Liberal government. Bonnie Beam was one of those seniors in my office. She told the media how she only turns her heat on in her bathroom because the hydro costs are “astronomical.” She said she cannot turn the heat on in her bedrooms, and when the temperature falls below minus 30 degrees, she might turn a little heat on in the kitchen. This was a real story from a real person.

All this is because the government has bungled the energy sector and sent her hydro bill soaring.

Does this government realize just how unaffordable they’ve made life for seniors?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just went over some of the things we have done in our budget to actually make life more affordable for seniors.

I hope that when the member opposite has constituents in his office, he’s very clear about the programs that are in place to actually help people with their electricity bills. Whether it’s the Ontario electricity support program or whether it’s the particular program that is targeted at seniors and property tax credits—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I don’t want to get to the point where—I would loathe to start your Easter break early. But I also would suggest to you that when questions are put and answers are put, neither side provoke each other while the answer is being given or the question is being put. The people on your own sides: Don’t engage, please.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is the job of every MPP in this House to make sure that constituents have information. It is the job of government to make sure we put those supports in place. But it is the job of the MPP for Nipissing to make sure that people in his constituency have all the information that is going to help them—programs that our government put in place.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No matter where he sits, I know where the member is from. Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Carry on.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: A large group of seniors gathered in my office last week. Their prime concern was rising drug costs. They’re angry with the Liberals’ decision to double drug costs for the vast majority of seniors. At the finance committee this week, Debra Cooper Burger, chair of an Ontario seniors’ group, told this government that seniors will be forced to choose between food or buying their medication. That’s the reality of what we have in Ontario. Our seniors rely on that medication to stay healthy and out of hospital. Our most vulnerable deserve better.

Will the Premier commit today to cancelling the planned increase to seniors’ drug costs as outlined in the budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: The Premier was quite right, telling the member to pass the information that’s available to our seniors. It doesn’t matter where they live, if they live in York West or if they live in the member’s riding.

Some 173,000 low-income seniors don’t pay anything for drugs anymore. There is a lot more, Mr. Speaker. In order to help the seniors that live on a single pension—very low incomes—this budget is great for the seniors who can’t afford to pay the $70 hydro. We have eliminated that. For the low-income seniors who go to the hospital, we have reduced the parking fees by 50%. The $30 emissions test: We have eliminated that. There’s a $170 savings for the shingles vaccine.

This is all to help our seniors who can’t afford the high costs, if you will, Speaker. And when we say—

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

New question.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Premier whether she had listened to the nearly 60 organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of Ontarians, who wrote to her and asked her “not to respond by merely slightly increasing the user threshold at which the higher deductible will be charged but to cancel the fee increase entirely and uphold the principle of universality.”

Will the Premier listen to them and cancel her plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been very clear that we’re very pleased that 173,000 more seniors in Ontario are not going to have to pay any deductible going forward on their drug costs. We have said that we want people to give us feedback on the regulation that is out for consultation right now. We will be listening to that feedback very intently. I’ve said that if we didn’t get that part of it right, then we will make a change.

I hope that the people that the leader of the third party is speaking to hear from her that they have the opportunity to give us that input right now, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, these organizations went on to say that “universality and equity principles were written into the Canada Health Act....”

These are the fundamental principles that ensure the health care services in this province and in this country serve everyone. So why is the Premier abandoning that principle, Speaker? Why is she abandoning a principle which is written right into the Canada Health Act and leaving most of Ontario’s seniors paying more for prescription medication?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, that’s just not the case. It’s just not the case. As many times as the leader of the third party would like to say it, it is not the case.

The fact is that 173,000 more seniors in this province will pay nothing. They will have no costs associated with their drug care. I would have thought that that would be something the leader of the third party would support.

We’ve said, Mr. Speaker, on the other part of the initiative, that we will be seeking input. The regulation is out for consultation. The decisions have not been made. We’re still listening to people’s commentary, and we will be looking at the action going forward.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s not just my opinion that this act in the budget that the Liberals put forward is eroding the principle of universality. Sixty organizations that range from health care advocates to seniors’ advocates are the ones that are naming exactly that.

Yesterday, the Premier made it clear that, for her, this is about rhetoric and politics. It may be for her, but for New Democrats, it’s not. It is about people. It’s about making sure that our health care system is there for people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Come to order, please.

Please finish, Leader.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —no matter who they are or what their income. It’s about building and protecting a system where seniors can actually afford the prescription drugs that they need.

Will this Premier explain why she is more concerned with politics and deficit reduction than she is with the protection of universality of health care and ensuring that seniors can afford the prescriptions that they need?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The leader of the third party knows that the regulation is posted and we are consulting, including consulting with the organizations that she referenced.

Let’s remind ourselves of their principles of universality, because they cut the number of drugs offered through the drug program of the province by 10% when they were in power—over 230 drugs. They closed 24% of acute care hospital beds in the province. They closed 13% of mental health beds in the province. They reduced hospital funding by 1% in their last year of office—that was, in fact, the second year of a budget which decreased health care funding for two years running. And they delisted home care from OHIP as well. That’s their concept of universality.

Our concept is to defend this health care system, to defend the Canada Health Act. We have a Premier who believes in universality and believes in defending that act, and I’m working with her to make sure we support it.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Premier accused people—sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is my next question to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier accused people who are worried about the cost of medication for seniors as setting “a fire where there isn’t one.”

Earlier this month, I met a senior named Grace who lives in Toronto in community housing and who earns about $25,000 a year. She was already worried about how much she’d have to pay for her hydro bill, and now she’s worried about how much she’s going to have to pay for her prescriptions.

Speaker, as I said before, it’s not rhetoric. It’s about real people, and that’s what this government has to get their heads around. Does this Premier really believe that this issue is no big deal?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I hope the leader of the third party, when she engages seniors about this, that she does—in fact, I’m happy to share this chart with her that demonstrates that Ontario by far across this country has the most generous drug program for our seniors, more than the NDP province. In Ontario, the average cost is $277, the out-of-pocket cost for a senior in this province. If we look at Alberta, the average cost is $613. If we look at BC, it’s $615. It’s $982 in Manitoba, the average out-of-pocket cost for seniors.

We have by far the most generous drug program for seniors. I’m happy to provide her with this information so that when she does consult with those seniors, she’s completely transparent and holistic in her approach, that she shows them just how generous we are being.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The fact is that universal health care is a principle that has been upheld by governments of every political stripe. In that way, it’s a bit like the ability to build infrastructure at the same time as running a public hydro system. All parties have been able to do that, except perhaps now.

But here in Ontario, we have a Premier who’s undermining the fundamental principle of universality. Will this Premier do what leaders from every political party before her have done and actually stand up for the principles of universal health care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I hope by now the leader of the third party understands how much this Premier and how much myself as the Minister of Health believe in and are defending the principles of universality when it comes to our health care system.

Let me give another example of what we’ve done for our seniors. I’ve had many seniors come to me and complain that they get a prescription for a chronic medication. They might have been on it for years—for high blood pressure, perhaps. Speaker, they take that three-month prescription to their pharmacist but they only get a month’s supply back. Part of the reason is, we’ve incented our pharmacists up till now that they get paid—in fact, the senior pays that co-payment—every single time. Our pharmacists no longer do that. It’s a maximum of five times a year.

You take that three-month prescription to your pharmacist, you’re going to get three months’ worth of drugs. You’re saving tens, if not hundreds, of dollars—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I hope by now that the Liberals understand how their budget bungle actually abandons the principle of universal health care. That’s what everybody is telling them, Speaker. They need to admit it if they’re going to make a change.

Anyone in Ontario, in fact, who wants to tell the Premier what they think of her plan to double the cost of medication for seniors can actually call her right now. They can call her at 416-325-2228. That number again, just to be sure the Minister of Health heard it—because he’s asking whether we’re telling people to get engaged in the process, and we are. Call the Premier at 416-325-2228, because apparently it isn’t enough that the Ontario Health Coalition, local chapters of CARP, the Council of Canadians, the National Pensioners Federation, the Raging Grannies, the Alliance of Seniors, major newspapers and worried seniors from across Ontario have already weighed in.

The Premier said yesterday that she’s listening to the people. The question is, how much more does she need to hear?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Since we seem to be in this position of exchanging information, I’ll reciprocate. As I mentioned, I’m happy to provide this chart which is very illustrative of comparisons across the country, demonstrating that we have by far the most generous drug program for seniors. No other province even comes close. For the next one, the out-of-pocket costs are twice that.

I’m happy to sit down and have a discussion about the Canada Health Act. They know—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We also have Liberals who don’t know what “universality” means.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We know what “universality” means; you don’t, because you delisted home care and took it out of OHIP.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve got the regulation posted. We’re committed to taking 173,000 so they no longer pay any annual deductible; they’ll join about 300,000. So about a quarter of all seniors will pay no annual deductible whatsoever. That’s even more generous for a program that is the most generous in Canada.

Dangerous offenders

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The minister, along with the Attorney General, met with me last month to discuss the failings of the justice system and what we can do to correct them. One thing that came as a shock to all of us, as I’m sure it will be to every member in this House, is that there is no electronic monitoring in Ontario to ensure that dangerous offenders, upon their release, are tracked by the authorities. In Ontario, the best protection we can offer is a piece of paper.

Why has this government continued to leave victims living in fear by not investing in simple, affordable, electronic monitoring technology for our most dangerous and violent offenders returning to our communities?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member opposite, first of all, for taking the time to meet with the Attorney General and me. We had a very constructive meeting. It was a very detailed meeting, going through how the system works when it comes to inmates who have been returned to the community and things that we need to do.

Speaker, as I have been working along with the member opposite, I assure him that we have embarked on very significant work around transforming our correctional services, both in terms of our institutions and the services that are provided in the community as well. As a result, in order to learn even more, I have been travelling and meeting with probation and parole officers to better understand the services provided. I would love to share more details in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services: I’ve sent a letter to the minister further expressing my concerns about our province’s inability to track our most dangerous and violent offenders. Electronic monitoring isn’t expensive, it isn’t new, and it’s being used in many places such as Calgary, Edmonton, PEI, and even by Canadian border services. There are numerous options providing cost-effective, proven results with this technology. One of these companies already does all the monitoring for the country right here in Ontario, in Sudbury.

Speaker, will the minister commit to this House today to bring a pilot project forward to equip our police and corrections officers with electronic tracking devices so they can monitor dangerous and violent offenders upon their release into our communities?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I thank the member. He gave me a letter just a few days ago, and I spoke to him in person and undertook to look into it, and to have a subsequent meeting, as well.

I also want to make sure that I make it very clear that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services have policies and procedures in place for the supervision of sexual and other high-risk offenders. Probation and parole officers receive specialized training to aid in risk assessment, supervision and monitoring. Where an offender has a court order requiring treatment or intervention, or chooses to participate in treatment, probation officers work with the offender to access the appropriate programming. Information-sharing protocols with local police are also in place. Police also have policies and procedures in place for monitoring high-risk offenders in their jurisdictions.

We need to continue to work on these issues. We need to make sure that victims are always safe in the community and that we do provide appropriate rehabilitation services to offenders. I look forward to working with the member opposite in working those strategies.

Executive compensation

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, can the Premier explain why the sunshine list will have a huge hole in it this year where Hydro One used to be?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I am pleased to say that the salaries of the executives of Hydro One will be posted continuously in the public record for all to see at any time of the year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: An entertaining finance minister. The Premier—this question is back to her—was elected on a platform that read, “The kind of abuses uncovered at Hydro One must never be repeated. We will ... insist that they disclose significant expense claims by board members and executives.”

That was that 2003 Liberal platform, page 9. Just because Hydro One is no longer public, the salaries for all the top executives still come from the same place as they did in 2003: you and me and every other ratepayer in Ontario. The only difference is that now Hydro One executives won’t appear on the sunshine list, making it far more difficult to uncover any abuses.

Again, can the Premier explain why Hydro One is not on the sunshine list?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let me be clear: It’s a publicly traded company. They have different oversight mechanisms. It’s required for the members and the executives to be displayed. That would be available on public record at any time. The disclosure is there to be seen at any time of the year.

Health care funding

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Providing excellent community health care is an extremely important matter for constituents in Beaches–East York, and indeed for all Ontarians. It was a pillar I ran on in 2014.

Yesterday the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care outlined the progress that our government has made on our Patients First Action Plan for Health Care. Those achievements include reducing the cost of parking at Ontario hospitals for patients and their families and loved ones. They include $1 billion in new health care spending this year, which will help improve access and include more than $245 million in new funding for our hospitals. It also includes appointing Ontario’s first-ever patient ombudsman.

But Speaker, the minister also reiterated his request that the Ontario Medical Association return to the table and work with our government to negotiate a new deal. Will the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please tell this House why he is asking the OMA to come back to the negotiating table to help us improve our system—

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

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It is immensely important to me as the Minister of Health that we resume negotiations and find that negotiated agreement together with the OMA, so we can continue to build upon the success that, quite frankly, our doctors are so proud of, as they should be: The success that they’ve been part of in making sure that they’re providing the best quality of care for their patients but also the fact now that 94% of Ontarians have access to a primary care provider. We couldn’t have done that without the help and the hard work of our doctors and others in the front lines.

But, Mr. Speaker, our position has never changed. After a year of negotiations, when the OMA walked away from the agreement that it was advised that they accept from the facilitator, we want to continue to work with them. We want to come back to formal negotiations. I’ve implored them to do that repeatedly. I ask them to come back to the table now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I thank the minister for that response. Indeed, I would congratulate the minister and his entire ministry for the great work that they are doing transforming health care in the province of Ontario.

I know my constituents deeply appreciate the care and the support that Ontario doctors provide on a day-to-day basis. For most Ontarians, family doctors are who we immediately turn to when we are concerned about our health or find ourselves sick. They’re the ones we turn to first.

Yesterday, I saw a press release from the OMA that seemed to call into question—and I think most Ontarians would agree—whether they are prepared to come back to the negotiating table and work with our government to negotiate a long-term deal that would provide stability for Ontario’s doctors and patients, and improve conditions for Ontario’s family doctors.

Will the minister please clarify for the House what the government’s position is on returning to the negotiating table so we can reach a deal for fairly compensating Ontario doctors?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, while I continue to implore the OMA to come back to negotiations, we continue to increase our health care budget. It went up this year by over $125 million. It will continue to increase each and every year.

But right now, because most doctors in the province bill for every service they provide, they effectively set their own salary. Over the past three years, this has resulted in an over-budget, above and beyond what we’ve budgeted in the ministry, of hundreds of millions of dollars. A large part of this overspend has come from high-billing specialists, who continue to be able to bill high amounts despite technological changes. I gave the example of cataract surgery that used to take over an hour and now takes less than 20 minutes.

These high-billing specialists often earn two, three or even more times as much as an average doctor or a family doctor might earn. It leaves less money for our family doctors, less for our pediatricians, our psychiatrists, our community health centre doctors, and it squeezes our ability to invest in other areas.

Wind turbines

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Premier. Premier, we warned the government repeatedly that it was a bad idea to authorize the construction of wind turbines in the Great Lakes. They went ahead and signed contracts anyway, specifically with WindStream. When they got flooded with opposition, no pun intended, and in order to save Liberal seats, they abruptly reversed their position and said there would be no wind turbines in the Great Lakes. As a result, WindStream is suing, and taxpayers could be on the hook for $568 million.

I would ask the Premier: If WindStream is successful in their suit, will the Liberal Party of Ontario reimburse the taxpayer for their incompetence and for once again showing that your government can’t get anything right?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not going to pre-empt a legal process. Obviously, I don’t have knowledge of what those decisions will be. What we know is that we need to make decisions that are based on science, that are based on evidence. There was a concern about the impact of offshore turbines.

But let me say that the fact is that Ontario has taken the largest step in North America in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by shutting down coal-fired plants, by investing in renewables, by jump-starting an industry. That means we are taking a leadership role not just in this country, but internationally. We’re going to continue to take that role, and that will include the implementation of our cap-and-trade system.

Part of the work that we’ve been doing is about renewables, and we’re very proud of that work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Premier: Taxpayers always pay for your incompetence.

The Premier would know that the star witness supporting WindStream’s case is none other than her former colleague Mr. George Smitherman, the architect of the disastrous feed-in tariff program. While the government states in its defence that it was not prepared from a regulatory perspective to deal with offshore energy developments, Mr. Smitherman testified that when he was minister, no one discussed with him that they were unable to accommodate offshore wind developments. In fact, he stated that the Ministers of the Environment and Natural Resources expressed strong support for the program.

Speaker, I would ask the Premier: If she is not going to reimburse the taxpayers should the WindStream case be successful, perhaps she can sit down with her ex-colleague and find out why George Smitherman is testifying against his former government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Two major points here: one, this is a legal case. The member may be new to the House, but he knows neither the government nor he should comment—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I know you didn’t.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: He knows that none of us should be commenting on a legal case on this side or the other side of the House. Second—

Mr. Bill Walker: You won’t be able to talk about anything pretty soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, second time.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Second, the question is entirely hypothetical. The third piece: Can the member point to any large inland body of fresh water that had wind turbines on it prior to those decisions? No, they can’t. There was prudence taken by this government to make sure that there was good science in place before they were deployed. That’s the sensible thing to do.

Special-needs students

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday I met Scott Myers at a Sagonaska parent council meeting in Belleville. Scott is a single father from Petawawa who is trying desperately to enrol his daughter Jayna in this specialized school. His family worked on her application for over a year. Scott and I sat patiently as we heard testimonials from graduates, current students and their families about how Sagonaska dramatically improved their reading and writing and boosted their confidence.

But the minister’s decision to freeze enrolment next year is creating chaos for families like Scott’s, who now face an uncertain future. For students like Jayna, it means that this Liberal government is pulling the rug out from under them and they will not be given the same opportunities to succeed.

My question is simple: Will the Minister of Education open enrolment and give students like Jayna the school year they deserve?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to assure everyone that we are committed to the success of all of our students. That includes students who have severe learning disabilities and, in this particular case, students who are struggling to learn to read.

We agree with the parents and with the students whom I talked to privately last evening that these programs at the four demonstration schools have made a tremendous impact on their life. In fact, children who have been struggling their whole life to learn to read have been successful in learning to read through these programs. There’s no dispute about that. The challenge for all of us now is to figure out how we can support more students with similar needs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Yesterday, the minister said that she is accountable for the actions of her department, so will she please act on her claim and answer a direct question?

Back to the minister: The families gathered in Belleville last night witnessed how out of touch this Liberal government is with the realities of students with exceptional needs. The minister asked what went wrong with students at their home school boards. If the minister was listening, she would know that it’s not about what went wrong at district school boards but what is right about provincial and demonstration schools.

Despite the proven track record of schools like Sagonaska, the minister has capped enrolment and frozen applications for next year. Yesterday, the minister didn’t answer a single question from parents or students. Will she please answer one now? Is the closure of Sagonaska or any provincial or demonstration school a potential outcome of this year’s consultations?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I beg to differ with the member opposite. When I talk to a student and their parents and they tell me that a student with a severe learning disability who has an average or above-average intelligence is in grade 8 or 9 and reading at a kindergarten or grade 1 level, something went wrong. Part of my job, through this consultation, is to figure out what went wrong. We know that there are thousands of students all over the province for whom the services that we already have in place didn’t click. We need to figure out what went wrong so that we can put in place services that do click and so that students do learn to read when they have the capacity to do so. That’s my job.

Affordable housing

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. When it comes to how we shape our communities and how we work to create better access to affordable housing for Ontarians who need it most, I’ve always believed in giving municipalities the tools they need to make important decisions at the local level.

One of these powerful tools is inclusionary zoning. As members of this House are aware, I’ve advocated for inclusionary zoning in my own private member’s bill.

In many communities, increasing house prices and rent costs are making it difficult for people to find housing they can afford. At last week’s new Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy announcement, our government took action to achieve a fairer society. It was announced that we intend to introduce legislation that would, if passed, make inclusionary zoning a reality in communities across this province.

Mr. Speaker, through you, will the minister tell us about the thinking behind this decision and the next steps ahead?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, as well as the member from Parkdale–High Park, who have been tireless in their efforts to advocate for inclusionary zoning.

At the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we don’t have a construction office down at the end of our wing, filled with bricklayers and carpenters and electricians and plumbers who wait for a call from Schreiber or Peterborough or Hamilton to come and build eight, 18 or 100 units. It doesn’t work that way. It works by partnering together with our municipalities and the private sector—

Interjection: Not-for-profits.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —and not-for-profits, to try to encourage, incent and plan for the provision of social and affordable housing.

I’ve come to believe, thanks to some of the advocacy efforts of other members in the House, that inclusionary zoning is a good way to go. We’re meeting with our partners. We’re going to come up with something very comprehensive, and it’s going to work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to congratulate the minister on his tremendous leadership.

I’m also very proud of the action our government has taken in the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy to make finding a home easier for low- and middle-income Ontarians and to empower municipalities to address their communities’ needs.

Some people see inclusionary zoning as a magic wand, thinking it will be sufficient on its own to solve housing challenges. I’d like to urge the government to pass existing legislation as urgently as possible.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister explain why simply passing one of the existing private members’ bills on inclusionary zoning that are already before the House wouldn’t achieve these larger objectives for affordable housing?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, inclusionary zoning has, in some jurisdictions, proven to be an effective tool if it’s done right. We want to make sure we get it right.

I recognize and our government recognizes that it’s now time to take action beyond

section 37, which could have done a lot of this kind of thing if properly applied, but it wasn’t. That’s why we’re developing a broader set of legislative changes that will go beyond inclusionary zoning.

That’s why we want to talk to our partners, because, believe it or not, the development industry and our municipalities and some of my colleagues in this House have got some great ideas that need to be rolled into that legislation. We’re going to make sure that happens because we’re going to make sure we get it right.

Tenant protection

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I’ve written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about the challenges some of my constituents are facing in land-lease communities where they live in Wasaga Beach. I’ve also questioned the minister in this House.

These developments are managed by Parkbridge’s Adult Lifestyle Communities. Three of these communities are petitioning the province to update the Residential Tenancies Act, 1991, to bring in better oversight and transparency of the fees they pay.

Right now, residents in these communities have no protection and many, including Mr. Bill Dee, say the annual land-lease increases they face are too high. Another resident, Mr. Tony Brady, told local media, “They can raise it to whatever they want. This year, it’s 4.2%; it could be 6.2%, or 10.2%, and we have nowhere to turn, we have absolutely no recourse.”

My constituents need the government to come up with a creative solution. Will the Premier please commit to tackling this issue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The Premier will commit to tackling this issue, I can assure you. I appreciated getting a copy of the letter from the honourable member opposite.

There are situations where this is a serious problem. We need to have serious people sit down and look for some serious solutions. I can commit to the honourable member that we’re doing exactly that, and I hope that in the not-too-distant future, we can together come up with a solution that will work for your constituents and others who are in these situations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: I certainly appreciate that answer from the minister. The residents are particularly concerned about transparency. They see steady increases in maintenance fees, for example, and the company unwilling to give them explanations. If they bought new lawn mowers or something like that, they’d understand the fees going up, but they never seem to get an explanation.

There are about 40 of these land-lease communities, I believe, across the province, so a lot of us are affected by it. I’d just ask the honourable minister, do you have a time frame in mind of when we might come to a solution?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If it’s anything like inclusionary zoning, it will be a long time.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: And if municipalities used

section 37, we could have had this solved a long time ago too.

I don’t have a timeline. I can assure the member opposite that we’re looking at it. We’re looking at it seriously. We do think it’s something that needs to be addressed. There are different ways to address it. You may know that the Landlord and Tenant Board and how that operates is in fact a function of the Attorney General, so we’re working inter-ministerially to look at the potential answers.

To the honourable member: I’ll get back to you—hopefully, as we quick as we can—with some action.

Crown attorneys

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Premier: Speaker, as this Liberal government is aware, the residing Rainy River district crown attorney is retiring. Rather than immediately undertake a search for a replacement, the Ministry of the Attorney General has decided to hire a rent-a-crown from a neighbouring district hundreds of kilometres away, despite the fact that the statistics show that the Rainy River district crown attorney has the highest caseload per capita in northern Ontario.

My question is simple: Can the Premier tell us when there will be a permanent resident crown attorney for the Rainy River district?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I don’t have the time frame on that. I’m going to ask the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to look at that.

But what I can say is that it would obviously be very critical that services would be in place, that there would be access to those services at any time, given the severity of cases. So the fact that there hasn’t been a permanent appointment does not mean that the services would not be available to the member’s residents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: All Ontarians deserve fair and equitable access to justice as a basic right. This latest blow to access to justice in the Rainy River district comes on the heels of a decision to not replace the resident judge, and serves as a further erosion of services and a further marginalization of the area.

A resident crown attorney has the knowledge of the area, including the knowledge and sensitivity to First Nation issues, as identified by the Gladue principle, and, just as importantly, is available and accessible.

No community should have to settle for whistle-stop justice. Will the Premier commit today to hiring a permanent replacement for the crown attorney who resides in the Rainy River district, without delay?

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member opposite for asking the question. I appreciate very much the Premier’s responses. Of course, we take access to justice very, very seriously. A fundamental tenet of our judicial system is to make sure that all citizens have timely access to justice.

I’m confident that the Ministry of the Attorney General is doing everything in its power to make sure that the services that are needed in all communities across the province, especially northern Ontario, are available in a timely manner. I know there has been a significant effort that has been put in place to ensure that we continue to modernize our justice system, to better utilize technology in the delivery of the justice system, and of course, to ensure that services are also being provided in the French language, which is also an essential aspect of access to justice.

Northern Ontario Heritage Fund

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. We are greatly involved in supporting communities and businesses in northern Ontario, recognizing that through strategic investment, northern Ontario is on the right track to prosperity.

Investing in the north is a critical part of our plan to build Ontario up by supporting the construction of modern infrastructure and creating a dynamic and innovative business climate.

I understand that one of the ways that our government contributes to northern communities is through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund. Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell us more about this fund and the support that it is providing to people in the north?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much to the member for Kitchener Centre for this question. Through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund program, our government is investing $100 million each year in this economic development fund that supports new projects across the north that are certainly strengthening northern communities, creating jobs and helping more northerners live, work and build careers in this great part of the province.

I wish I could go into all aspects of the fund, but I am proud to say that it was a Liberal government, under René Fontaine, that first introduced the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. back in the late 1980s. It’s our government that increased the NOHFC funding to an unprecedented $100-million level, a program that has created or retained over 25,000 jobs, that has actually brought forward investment—tripled in terms of the amount.

We’re very excited, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to talking about one of the announcements we made recently. Perhaps I’ll be able to get to that—

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

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I want to thank the minister for his answer. Clearly he is a very strong advocate for the north through the work of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund. It’s great to hear that our government is making such important investments in northern Ontario, and that we’re exploring innovative ways to help Ontarians who are living, working and studying in the north.

I hear that the minister was recently at Lakehead University to announce that they are making several investments through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund. Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell us more about these investments at Lakehead University?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I was indeed at Lakehead University with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to make a great announcement. The university was here yesterday, actually, with us all, and they continue to be a beacon of education in the north.

What we were able to provide was an $814,000 Northern Ontario Heritage Fund investment to establish a five-year industrial research chair position in green chemicals and processes. Additionally, through another investment of $470,000, we invested towards the development of a fire-resistance testing laboratory at Lakehead University, of great interest to my colleagues.

Certainly, we are very proud to support cutting-edge research conducted at Lakehead University and all across the north. By supporting that development and commercialization of new technologies, we’re contributing to future prosperity in northern Ontario.

Organized crime

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Premier: We debate a private member’s bill today. Ontario’s black market, illegal trade and trafficking continue to grow in scope and sophistication. Ontario, as we know, is a major hub of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Cocaine, amphetamines, heroin and other narcotics like fentanyl have long financed organized crime. Cash is king. We now see money laundering through online gambling, e-commerce and bitcoin. Contraband tobacco tax losses are at between 30% and 40%. Illegal weapons pervade.

Premier, as you would know, much of this crime is organized. My question: Do you feel that we as a society are suitably up to date and organized to fight back?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. It is certainly something that this side of the House also recognizes as important. It is why we have already taken action on a number of items that he seeks in his bill, and we’re seeking to address them positively.

It is why we’re working very closely with First Nations communities, in a balanced and respectful approach, to try to find compliance measures to the issues that we face. We h