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

June 1, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Jun-01 (PDF)

L180 - Wed 1 Jun 2016 / Mer 1er jun 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 1 June 2016 Mercredi 1 er juin 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Leonard Quilty

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Energy policies

Hospital funding

Energy policies

Energy policies

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Injured workers

Climate change

Injured workers

Waste diversion

Consumer protection

Mercury poisoning

Smoke-free Ontario

Infectious disease control

Correction of record

Correction of record

Deferred Votes

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

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

Notice of dissatisfaction

Annual report, French Language Services Commissioner

Annual report, Integrity Commissioner

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Long-term care

Mike Rohrer

Italian Heritage Month

Disaster relief

Injured workers

Rotary Classic Superhero Run

Portuguese History and Heritage Month

Quest for Gold Athlete Assistance Program

Grant Dokis

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Seniors Active Living Centres Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les centres de vie active pour personnes âgées

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Seniors’ Month

National Access Awareness Week

Seniors’ Month

National Access Awareness Week

Seniors’ Month

National Access Awareness Week

Petitions

Stray current

Privatization of public assets

GO Transit

Children’s immunization program

Employment standards

Elder abuse

Rail service

Health care funding

Home inspection industry

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Lyme disease

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Child protection

Animal protection

Orders of the Day

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 31, 2016, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 and the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2016 and to repeal the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 / Projet de loi 151, Loi édictant la Loi de 2016 sur la récupération des ressources et l’économie circulaire et la Loi transitoire de 2016 sur le réacheminement des déchets et abrogeant la Loi de 2002 sur le réacheminement des déchets.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m proud to rise today, on behalf of my constituents in Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, to speak to Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act. It’s an interesting title, because I know there’s no such thing as waste-free; I know it’s a target that governments and municipalities have been pushing for.

To look after waste is something that’s been very expensive. There have been lots of ideas. I know that lots of the better ideas have been stifled by this government over the years as we look through.

As the mayor of South Glengarry, landfill costs were huge, in my day, in some ways rivalling what we spent on roads and bridges. Sometimes we looked at it and really costed it. We didn’t feel that the millions we spent on approvals—we questioned the merit or the benefit of it.

We’ve had the government listen to some of the delegations that came forth and listen to the opposition parties themselves, and I think we had some changes that came through that we were quite happy with, through the readings—third reading.

The new authority must report on its progress in winding down expensive, inefficient agencies such as Ontario Tire Stewardship, Ontario Electronic Stewardship and Stewardship Ontario—lots of stewards there. It just talks about the many agencies there and the trouble that businesses, which are trying to function, profit and provide jobs in this province, are having.

We saw reports of lavish and wasteful spending by Ontario Tire Stewardship executives on the backs of Ontarians who had no choice but to pay. Ontario Tire Stewardship decided to increase the tax on farm tires by 20 times, creating a massive issue for our agricultural sector.

I know that on the surface it looks like, “Well, farmers will just pay more. They’ll eat the cost,” but my riding borders on the US and also borders on Quebec. Actually, I grew up in an area that’s a mile from the border, and for most of my time before I went off to university, our address was actually Dalhousie Station, Quebec. That’s where the post office was, and it caused all kinds of problems as things got a lot more official with health cards, as you can imagine, if you went in and your address was in Quebec. It forced the government of the day to separate post offices based on provincial lines.

I got a call from a tire distributor, Glengarry Tire, in Glen Robertson, just a couple of miles outside my riding, in the Glengarry–Prescott–Russell riding. He said, “What am I going to do? I’m selling to people like my brothers, who go out and buy tires. You’re putting a tax on my tires”—it was $800. “Anybody who wants to avoid the tax drives five miles down to the dealership in Dalhousie, Quebec, and they don’t pay it.” He said, “I may as well just shut down and move.” Those are the issues we’re looking at.

When you bring in uncompetitive taxes, businesses, in this case, are forced to do something—I doubt his profit on the tires was $1,000 or $800. So does he start selling his product at a loss, or are we really just sending out the message that we don’t like his business and he can move? Those are the issues we run into. It’s hard to justify to somebody who gives you a call like that. Fortunately, my nephew, who works at Campeau’s in Dalhousie, benefits from it, but the taxes don’t come back to Ontario, and that’s a problem.

Constituents also often complain in my office about extra fees and taxes on purchases. It affects their budget and affects their spending. When you add that to increased power costs and the increased cost of living in Ontario now, it really is bringing more and more people—you know, we have a province that sometimes brags about the jobs it is creating, but we have the largest percentage of minimum-wage jobs in the country. That’s Ontario. That’s not something we ever experienced before. People on minimum wage are having a very hard time these days.

It’s great to see the Minister of Energy come out with a program that helps people on minimum wage, but all that does is make sure that the rest of the population pays, which raises the price for everybody else and then increases the number of people who need help. It’s just a vicious circle.

We have to be careful when we put fees on something like recycling, because there’s no better way of putting a system in place that allows the distributors—the people who are creating the garbage—the opportunity to save money. If it’s just a government-imposed fee that has no impact, there’s no incentive for them to look at how to cut costs or cut the waste they’re producing. I think that was our clear message: We have to make sure that this bill allows manufacturers to actually cut waste, and if they cut it, they get rewarded for it. That’s the way our system works, and it has worked very well.

And that’s the way our competitors—the people we’re competing with—work as well. So it’s interesting to see some of these things.

Another issue: The minister must make progress reports available to the House on a regular basis. We just saw recently that the Financial Accountability Officer showed that the government is not forthcoming with information that would enable the public and MPPs to hold it to account. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Financial Accountability Officer issued a letter to the House talking about an amendment that came forth that the government had promised was going to meet his concerns about the cap-and-trade bill, Bill 172, where he had come forth and said that the transparency wasn’t there.

The government was able to give out billions—not millions; billions—of dollars in credits and the taxes they were collecting, with no accountability. In the committee I sit on, deputants came through with the same message. We put some amendments, and the third party put some amendments as well—all voted down by the government.

But the really telling part was at the end—the last amendment. The government rushed in at the last minute, put it on the table and told us that they had discussed it with the Financial Accountability Officer and he was very happy with the amendment and that it answered all his concerns. And the next day we saw a letter saying, “Not only does it not answer my concerns, but they haven’t even talked to me.” I know we’re not allowed to use certain words in this House, but what else could it be? It’s mind-boggling that this government would resort to that.

We saw the first debt retirement charge update given by the Minister of Finance in 2012—years late. This was years after it was supposed to be retired—just recently done. Where is this money going? It’s like a candy store: Any time they get their hand in the jar, the money disappears. We see that over and over again. The government acted only after the Auditor General issued a report. His job was not to babysit this government, and that’s just what we’re seeing. This report was years after this has been retired. Why are you still charging it?

It’s similar to the Drive Clean test: overcharging, and the tax—much more than the test cost—coming back to the government, which of course is illegal. The government has, in this case, a fee for the service, and they were making tens of millions of dollars off this. That was the real reason they didn’t want to cut this. The test no longer has any value.

It was interesting: I was meeting with some of the car companies in my riding just last week, and I asked about some of the regulations they would like to see eliminated. They mentioned Drive Clean. They said, “We’re doing it, and the government is paying us for it, but it’s a useless program because it just reads the computer.” And there are all kinds of problems if they’re going to do a safety check on it through the program—maybe this applies more not to the actual dealers but to second-hand car retailers—and they have to disconnect the battery at one point to do some of the tests.

Then they have to drive around for three, four or five hours to drive 500 kilometres to reset the damned computer.

At first I thought that was a little bit of a story, but I bought a new vehicle last year and left the gas cap off for a few minutes, and of course the computer tripped and said there was engine trouble. It took over 500 kilometres to reset that in the summer—it takes longer in the wintertime. Those are the types of things. So now they have to pay a staff member to go out and drive a car around for five hours. That’s real time and real money. You’re talking about a program that is a complete waste of time, energy and money, let alone putting an extra 500 kilometres on a vehicle, just so they can reset the computer so it passes the test. One has to really think about what’s going on here.

We look at the government reports, and look no further back than the gas plants scandal: months and months of the committee trying to get these documents that they were entitled to. Only when the committee went to full-day sessions in the summer were they actually able to pass a motion to release the documents. And then this government, as forthright as they are—months and months of denying until the Speaker ruled that they had to do it; they had to release these documents. Then, when we got the documents, they were redacted, whited out, which again was not allowed.

The ministers talk about progress reports, but you can see why we, in the opposition, are really worried about, “Are they going to be forthright? Are we really going to get any information of substance, or is this just another case of information that we will never see?” It looks good on paper, but again, you have to judge this government by its actions. Past actions should predict future actions, and quite frankly, that would be rather scary.

Other cases of obstruction include the refusal to comply with a committee’s request for documents; freedom-of-information rules; and the refusal to disclose key fiscal and financial information.

Making these progress reports mandatory doesn’t make them happen. We were hoping that we’d see a bit of a change here. Maybe we will. We’ll take the government at its word, and that can be dangerous at times.

Phasing out eco taxes that drive up the consumer process and depress demand—the government is notorious for collecting vast sums of money and being unable to spend it wisely. We see that today, as record levels of revenue—they’re well over double the revenue that they collected when they came to power, and yet we still see cuts in health care. We see demonstration schools being closed. We see autism being cut. It’s an example that the taxes are there but they aren’t being spent wisely. The eco taxes are regressive because they affect everybody, regardless of income.

We need to take some of the burden off the people. They’re really challenged in this economy, challenged in making a good living, something that we used to be very proud of, something that we used to see residents from many other provinces come to Ontario for, because it was a land where you would get a job. It’s not that way anymore.

The manufacturing industry and the recycling industry have a role to play in ensuring that waste is reduced, and government must stop trying to manage it. Give them a target, let them work towards it and give them a financial incentive if they do a better job or they’re able to obtain revenue from it. If they don’t do a good job, of course, then they have to pay for it. I think that’s really the only way we’re going to encourage the ability to get in there and see improvements.

With many different companies coming up with better ideas, it gets infectious. People are comparing company to company. There’s that drive to do a better job. If you don’t reward them for doing a better job, it takes away that incentive, and unfortunately, the government really has no incentive to ensuring that somebody does a better job. The incentive is hiring more cops to go out there and check. That’s really not an incentive, and it doesn’t spur the same innovation as we hope to see.

We’re looking at driving some competition. The economy thrives on competition; we’re built on it. It’s a constant pressure from businesses to outdo one another. I think that’s what this bill really needs to get at. Let the industry look at ways to improve, and let them benefit from those improvements. When we set rates by the government, it just falls apart.

The blue box, as any recycling program, is a partnership between the municipalities, manufacturers and the recyclers. All parties have a stake in making sure that it’s a success. Manufacturers can reduce the downstream costs and improve their environmental credentials by ensuring their product does not go to landfill. If there’s a revenue benefit to that, they will work at doing that. They will work in their own stream to bring their product back to themselves so they can reuse the parts, instead of using up a scarce resource.

Recycling firms already have a ready and convenient supply chain for raw materials. As we see, a lot of these materials—for instance, on the tire side, a recycler in my area can’t get enough tires. He would take more tires if he could, because he has a market for rubber mats. He sells them all over the world. He even put in a process that allows him to take the huge truck tires, agricultural tires, that are not that easy to recycle. He put the process in place because he needed more supply, because it was a money-making venture for him. I think those are the things we have to encourage.

Instead of looking at a time where we can’t get rid of tires, we see now such a competition for them. We’re not using it enough to send to the recycling stream.

We talk about some of the issues we had with waste diverters in our riding—I know I’m running out of time here. One of my landfill operators, a large operator, put in place a system to generate electricity from the methane gas that’s produced. He would like to be able to generate more electricity because he is flaring off gas, which of course is a carbon source. He has the system in place; the infrastructure is there. He can’t get approval from the government, and he’s been waiting for months—and, I guess, years—now. One would think, “Maybe the government doesn’t need the green energy in this case.”

But they turned around in my area and gave out two large wind turbine projects a few months ago, as well as a large solar project. So on one hand we see a solution to their energy costs that is somewhat manageable—there is the ability to delay production of the electricity until it’s more valuable to us—but we’ve gone ahead with a wind project where we have no control on when it produces power. Is that an integrated plan or just confusion? I think that’s what we’re seeing.

Another recycling company in my riding contracted with the government to handle a lot of recycling. They’re trying to add a basic shredder to the process. They can’t get an approval from the Ministry of the Environment. It’s taking months. They’re shredding hard plastic. This is really not an environmental question. Why is it taking months? Their warehouses are filling up with product because they can’t recycle it. The market needs it, and the government is on their backs because they’re not getting rid of their recycling material. A simple shredder has held up the process for months and months. It just doesn’t make sense. It shows, again, the government getting in the way.

When I was involved with the council in South Glengarry, the process to get our licence on a landfill extension took six or seven years and $5 million on a site that was a long-time landfill site. Eventually, we got approval for it, but it just speaks about the government getting in the way. Precious tax dollars were wasted that could have been put into roads and bridges. In the end, it was just wasted and the time spent. We had many meetings with the ministry, and it was just time wasted.

I see that my time is up. Thanks, Speaker, for opportunity to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker. I hope you enjoyed yourself at the baseball game last night.

It’s a pleasure to follow my friend from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. As you know, Speaker, he’s a fan of the Detroit Red Wings and not the Toronto Maple Leafs.

What he’s talking about here is some of the provisions that are missing in this legislation—how this bill could have been improved. He’s also talking about landfills and what we’re doing with the trash we don’t get to use in the blue box or the red box or the green box.

Unfortunately, we’re seeing more and more valuable farmland in Ontario being used as dumping sites. As municipal councillors, we all know the process and the length of time it takes to go through the process of siting a landfill. Yet we don’t seem to be doing much these days to boost recycling efforts.

This bill is a legislative formula more than anything else, as opposed to: We’re going to increase the number of recyclable materials we collect, and we’re going to force industry to come up with new ways of recycling the products they manufacture. That’s where this bill could have made some real headway if we got into the packaging—the over-packaging—of the goods we buy, be they plastic, be they paper or be they a combination of the two.

We do have to cut down on the waste we generate in Ontario, and we do have to cut down on what we’re sending to landfills. But more than anything, we have to increase what we’re putting into the blue box, because we have to do that diversion as well as anything else.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member for York South–Weston.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. I wanted just to remind people why this act is necessary. I think it’s important that we remember that Ontario generates close to 12 million tonnes of waste each year right now, and that each Ontarian generates about 2.3 kilograms of waste material per day—per day.

Overall, the rate has been sort of stable at 25% for the past decade. We haven’t been able to make strides. Through the existing waste diversion programs that we have right now in Ontario, we’re able to divert about a million tonnes each year.

We do well on the residential side; 47% of our residential waste is diverted from disposal. However, we don’t do as well on the industrial, commercial and institutional side. Those sectors continue to be low. We’re only able to divert about 13%.

So, again, why is this act necessary? We need a new approach to effectively increase waste diversion, to keep valuable resources out of the landfill and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our waste stream. This act would be the pillar of the government’s strategy to preserve resources and recover valuable materials from the waste currently lost to landfill.

Producers, as we’ve heard, would be responsible for recovering the resources. This gives them an incentive to design long-lasting, reusable, easily recyclable products that hopefully will never need to be discarded and will never need to be sent to the landfill. This will benefit Ontarians, our environment and our economy, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to add some comments to the speech by the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry on Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act. We’re in third reading of this bill, and our critic, the member from Huron–Bruce, has been very active on this file.

The Ontario PCs have long championed a plan to increase recycling and reduce waste through innovation and competition among businesses in the private sector. Under our plan, we would set measurable and achievable recycling targets for businesses, establish environmental standards, and enforce the rules.

I think I can say that I did play a role. Many years ago—at least 10 years ago—I had a private member’s bill that basically would accomplish the same thing. The bill was called Product Stewardship, where government would set targets for particular products but let industry figure out how to achieve those targets. That’s more or less what the government is trying to do with this bill, so I’m pleased that they have both followed on my private member’s bill and on the PC policy.

We did ask for a number of amendments, and our critic worked very hard toward achieving those amendments. It is my understanding that many of them have gone through.

I guess it comes down to how the government implements this now. They have not the greatest record when it comes to actually implementing things, but the general idea is a sound one. We wish them well and hope that they actually are able to deliver in the case of this product stewardship, Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: From the outset, I’d like to state that the goals in the act are supportable and welcome on behalf of the Ontario NDP.

Bill 151 enacts the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act and the Waste Diversion Transition Act.

In my role as our critic for economic development, infrastructure and jobs, I’ve done some research.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s a little loud. It’s unusual: Usually ministers are quiet, but today they’re leading the charge in the noise. I’d appreciate if you could—I’m not sure if you want to be recognized; you’re standing up all the time there. I’m not sure what the Deputy Premier is doing. If you want to do a seminar, you might want to go out in the hall.

Continue. Thanks.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thanks, Speaker. I don’t know if you can reset the clock on a two-minute hit, but I certainly would appreciate some leeway.

Anyhow, as I was saying, I’ve done a little bit of research on my critic file—a lot of research—and I’ve come across an economic theory out of the United States. I want to give credit to John Fullerton from the Capital Institute. The theory is referred to as regenerative capitalism. I believe that it’s only stated as such because in the United States it’s difficult for people to say democratic socialism.

In all manners, this new economic theory is similar to what is happening in the Waste-Free Ontario Act, Bill 151. It calls upon us to recognize the failure of our current economic system as a whole and the paradigm in which the masters of finance rely on all of the resources of the planet to fuel economic generation,

whereas that should be reversed. It should be that the finance fuels environmental stability and fuels all the wonderful things that we enjoy and appreciate as Ontarians in our environment.

This gets close to that. We can support it, but it certainly needs some more work. I appreciate the time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I just want to let the member know I let him go over to make up for the not-stopping-the-clock time he was concerned about.

Back to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for two minutes.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I thank the members from Windsor–Tecumseh, York South–Weston, Parry Sound–Muskoka and Essex for their comments.

I can just tell the member from Windsor–Tecumseh that if the Leafs would get better, maybe that would encourage the Red Wings to get better and win some more Stanley Cups. I would like to see them do better, but the competition is always good.

The member opposite was talking about the relatively good job that we’ve been doing at 25%. I guess that’s on the residential side. That’s really not a very good target. I think we’ve got to get much higher. The landfill sites are filling up. I see one of the landfills I was talking about with the trouble from the methane approvals. He’s taking garbage from Toronto. I don’t know if any of it is going to Michigan anymore. It’s a relatively large landfill, but it’s filling up with truck after truck coming down the 401. These are huge landfill sites, and we’d like to get more and more out of these sites.

I know that in Alexandria, in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, they have a recycling firm. They’re always on the edge. It’s supported by the municipality. It’s an expensive process for a municipality to take on. We have to get industry back involved.

Certainly, 13% on the industry side is dismal. It’s something we have to improve on. The only way we’re going to do that is by letting them innovate. Let them make the changes. If we’re just going to bill them for something that their neighbour does, there’s no incentive in getting better because they’re going to have to pay the bill anyway, so why waste the money? If they can spend money and save it in the end, that’s where we’re going to get real results. That’s where we need to go for some of these changes.

I think, from talking to our critic, when the bill died last time, they did accept a lot of our changes that they had refused the last time, but there’s still more to do with this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s always a pleasure to be called upon in this House on behalf of the good constituents in the riding of Windsor–Tecumseh.

We’re back with what we were hoping would be a new and improved Bill 151, the misnamed Waste-Free Ontario Act. We were hoping the Liberals on the committee on social policy would have been able to keep an open mind. We had been hoping the Liberals on that committee would have tossed aside their prepared speaking notes. We were hoping the people who took the time to appear as delegations would walk away feeling their time was well spent.

You know who I really feel sorry for, though, Speaker? I feel sorry for the municipal taxpayers in Ontario. Not all of the more than 400 municipalities offer what we refer to as the blue box recycling program, but it’s offered in enough places with reasonable population numbers that close to 90% of the people in Ontario have the ability to use the service should they decide to do so. We certainly encourage everyone to do that because it is the right thing to do.

It’s also the right thing that those who produce what is collected in our recycling containers should pay the total cost that municipalities have to put out to provide the collection of those goods. That’s fair; that’s reasonable; that is the right thing to do. However, as we’ve seen elsewhere, the producers haven’t bought in to that argument entirely yet.

Speaker, in case you’re not aware of the situation in Vancouver these days: For years, the mayor and council have been making noises about the growing cost of providing the blue box recycling program. They did the math and they found they weren’t getting a fair return. Municipal taxpayers were paying to subsidize the true cost of providing the service.

The theory behind the program of the recycling of waste is that the producers should pay as part of the cost of doing business. That’s the intent behind this bill, and a laudable intent it is. That’s all fine and good on paper as a theory, but when you go to balance your books at city hall and prepare the collection bills for your homeowners, you discover this thorny issue of a subsidy. Your folks are paying part of the producers’ costs. You determine that it can’t go on unchallenged, and you send a loud and clear message to the producers, “Hey, buddy. You’re costing me money. Pay up.” When buddy shrugs and walks away, what do you do?

Mayor Gregor Robertson knew what he would do, and so did my friend Councillor Raymond Louie. I used to serve on the board at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities with Ray; he’s currently the FCM president. He’s also Vancouver’s designated acting mayor and Chair of the finance and services committee. Gregor, Raymond and the municipal politicians told the waste producers, “Enough is enough. We’re not going to take it anymore. If you don’t pay our total costs for this collection service, you can do it yourselves.”

That is what the Liberals and this committee have opened up as a possibility in Ontario. If this bill doesn’t go the way the Liberals say it will, watch out. AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, asked the committee to make sure, during this transition, that there was a municipal advisory body included in the framework of the bill, this misnamed Waste-Free Ontario Act. It was a simple request. Municipalities are providing the service. AMO wanted reps from the city of Toronto, from the Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario, from AMO itself and from the Municipal Waste Association to be at the table. In other words, they needed a voice while this was unfolding.

They wanted (

a) to be paid the total actual cost incurred by all municipalities with respect to the diversion of blue box waste, and (

b) the total actual revenue generated by all municipalities with respect to the diversion of blue box waste. They knew these numbers would have to be verified; they also called for that. They wanted to be consulted. And, Speaker, everyone in this room knows that the Liberals make it a point on a pretty regular basis around here to puff up their chests, point to themselves and say, “We have consulted, or we will be consulting, or we are consulting.” Sometimes that consulting is actually more insulting because it just doesn’t happen.

AMO says, “Folks, we do the work. This is important stuff. You need to listen up before this bill is done.” Well, we soon found out at committee that indeed most of the work was done long before the bill even heard from the first delegation. The pretense of consultation, the sham of consultation, was really quite embarrassing. You looked around the room and audience members were just shaking their heads. The industry lords and ladies, time after time, said straight out, “We know what we’re doing. We don’t need to listen to the municipal voices. We’ve got this.” Well, they may get something, and they won’t like it and don’t expect it.

I tell you, Speaker, there was a big dark cloud overhead this morning, and it’s not going to go away anytime soon. Let’s just call it the Vancouver example, the Vancouver experiment and the Vancouver lesson that should have been learned. This bill was misnamed the Waste-Free Ontario Act, and may lead to some major municipalities in this province tossing in the towel if they don’t have their costs fully covered. Hey, if they can do it in Vancouver, they can do it here. Think about it.

Municipalities could end up pulling out of this deal altogether, and then what? There are only a couple of choices: More waste ends up in the landfill, or the producers form a monopoly, collect and haul their own paper, cans, tins and bottles as best they can, and the title of this misnamed bill gets changed to the waste generation act of Ontario.

Speaker, we tried at committee. We offered amendments and we tried to convince the Liberals they were heading down a dangerous slope. Municipalities do the work. They’re the experts. They know what’s involved. They know how to contain the cost. They wanted the Liberals to recognize this and give them a voice in how this bill was unfolding and improved on a go-forward basis. I don’t mind telling you, Speaker, they are disappointed but putting on a brave face.

They accept that in theory producers will face full responsibility for the costs of recycling waste from their products and packaging, and it has been a long time coming. They remind us that our municipalities have achieved the highest residential diversion rates in North America, and they will continue to be involved in waste diversion, as 80% of all waste is not diverted.

So yes, AMO, the municipal sector, is keenly interested to start the transition to the new system that builds on their current provision of effective and convenient waste diversion services. Here’s a quote for you, Speaker: “Essentially, we just want to get on with the transition, as the current waste disposal act is flawed and we are tired of fighting every year to be paid fairly for the waste diversion services municipalities provided two years ago!!” So every year, they go after the money that was owed to them two years previously. That sentence, by the way, Speaker, ended with two exclamation points. You can read into that as you will.

Before I move on, Speaker, the annual FCM conference is next week in Winnipeg. Raymond Louie’s term is over, and he will—you’re probably going.

Mr. Steve Clark: No, I’m not going.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: He will be replaced by my buddy from Ontario, First Vice-President Clark Somerville. I served three years on the FCM board with Clark. He’s from Halton Hills. Congratulations to both of them for their volunteer service on behalf of all our Canadian municipalities.

Speaker, I should place tongue firmly in cheek here for a moment and thank the Liberal committee members for their fine display of the three Rs during our hearings and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and our proposed amendments: They certainly recycled the answers on why they were voting down our proposals; they reused them over and over again; and they reduced the contributions from many of our delegations down to a polite “Thank you for coming in and making us aware of your concerns.”

Speaker, that’s the downside of what happens in a democracy with a majority government. The party in power determines the makeup of a committee, stacks it with a majority of their own members, and lip service gets paid to the concept of public consultation and input from the opposition parties. Legislation which could have been greatly improved slips away with little change.

And you wonder why opposition members say they have grave concerns with the next committee that’s going to hit the road around here, looking at financial contributions to political parties, because of the Liberals stacked on that committee, and any proposals that they will hear later on in clause-by-clause can simply just be voted down by the majority.

Speaker, let me take a very quick detour. Did you know it’s Injured Workers’ Day in Ontario? I know you did. Since this bill is about recycling, let me just for a couple of moments here reuse a poem written by Bill Mahoney, the resident poet of Steelworkers Local 1005 in Hamilton. It’s called An Injury to One.

Support the injured workers, heed them when they call;

An injury to one is an injury to all!

Far too many are injured when they go to work—

Then the boss denies their injury, says they’re not hurt.

The owners of industry are greedy and mean—

They value workers far less than a machine.

When Jeannie had her accident—they said she was a fake;

Even though her X-ray showed a major break.

Could you kindly tell me what more does it take?

The board wants to retrain Mary, send her back to school,

But she’s been away so long she feels like a damn fool.

She knows that she could learn new skills, if they just gave her the time;

But they want to fast-track her—just to save a dime.

Since George had his accident, he’s confined to a wheelchair.

Some people look right through him as though he wasn’t there.

His wheelchair has become a rolling prison cell

As his compensation board is putting him through hell.

Far too many workers are being forced to fight,

Just to get the benefits that ought to be their right.

Bill Mahoney, from his book Rebel Rhymes—he’s the Poet Laureate for Steelworkers Local 1005 in Hamilton. Thank you, Bill Mahoney, and thank you, Speaker.

By the way, Speaker, we’re all invited after question period today to go out on the lawn and have a bit of pizza. Two injured workers, Richard Hudon and Peter Page, started a bike ride to raise awareness of the situation facing injured workers in Ontario a week ago. They were joined by a long-time advocate for injured workers, Allen Jones.

They started in Windsor. I was pleased to be there at the start, along with my colleague from Windsor West. They hit the road to Chatham, Wallaceburg, Sarnia, London, Brantford, St. Catharines, Hamilton and Mississauga—600 kilometres—and they have asked you and everyone in the House to join them for pizza when we’re done after question period. They’ll be hosting a rally out there. What a wonderful way to recognize Injured Workers’ Day in Ontario.

This bill, Bill 151, was misnamed the Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016. It actually injures no one, but it is painful to me that the Liberals were not so accommodating to the proposed amendments put forth by the NDP and the Conservatives during the clause-by-clause reading. Again: a bill full of early promise with a title worthy of a small sound bite, but not really living up to its full expectations.

I guess it’s somewhat of a metaphor for this government—a government that comes in with a brave promise of a bright new future, an open, a transparent government that’s going to work hard on behalf of the people of Ontario. And what do we see? We see bill after bill be time-allocated, debate shut down so the opposition members are prevented from improving it in any way, from bringing the voices of the people we talk to back to the Liberals and saying, “Look, these are people saying that what you have put on the table is not exactly what they were hoping for, and here are the reasons why.

Here are the reasons why we don’t think this bill is good enough. We want you to listen to them, but instead, we don’t have that opportunity, because bills get allocated around here too frequently.”

Time and time again we’re told this Liberal government was going to be the most open, the most progressive, and the budgets were going to be good, but there are all these poison pills in there. You can’t support a budget that’s causing so much damage to sectors of the economy, to certain segments, be it in health care, be it in education, be it to the injured workers of Ontario. We have to stand up and we have to say to the Liberals across the aisle, “You could have done so much better. This bill could have been so much improved if you would have listened to the municipal voices in Ontario when they came to you and said, ‘We really need to be at the table.’”

They didn’t come right out and say, “You can’t trust industry on this. You can’t leave industry all by themselves. We have to help shepherd this through. We have to be there as an advisory body.” We tried. We stood up time and time again to make the case, and indeed, the Liberals said, “We hear you. We’re listening, but we’re not going to do anything about it, because we have the majority. You can talk all day if you want, but at end of the day, we’re going to vote your idea down.” And time after time after time after time, that’s exactly what they did, Speaker.

I felt sorry for some of my Conservative friends who were on that committee. They worked hard. They came up with—I won’t say hundreds; I’ll say dozens of amendments. Maybe they got one through; I’m not sure. I think we had just a couple that they accepted, which I found quite surprising, actually, because with a couple of them I said, “Oh, God, are we going to go through this again or should I just withdraw it now?” Then they said, “No, no, no. We’re actually going to accept that one,” which brightens your day for about 10 seconds.

Then when you bring in something really substantive after that and you say, “This is good. This is what we need,” they say, “No, we have the majority and we’re going to ram it right back at you. We’re not going to accept that amendment today.”

So the bill is the Waste-Free Ontario Act, and it’s a big-sounding name. Who can’t support a waste-free Ontario? No more waste in Ontario ever; no more. It’s all going in the blue box. Well, yeah, no, maybe. Uh-uh. Not gonna happen. It’s not going to be waste-free at all, Speaker. But it’s a good name. It’s catchy.

Somewhere there will be a little newspaper clip that says, “The Waste-Free Ontario Act has passed,” and people won’t read much beyond that. They’ll say, “Oh, those Liberals up there, they must be doing something right. Waste-free: no more waste in Ontario.” They won’t look much beyond the headlines. The sad part of life is, it’s not going to be waste-free at all.

The municipal voice: I’ll tell you, municipal taxpayers are as upset as anybody else when the tax bill comes. They do not want to pay more of their hard-earned money to subsidize a producer of waste who should be paying the full cost of waste. If you produce a product, Speaker—you might have the factory and whatever it is, maybe a newspaper—you can’t just close your door and close your eyes once that product leaves the plant. You have the responsibility to your province, to your country, to your economy, to your environment—this is an environmental bill. You have the responsibility to make sure that your product doesn’t pollute the environment.

Behind this bill the focus is full producer responsibility, but the municipalities haven’t seen that yet. As I’ve said earlier, they’re tired of subsidizing the cost that the producer should be paying. They don’t want to do it anymore. They’re not doing it anymore in Vancouver and they don’t want to do it anymore in Ontario. They want a better accounting procedure. They wanted a voice at that table, and they wouldn’t get it from this Liberal government.

The Liberals would not give the municipalities a voice at the table to make sure that they were getting their fair share of the revenue that was generated from the waste collected in the Blue Box Program and that our municipal taxpayers do not have to pay more than their fair share. The producers should be paying the full cost because it is their responsibility to pay the full cost for the products that they produce. That hasn’t been happening.

I’m not convinced we’re ever going to see it from this Liberal government. They have a lot of friends in industry and a lot of friends behind this bill. They sat and listened and took their concerns into account, more so than they listened to the municipal politicians who were there and said, “You have to start listening to us as well.”

Let me just wrap it up, Speaker, and conclude with a simple statement. I know it’s not going to impress you at all, but I am disappointed, because the people of Ontario deserve better. Our municipal leaders deserve so much more from this Liberal government, and they feel let down by the way this bill was handled.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to rise and add my voice to Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act.

Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation, if passed, would help us to divert more waste from landfills. Studies have shown that Ontario’s existing waste diversion programs can create more jobs than waste disposal, because waste disposal is not labour-intensive. Recycling and resource recovery is more labour-intensive. It requires lots of people. It creates lots more jobs, and well-paying jobs, Mr. Speaker.

During the public hearings at social policy, we heard broad support from a range of stakeholders, including municipalities, producers, service providers and environmental organizations. It has been clear that this bill has broad support from the stakeholders as well as the majority of the members. It is time that this this passes the third reading and that this proposed legislation receives royal assent and becomes

an act so that all the relevant stakeholders can benefit from it, because this is a good bill. It’s a good bill for the environment, a good bill for the economy and a good bill for the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s always interesting to listen to the member from Niagara Falls with his—throwing in some of the poet laureate stuff.

With regard to Bill 151—great title: Waste-Free Ontario Act. But the reality is that there are so many things that we could be doing a better job of. In my initial speech on Bill 151, I talked about the ICI sector: industrial, commercial and institutional. There was a little bit of finger-pointing on the government’s side when it came to the ICI sector.

The reality is, we could do a much better job if we allowed the ICI to participate in the Blue Box Program. I’m not talking about the products that they use to manufacture; I’m talking about the products that happen just because you have a group of people working in a manufacturing facility, a business. We’ve lost an opportunity, with Bill 151, to try to work with our stakeholders in a much better way, in a much more inclusive way, and try to incorporate some of the things they’ve been asking for for many, many years. Bill 151 was the opportunity, the window, to allow that, and we’ve bypassed that right now.

Our critic, the member from Huron–Bruce, has been working extremely hard to try to bring forward substantive, positive amendments to Bill 151. That’s what our role is in opposition. It would have been nice if there had been a little more back-and-forth discussion, but unfortunately, that didn’t happen in this case. A missed opportunity, I guess, is what we’ll talk about with Bill 151.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. Always nice seeing you in the chair. You keep us in line.

This morning there were two big messages that I took from the comments that came from the member from Tecumseh. I always enjoy sitting with him here in the House. We tend to observe and listen quite a bit in this House. Like many of our colleagues, we do the same thing when we go back to the riding.

The one issue that he did bring up this morning—which wasn’t related to this bill but is very important—is that I hope each and every one of you takes the opportunity to go out and meet up with the injured workers who are going to be out on the lawn. I had the opportunity of actually going to sing songs with them last night and have a bottle of water and some cake with them. I listened to some of the individuals that have been affected through their work, and to their frustration, their desperation, and the shattering of their hopes to provide for themselves.

The Women of Inspiration were there for their 10th year, I believe, sleeping on the lawn to show their support for these injured workers. So please take the time, over the course of your day, to go out there and meet up with these individuals.

The major message that I took from the member from Tecumseh is: This is a missed opportunity that the government had to really engage and listen to the municipal leaders who are going to be so affected by this piece of legislation, and a missed opportunity to really engage with them and take some of their comments that they were putting forward. At the end of the day, this is something that will fall on their shoulders once again. They’re the ones that are going to be challenged in order to make decisions to maintain the services that they have in their communities.

They’re the ones that will have to make the tough decisions with regard to their budgets to make sure this happens within their community.

Again, the thrust of this message was the missed opportunity. Is it a step forward? Yes, it is a step forward, Mr. Speaker. But it could have been an opportunity for a much, much greater step. And again, I just need to stress the point that this is a lost opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m pleased to offer some comments on the Waste-Free Ontario Act. I think it’s important, when we’re considering the details in the act, that we consider the background premise to the act. That premise or background is that the fact is, Ontario’s landfill capacity is projected to last less than 20 years. Increased diversion is necessary to extend the lifespan of those existing disposal sites.

Now, 20 years may seem like a very, very long time, but in fact the way our population is growing and the amount of increased waste that is required to be disposed of, I rather expect that when it says the time frame for filling up those landfill sites is less than 20 years, it’s probably going to be substantially less than 20 years.

In addition to the necessity of it, I want to comment on the cost savings. On average, disposal remains significantly cheaper than resource recovery. The Blue Box Program is estimated to cost, on average, double the cost of handling waste. The average cost to collect and landfill waste is about $125 a tonne as opposed to blue box, which is about $250 a tonne. Recycling may be less costly than disposal, where substantial revenues can be made from the sale of the recycled materials.

Let me say something about the economic benefits. The waste management sector contributes about $2.1 billion to Ontario’s GDP. This is nearly as large as the contribution to GDP as we get from paper manufacturing in Ontario.

And of course, there are the environmental benefits. In 2013, greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector accounted for about 5% of Ontario’s waste.

These are matters that we must keep in mind when considering this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Windsor–Tecumseh has two minutes.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Sounds like a sentence. Thank you, Speaker.

Let me thank the members from Mississauga–Brampton South, Dufferin–Caledon, Algoma–Manitoulin and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

I think the member from Dufferin–Caledon really hit it on the head when she talked about a missed opportunity. That’s what this bill is. It’s a missed opportunity that the government could have done better.

For those that may have been listening during my 20 minutes, I said how disappointing it was for an opposition member on the committee to listen to the delegations, to do the clause-by-clause; how disappointing it was when the Liberals stuck to their speaking notes—

Hon. David Zimmer: What?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Stuck to their speaking notes. The thing about it, Speaker, for those who listened to what the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had to say, he just stuck to his speaking notes. Nothing what he made reference to had any way, shape or form to anything I said this morning. He wasn’t listening. He doesn’t care. He had his speaking notes, and that—

Hon. David Zimmer: That’s because you’re all fluff—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. We’re not at a football game. If you want to yell, go out in the hall and yell. Thank you, Minister.

Continue.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. And thank you, Minister. I enjoy your company, as you know, but when it comes time to give two minutes on what somebody just said, you would think somebody would have the somewhat occasional bearing to say, “Yes, I’ll listen and I’ll say something to what he just said.” Nobody did that. Nobody on the government side gave any reference at all to why the municipalities weren’t listened to. That was the focus of my 20 minutes.

They didn’t listen then; they’re not listening now. That’s the legacy of this Liberal government. They just don’t give a damn. They don’t listen to anyone.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): A point of order, the member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. I mistakenly identified the previous speaker, and I want to sincerely apologize and acknowledge that his riding is in fact Windsor–Tecumseh.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member can correct her record.

Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: In reference to Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act, as a number of members know, it’s quite a complex piece of legislation. It’s over 120 pages, with some very significant changes in the administration, the promotion, the establishment of various processes by producers of waste—industrial, commercial and institutional. And for individuals and consumers, it affects their interface with waste and reuse and recycling. It deals with the Environmental Protection Act and how it impacts on waste reduction.

There are numerous complex new mechanisms put in place essentially to update

an act from 2002, which tried to introduce the whole notion of waste reduction. As you know, this whole area of waste reduction changes as manufacturing processes change, as new technologies come into play and new public awareness, and as information comes forward from all the consumers, from industry and from local elected officials. There is a multiplicity of partners in waste reduction. It’s not just the government; it’s not just municipalities; it’s all the producers, everything from agricultural products to high-tech products.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have entered into a new age of instant disposal. You’re old enough—or young enough—to remember when we used to go to the corner store or drug store to get tubes for our televisions. Remember? The young pages probably forgot that, but that’s what we did. That TV that you bought, that your parents bought and saved up for maybe a year to get, you kept for a lifetime and then you replaced the tubes. Now, as you know, what happens is that if the colour contrast on your new high-def television is a bit off, it gets thrown on the side of the road. Have you ever heard of a television repairman or woman? They don’t exist anymore. Everything is disposed of.

I was at the Ingram Drive waste disposal site a couple of weeks ago. I brought my Ford Ranger up there filled with all kinds of stuff from a friend of mine who was closing up his business. You can see the amount of waste that is—they’ve got a

section for electronics, a

section for drywall, a

section for paper and household garbage. It’s ongoing, around-the-clock. In fact, the Ingram Drive site in Toronto is open 24 hours a day now, except for Sundays, because people are constantly bringing yard waste—everything. And then there’s the other aspect of it, where you can go get your compost. They were lined up, because it is compost season, a mile down Ingram Drive to get their compost, which is the result of putting in their yard waste.

So there are many complex aspects of this bill. It is an updating of a system that needs updating. The major change here is that there are some real administrative and legal sanctions now to encourage, cajole, and also bring to order an industry that produces millions of products a year. On the production side, they are to have a responsibility. In other words, they just can’t keep producing and expecting that the government, the local government—that somehow these big products and the boxes that they come in, whether it be tires or television sets or electronics, magically disappear. Well, they don’t.

So this bill essentially puts serious sanctions into place to reduce our waste and to create waste reduction as part of a new circular economy. That’s the big change in this bill.

I think there is so much work, as everybody agrees, that has to be done on this front. We are behind, and that’s why we need some really strong legislation: Bill 151. Is it going to solve all the problems? No, but it’s really needed. I think everybody agrees with this.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s time to move on. As a result, I move that this question be now put.

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t think you can do a point of order before he finishes what he’s saying.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): No, not at this point.

Go ahead, finish, please.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sit down. Thank you.

Mr. Mike Colle: I move that this question now be put, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Steve Clark: No. Absolutely not.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Mr. Steve Clark: Not enough time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Would you like to change positions here?

Mr. Steve Clark: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. Mr. Colle has moved that the question now be put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow the question to be put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I believe the noes have it.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

I believe the nays have it.

This will be dealt with after question period on the vote.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I move adjournment of the debate.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): No. When you guys know what you’re doing, we’ll let you know.

It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning. And thank you for all the yelling. That really helps.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we begin with introductions, I’d like to remind the members of my request yesterday: If you do not have the members that you’re going to introduce, please introduce them during the time period that’s allotted, and we’ll do the best we can in using that time appropriately.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Toby Barrett: I do wish to introduce Rita and Romas Rickus. They’re in the gallery today, and they’re the parents of page captain Thomas Rickus.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted to introduce student Anna Khouzam to the House today. She’s from my riding, and she’s here as a student youth councillor.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome and introduce injured worker advocates who are here with us today: Laurie Hardwick, Vern Edwards, Jessica Ponting, Alberto Lalli, Airissa Gemma, Brendan Bohn, Niveda Anandan, James Schneider, Maud Rozee, Hayley McFadyen, Indira Rupchand, Michael McDonough, Belia Berrocal and Brent Marks. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d to welcome a number of the paramedic services here in Ontario who are joining us for an announcement today. From Halton region: Greg Sage, the chief of Halton region paramedics; and Michael Lawson, president of OPSEU Local 207 and Halton Region Paramedic Services. From Toronto: Geoff MacBride, the president of the Ontario Paramedic Association and the Toronto Paramedic Association; Michael Nolan, the director of emergency services, county of Renfrew, and former president of the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada; Brian Annett, VP of the Toronto Paramedic Association; and, joining all of them, Howard Brown and Laura Casselman from Brown and Cohen.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I just want to introduce my very good friends Roxane Villeneuve, who translates for me in French—not that I need it, of course—and Debbie Jodoin from Ottawa, who chauffeurs me around. Thank you, ladies.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m pleased to welcome Nancy Murray Coker to Queen’s Park today. She is a proud employee of McMaster University in the school of nursing and is the mother of my legislative assistant, Meaghan Coker. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do have a couple of introductions. Before we move to the tribute, I would also like to introduce a gentleman who needs no introduction because of his deanery: Mr. Norm Sterling is in the members’ gallery—former member Norm Sterling.

Hon. James J. Bradley: We miss you, Norm.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Also, the member from St. Catharines is heckling: “We miss you, Norm.”

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have a further introduction, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, I’ll come to it.

I would also like to introduce, in the Speaker’s gallery, a friend of mine from Alberta who served in six cabinet portfolios over 22 years and, in 2012 to 2015, the former Speaker of Alberta, Mr. Gene Zwozdesky. Gene, welcome.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on an introduction.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. In addition to Norm Sterling—almost a father of Confederation—in the members’ east gallery today I have Mike Nolan, chief of paramedic services in Renfrew county. Mike, great to have you here in Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Hi. They’re on their way here, but I want to introduce them so I don’t disturb you afterwards by introducing guests when I’m not supposed to: Willem Hart and his brother Jonah Hart from my riding of Thornhill, as well as Doug Warren from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. They were here for the Pride flag-raising.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I appreciate that members are following along with my request from yesterday.

The members now will please join me in welcoming the family of the late Leonard Joseph Quilty, MPP for Renfrew South during the 26th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: his son Pat; his granddaughter Jennifer Quilty and her husband, Jeff Davis; and great-granddaughters Madeline and Amelia Davis. We welcome them to the Legislature for the tribute.

I would now welcome a point of order.

Leonard Quilty

Hon. James J. Bradley: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Leonard Joseph Quilty, former member for Renfrew South, with a representative of each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s an honour for me to rise, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, this morning to pay tribute to Leonard Joseph Quilty, who served in this House as the member for Renfrew South from January 18, 1962, to the general election of September 25, 1963.

Len Quilty was born in Shamrock, a little hamlet in my county of Renfrew, on March 27, 1920. He was raised on the same farm that his parents, Michael and Margaret, lived on all their lives—a highly respected farmer on an inhospitable piece of land.

I want you people to know that the land up in that part of Renfrew county is not like the flatlands of southwestern Ontario. They don’t call it Mount St. Patrick because it’s flat. It’s a really tough place to farm, but the Quilty family was there for three generations now, because Len’s sons, Pat and Mike, have homes on that property today.

He was able to make a living on that farm, meagre though it may have been, because of his commitment and his work ethic, and that really paid dividends for Len in his involvement in his community as well. In addition to farming, he served his community in many, many ways. In fact, he was the secretary of the Renfrew Shamrock Telephone Co. Now, that wasn’t a really big one and, eventually, it was swallowed up by Bell. As Bill McAdam said in delivering one of the eulogies to Len at the service after his passing, it was a very small swallow—and yes, it was.

Len also went on to serve as a tax collector for the township of Admaston and a trustee for that famous one-room schoolhouse in Shamrock, and further, as a trustee for the Renfrew county separate school board.

Len had five priorities in life: family, church, farming, baseball and politics. His family is represented—the Speaker has introduced them today—by his son Pat; his granddaughter Jennifer and her spouse, Jeff Davis; and Madeline Davis and Amelia Davis, who are the great-granddaughters of Len Quilty.

His community service in so many ways and the respect he had among his farming brethren as well—he was one of these people who they went to for advice on farming matters and also business matters. He always had an interest in politics, but that interest was really cultivated more. He became a devout, lifelong member of the Liberal Party, a staunch Liberal.

Applause.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I had to get some applause from the other side. I knew that would do it.

In 1959, he was a Liberal nominee in an election against the mighty Jimmy Maloney, who was a legend in the Ottawa Valley. Len lost that election in 1959, not surprisingly. It was “Old Man Ontario,” Leslie Frost, a very popular Premier of the province, and Jimmy Maloney, a legend himself. He lost that election, but it gave him the toehold that was necessary, because after the passing of Jimmy Maloney on September 30, 1961, a by-election was called for January 18, 1962, against the Conservative standard-bearer, Con Mulvihill, a lawyer from Arnprior. Len eked out a very tight victory: 144 votes.

Hon. James J. Bradley: A landslide.

Mr. John Yakabuski: A landslide. Maybe that’s where the term “Landslide Len” came from. We thought it was Hopkins.

I want to tell you about that by-election in 1962. People in rural Ontario have always taken their politics seriously, and still do. But on January 18, 1962—some people think, “It’s a by-election; it’s not going to be a big turnout. And whoever wins, it’s kind of really a default thing.” Well, the voter turnout in that by-election was greater than the general election of 1959 and greater than the following general election of 1963. So when Len Quilty was elected in a by-election in 1962, everybody in Renfrew South that wanted to vote got out and voted. They chose him as their representative here in Queen’s Park.

Now, when Len got here, he brought with him that same commitment that he had for farming and community service. He brought it here to stand for the people of Renfrew South. One of the things he challenged the government of the day on—and man, do things never change—was bridging that gap between urban and rural Ontario. So I say to the government, was Len Quilty a politician or a prophet? Because some things just haven’t changed.

In fact, in his inaugural speech, Len Quilty talked about the necessity to extend Highway 417 for economic and safety reasons through Renfrew county. That was 1962. He talked about, “Let’s get Highway 417, a four-lane highway, through Renfrew county.” I say to the Minister of Transportation, who wouldn’t yet have been born in 1962, if you’re not going to do it for me, do it for Len.

In the 1963 general election, Len Quilty, as the incumbent, was challenged by—yes, you guessed it—my father, Paul Yakabuski. My dad defeated Len in that election, in another tight, tight race. My dad always recognized that timing is everything in politics, and he was fortunate to be a candidate for a then also very popular Ontario Premier, John Robarts. Had the roles been switched, things could have been different. We all recognize that politics sometimes is—if you’re on the winning team, it’s always a benefit for that candidate as well.

They faced off two more times, in 1967 and 1971, at which time Len decided, “I’m going back to the farm,” but he never got out of politics, and I’ll touch on that a little later. Actually, I’ll touch on it right now. In 1977, he was elected reeve of Admaston township, his beloved Admaston township, and he became the warden of Renfrew county in 1981. I remember having a conversation with my dad—yes, Premier, at the kitchen table—and he told me how Len Quilty transformed the role of warden in Renfrew county. This was his political opponent, but it never was personal. They were political—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Adversaries.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —adversaries—thank you very much—but it wasn’t personal. He recognized—don’t forget, my dad was the MPP at the time that Leonard was the warden of Renfrew county—and he talked about how Leonard transformed the role of warden in Renfrew county.

With all due respect to those who came before him, it was, in large part, a ceremonial role. But Len, because of his confidence, his political experience and the fact that he had sat here and understood how this place worked, transformed that role into one where the warden actually mattered. Provincial politicians: When Len Quilty wanted to see them, they saw him. People in the cabinet, at the cabinet level, understood that Renfrew county was important and the warden needed to be listened to. That’s how Len transformed that role, and since then, it has been forever changed.

When I first got involved in politics, I made a point of visiting Len during the campaigns and having a little chat with him. I learned much. He was always very kind to me. I had met him many times at different places—usually funerals—over the intervening years, but he was very, very kind to me during those visits.

In Len’s earlier life, as I said, his priorities—he was an avid baseball player, a pitcher for the Douglas baseball team. He loved baseball, and after he quit pitching, he became an umpire. I don’t know whether the other players liked him as much as an umpire as they did as a pitcher, but he was a very good pitcher.

The last time I saw Len Quilty was at the St. Patrick’s celebration at the Dacre centre in 2012. I was just coming in. It was a beautiful day, sunny and warm. It was March, but it was just gorgeous. Mike was wheeling Len out in his wheelchair. Len was having the challenges of age and dementia at this time. Mike said to me later that it wasn’t a great day. He didn’t seem to recognize anybody, but he wanted to be there for the music and the celebration. As I’m walking into the Dacre centre, Len is coming out, and he looks up and he says, “John Yakabuski.

How the heck are you?” So whatever it is—I don’t know what effect I had, but I made that day a little better. It sure made my day better, too. I’m glad I have that memory of Len as our last meeting.

Fittingly, that Douglas baseball jacket adorned Len’s casket at the public viewing at Goulet Funeral Home. The funeral service was on May 20, 2014, right in the middle of the provincial election campaign. When I drove to the funeral, I was feeling terribly because somebody had done their job on my campaign team. They had campaign signs all the way on the road to Mount St. Patrick’s church. My brother and I were picking them up because we didn’t think they should be stuck there during Len Quilty’s funeral service. We managed to get them up. It was a wonderful funeral, a wonderful tribute to Len to be laid to rest at the same church at which he was baptized some 94 years before.

I talked about his family. I haven’t mentioned—I apologize; I should have—his wonderful, devoted, beloved wife, Irene, who passed years before him. They raised a wonderful family.

I remember Father Rick Starks saying that perhaps Len would have the last joke, because the doors were open for the church for people to come in long before the service, and the place was full of mosquitoes. Father Rick Starks made a comment. He said, “Len would just love this. You might not remember what Father Rick Starks’s sermon said that day, but you’re never going to forget this funeral, because you spent half the time slapping mosquitoes and half the time waving at them.” So Len had the last laugh at his funeral.

To paraphrase St. Paul, Len Quilty fought the good fight. He finished the race and he kept the faith, and we’re all better off for having known him.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, you know, it’s almost unfair to have to follow the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. He’s so good. John, you’re so good. Thank you so much for that wonderful tribute. But I will endeavour to do my best, Speaker.

It is an honour and I am honoured to rise, on behalf of the Ontario New Democratic Party and our leader, Andrea Horwath, to pay tribute to former MPP the late Leonard Quilty.

In legislative environments, longevity is often measured, and it’s a measure we use to define legacy, and understandably so. The ability to garner the trust of your community in one election is impressive enough of a feat in its own right, but to do so over multiple elections, in the face of changing times, is something that I think resonates with us all. That’s why we think of the PC administration from 1943 to 1985 in dynastic terms and why the current member from St. Catharines is affectionately known as the dean of the Legislature. In many cases it’s not accomplishments or achievements that grab our attention, but the time that we have spent here.

But what happens when this is not your story? How is legacy measured when your tenure isn’t a long and storied career, but a short time as an MPP? Time can be a helpful metric, but it can also be a misleading one. No MPP is introduced to public service on the first day he or she gets elected here at Queen’s Park. In fact, a seat in these benches is often just one

chapter in a story of life dedicated to serving others. At our best, we run because we recognize a need in our communities, and we offer our services and ourselves to the people in an effort to help. This is what we learn when we look back on the life of Leonard Quilty.

Back in 1962, the Conservative machine was still on the rise in Ontario politics, and nowhere was this more true than in eastern Ontario. The growing popularity of the PC Party in the region transformed the riding of Renfrew South from its former Liberal dominance into a new Tory stronghold. But even as the blue wave was gathering strength, Renfrew South faced its own special brand of difficulty. You see, despite the Conservative success, both of its preceding Tory MPPs died while in office.

In the first by-election, the Tory candidate won easily, capitalizing on the strength of the PC brand, but one can only imagine the shock and dismay when tragedy struck a second time, forcing a second by-election just five years later.

Leonard Quilty knew he faced incredible odds, but he also knew his neighbours needed someone they trusted to be their voice in a time of political turmoil. A lifelong resident of the Ottawa Valley, he took great pride in the uniqueness of the region and was driven to do whatever he could to help make it an even better place to live and to raise a family. A farmer by trade, Leonard was no stranger to lending a hand to his neighbours, only this time it meant putting his name on the ballot and braving a winter campaign.

In hindsight, Leonard’s victory shouldn’t have been a surprise. It only makes sense that the people of Renfrew South responded by electing someone driven by a sense of duty to his community—someone who could be trusted to help the riding regain its sense of stability in the midst of challenging times.

Although Leonard Quilty’s Queen’s Park career was interrupted by the resumption of Tory dominance in the 1963 general election, his relatively brief career as an MPP opened the door for him to return to political office in 1977, when he began an eight-year career as the reeve of Admaston township, a term that included his election as the warden of Renfrew county in 1981.

Leonard’s legacy helps us remember that the Queen’s Park portion of the journey, while longer for some than others, is but one

chapter in lives driven by commitment to public service. It’s a reminder that the commitment to community began long before we had the privilege of sitting in this chamber and, if we’re as dedicated as Leonard was, will continue long after we leave this place.

Thank you to Leonard’s family, represented here today by son Pat; granddaughter Jennifer and her husband, Jeff; and his great-granddaughters, Madeline and Amelia, who are with us today; and son Mike, who is unable to be with us but is watching from home. It is my hope that your memories of your father and grandfather are warmed even further by his commitment to the Ottawa Valley and the legacy he has left in Admaston and Renfrew as a result of his drive to give back to the place and the people who held a special place in his heart.

On behalf of Andrea Horwath and Ontario’s New Democrats, please accept our thanks for the life and service of Leonard Quilty.

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

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: It’s truly an honour and a pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the former member for Renfrew South, Leonard Quilty, and to join my colleagues from across the House. I join the member from Essex in proclaiming that it’s a very daunting task to follow the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, so I’m going to try to do my best to honour Leonard here today.

On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to live in Renfrew county in Eganville. Although I never met Mr. Quilty, I feel, in researching his life and in talking to his friends and family, that I’ve come to know him, and I hope to share some of that with you today.

On a funny anecdote, if I may, I was on the phone with the editor of the Eganville Leader, Gerald Tracey, the other day. We were deep in conversation about Mr. Quilty and he says, “Oh, Eleanor, there’s a phone call for me. It’s the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on the other line.” I said, “Well, you tell him it’s the member from Burlington calling, and I’m asking about Mr. Quilty.” It seems that we were all looking to think about your dad and your grandfather; it’s a very important occasion.

First elected in a by-election in 1962, Liberal candidate Len defeated PC candidate Con Mulvihill in an incredibly tight race. At first it seemed Mr. Mulvihill had won the election by a mere 25 votes, but after 1 a.m., it was Mr. Quilty who was declared the victor by, as the member for St. Catharines said, a landslide victory of 135 votes.

Prior to entering public life, Leonard was a wonderful public servant in his community. He was involved in the Kiwanis club, the Knights of Columbus and the Renfrew county school board, to name a few, and he was an engaged member of the Liberal Party throughout his life, “always on the sidelines,” said his son Mike, and very much involved in the party.

Mike also told me that his dad was so respected by people throughout the county that the phone would often ring and Leonard would answer. On the other end would be someone needing assistance and Leonard would listen patiently, ending the call with, “Leave it with me,” committing to help in any way that he could. Said Mike: “He was very community-minded, and people counted on him to get things done.”

Tough battles like his first election were nothing new to Leonard. After all, he was the only man to have reduced the majority of a Frost Conservative cabinet minister in the previous Ontario election in 1959. While Leonard may not have been a member of provincial Parliament for long, he certainly made good use of his time here in this House. He was a member of six standing committees, including the committees on travel and publicity, education, agriculture, and highways and highway safety.

A farmer by profession—as the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has noted, in a very difficult landscape—he was a big champion of farmers as a consequence, and rural Ontario as a whole.

During a debate concerning margarine one afternoon—and in the early 1960s this was a debate that members may remember was raging across Canada—Leonard stood here in the House and he said, “This afternoon we have heard a great deal in favour of margarine and the colouring of margarine. As a representative of rural people and a representative of an area where there is a great deal of butter producers, I want to tell the House, through you, sir, that the rural representatives are not taking this lying down. If this bill is introduced, we will have plenty to say.”

While not afraid to speak his mind, Leonard had a calm method of presentation that had the effect of cooling the temperature during heated debate. His son Mike, a retired OPP superintendent, who, as has been noted, couldn’t be with us today, said, “He believed that when you did a job, do it right the first time so you wouldn’t have to go back and waste time doing so.”

Leonard tackled his challenges head-on and it is clear by his legacy that he never looked back. Even with his get-things-done attitude, Leonard was always willing to work collaboratively, telling his colleagues during his maiden speech that, “I also wish to tell other members of the House that even though I sit in the opposition, it is my intention and the intention of my party to assist rather than resist government,” an important ethos that resonates today.

After leaving Queen’s Park in 1963, losing in the general election to Paul Yakabuski, the father of the current member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, he remained connected to provincial politics for the rest of his career. He sought re-election in the three following general elections—1967, 1971 and 1975—but unfortunately was unsuccessful in those contests. Len then turned his attention to local politics, becoming the reeve of Admaston township in 1977 and the warden of Renfrew county in 1981.

We lost Leonard on May 14, 2014, at the ripe old age of 94. His legacy of public service remains with us and indeed resonates in his son Mike, who is now councillor for the township of Admaston/Bromley. Leonard was a man much loved by his family: his wife Irene, his sons Michael and Patrick, his eight grandchildren and his 12 great-grandchildren. He leaves behind a legacy in Renfrew county that will be remembered by everyone. When I asked Mike about his lasting memory of his dad, he said simply: “He was one of the most kind and caring men I ever knew.”

To his family, we offer our condolences and our thanks for lending us your husband, your father, your grandfather, your great-grandfather, your brother and your uncle. We join the people of Renfrew county in acknowledging and celebrating his life of serving his community and his province. I thank you for the privilege of allowing me to honour him today, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to thank all members for their kind, heartfelt and thoughtful comments in paying tribute to Leonard Quilty. To the family, we thank you for the gift of Leonard, and we also would like to let you know that we will be sending you a copy of Hansard and a DVD so that you can see the affection in which former members are held by this Legislature. Thank you very much for being here.

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. I’d like to run down some of the headlines from yesterday. From the CBC: “Liberals Stonewalling Ontario’s Fiscal Watchdog.” From the Toronto Star: “Budget Watchdog Says ... Liberals Hiding Data from Him.” The Canadian Press: “FAO Says ... Liberals Block His Access to Info.”

We all know the Liberals don’t know how to even spell the words “open government,” but you would think they’d actually be able to practise it.

A simple question for the Premier: What are the Liberals hiding from the Financial Accountability Officer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate the independent and valuable analysis that the FAO does of the state of the province’s finances. Ministries continue to meet with the Financial Accountability Officer and his team to share information and answer questions, and we expect ministries to work closely with the Financial Accountability Officer, as is enshrined in the legislation.

Government officials have recently reached out to follow up on some of the issues that the FAO outlined in his press conference yesterday. As the Minister of Finance said yesterday, there is another government-wide directive going across government to make sure that offices within the ministries are responding to the FAO in a consistent and timely manner.

I would just remind the members opposite that we are working within legislation that was drafted and that we worked on with the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The government likes to insist that they’re open and transparent, but the FAO wouldn’t have had to have a press conference to plead for openness and transparency if that was the case. Let me quote the FAO. Stephen LeClair said yesterday, “From day one” the Liberals have “claimed cabinet confidences on almost any future projection.”

There is clearly political interference, and ministries are being directed by the corner office to obstruct and block the FAO. LeClair added, “I believe that this is political direction.” Based on the Globe and Mail article, we already know the Premier feels that she needs to run all the ministries and pick up their slack.

So my question for the Premier is, will she instruct all the Liberal ministers to be transparent and open, just like you promised?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just to be clear, requests for information from the Financial Accountability Officer are responded to by non-partisan officials. I know the members opposite don’t want to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I tried to see if you were going to do this on your own, and I think I’ll have to help. If it continues, I’ll go straight to naming—not naming; sorry—I’ll go straight to warnings and then naming. Keep it down.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is not the politicians who respond to the requests from the Financial Accountability Officer. It is the officials, who are non-partisan.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Given that it is non-partisan officials who respond to the Financial Accountability Officer, I go back to the statement of the Minister of Finance yesterday that there is a directive going across government to ensure that all of those officials understand that we are operating within legislation.

That was put together as a result of a conversation with the opposition parties, in a minority Parliament, and it’s consistent with the parameters of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the federal government.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: That’s clearly not what the FAO said. The FAO said it’s political direction that is causing this blocking.

The Minister of Finance has said that the Liberals “will be sending a government-wide directive to all offices to ensure that offices are responding to the FAO in a consistent and timely manner.”

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier stop hiding behind cabinet confidentiality? If you’re not transparent and open, Madam Premier, one of your disgruntled cabinet ministers is going to leak it anyway. Just do the right thing: Be transparent; be open.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You can get yourself in trouble even when I ask you to sit. And I would direct my recommendations to speak to the Chair, please.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The province of Ontario is the first and only province in Canada that has instituted a Financial Accountability Officer. It’s been modelled after the parliamentary budget officer, which the member opposite knows all too well. He’s making accusations that aren’t what Ontario is doing. We have acted in accordance with the legislation that has been passed. It may very well be that in Ottawa—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order. The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It may well be that in Ottawa, that’s how this member operated with his counterparts in regard to the accountability office, but it’s not what we do in Ontario.

We want to work collaboratively with the Financial Accountability Officer for the benefit of openness and being more transparent in regard to the work that we do. That’s exactly what is happening. We heard what the Financial Accountability Officer had to say. We are working with him to ensure that he gets the information necessary.

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Since the government doesn’t want to talk about their culture of secrecy and obstruction, let’s talk about something else. Let’s talk about the disgruntled cabinet minister who leaked the Globe and Mail a copy of the climate change action plan.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That was Bob Machiavelli.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Action number 13 of the leaked cabinet—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to accept that. If it happens again, the member will be warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Action number 13 of the leaked cabinet document said, “Set targets for updating the building code so that new homes and small buildings built in 2030 are not relying on fossil fuels for their heating and cooling. Expand this requirement to all buildings before 2050.”

Mr. Speaker, will the government be taking this action? Will they be amending the building code to limit natural gas? And if they’re not taking this action, are they stating here in the Legislature that the document that was leaked to the Globe and Mail entitled “cabinet confidentiality” is actually a falsified document?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will say to the member opposite—and I made it clear when I was in Alberta—that we are not banning natural gas. We’re not doing those things that the member opposite wants to stir up issues around because he doesn’t want to talk about climate change. As I said yesterday, like his former colleague in Alberta in the Wildrose Party, he does not want to talk about climate change. He does not want to talk about the reality that we have to tackle this threat to humanity, this threat to the globe. And we have to do it in a responsible way, which is why we will be bringing out the climate action plan.

Of course, there are working documents that the government uses in the run-up to the release of a plan, and we’ll be talking more fully about the plan in coming days.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier—and I would note that there was no answer on whether that document was accurate. There was no answer on whether that document was falsified. Frankly, if I’m going to believe the Premier or the Globe and Mail, well, the Globe and Mail has got a much better track record. In terms of the Hydro One fire sale, it was the Globe and Mail that exposed it. The Minister of Education’s secret payouts? It was the Globe and Mail that exposed it. And, once again, on the cap-and-trade plan, it was the Globe and Mail that exposed it.

The Liberals say they’re not going to ban natural gas, but they can’t refute the story in the Globe and Mail. The Liberals claim they’re going to expand natural gas, yet they actually haven’t provided a single dollar for that expansion. If the Premier was truly committed to natural gas in Ontario, she’d be spending money to expand it, not simply saying that it might happen sometime in the future.

Mr. Speaker, when will the Premier actually spend a single dollar to expand natural gas in the province—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve been clear that expanding the use of natural gas—and, in fact, I used that as the example of and the evidence that we’re not interested in banning natural gas, Mr. Speaker. There’s $230 million in the budget to expand access to natural gas in our northern and rural communities. The Leader of the Opposition knows that perfectly well. He also should know that the agricultural community came forward with that specific ask and made it clear that that was something that needed to happen. We’ve responded to that. That process is under way, and that expansion will happen.

But I think, fundamentally, people need to understand that the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about process and he wants to talk about distractions because he does not want to talk about or support any change that would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. He doesn’t believe in climate change action and he’s not supportive of the actions—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The people and businesses of Ontario don’t deserve to be strung along. Environmental Defence wrote to the Ontario Energy Board asking for the natural gas expansion to be halted because they know that’s exactly where the Liberals are headed.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Finance, second time.

Mr. Patrick Brown: With so much uncertainty, no company would pay millions of dollars to expand natural gas, only to be told they are no longer going to have customers.

Once again, I’m going to go back to the same question I’ve asked three times to the Premier: Was that document labelled “Cabinet Confidential” accurate, or is that a falsified document? We would like an answer.

Interjections.

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

The member from Renfrew, come to order. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, come to order. I’ll pick you off one at a time. Minister of the Environment, come to order. And now I’m moving to warnings. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Despite what the opposition says, we’re not forcing anyone off natural gas. We announced in 2015 $230 million to expand natural gas for northern and rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a laughing matter. The reality is that climate change is affecting the globe. Climate change is affecting every part of the globe. We have a responsibility to put in place a responsible plan. When that plan is finalized and it comes into the public realm after it has been through cabinet, I look forward to the opposition having a reasonable conversation with us, because this is something that will affect all of us, and it will even more profoundly affect our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

The opposition party is not interested in taking action on this front. We are. We are moving forward responsibly. We are going to invest in innovation; we are going to develop technology that will be good and used here in Ontario and around the globe. We think they should be working with us on that.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Right here, right now, in Ontario, we have hospitals that face the risk of imminent breakdown, but the Liberal government won’t release which hospitals need that work. The Premier seems more concerned about avoiding bad PR than she is with giving Ontarians the confidence that their hospitals are being properly maintained. Speaker, this is just one more sign of a health care system in crisis. Nurses are being laid off, beds are being closed, and the Minister of Health seems to be making things up as he goes along.

When will the Premier finally look at the facts and admit there is a silent crisis in health care and it’s patients who are paying the price?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is very important that we address the deferred maintenance issues in hospitals across the province, but we have to do that in a responsible way. On top of building new hospitals—the $12 billion that is in place to build new and renovate hospitals, the $100 million a year for deferred maintenance: All of that goes to address the challenges that hospitals face in terms of maintenance.

That is the reality of having a large set of assets that have to be maintained on a regular basis. Whether it’s schools or whether it’s hospitals, there needs to be money that is used on a regular basis to address those challenges. That’s the reason we actually increased the amount of money available to hospitals to tackle that deferred maintenance.

We’re doing that in a responsible way, and I know that we’re working closely with the hospitals in order to make those repairs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The health minister says that he won’t tell Ontarians what hospitals need maintenance work because “It would give contractors an unfair advantage” if they knew “in advance of their bid what the ministry or the hospital had estimated the cost....” But that’s not what the ministry told us. The ministry told us, “Concerns are that contractors currently engaged by hospitals would lose confidence in the facility’s ability or intention to pay on current contractual obligations.”

Either the minister isn’t accurate or the ministry is not accurate. Is the Premier okay with her minister making things up as he goes?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, imagine if you were renovating your house. Would you tell the contractor the amount of money that you’re going to be paying them or would you actually ask the contractor to assess it and negotiate with that contractor?

This is precisely the same issue. Why would we identify hospitals and the amount of money that we believe is required to renovate or maintain? We would actually create a transparent, appropriate bidding process where contractors would bid on the repairs. It’s no different than what you would do for your own house—let alone the fact that when we look at deferred maintenance, what we’re talking about is what would be required to restore those hospital facilities to their brand new status.

In fact, almost all of the hospitals—because they do this on a go-forward basis, it may be that at some time in the future they need to replace a generator. It may be that they have to replace a building that suits a different need. These are the sort of things we’re looking at.

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

M me France Gélinas: The data that we have is about health and safety. It is about code compliance. It is about imminent breakdowns. Yet, although we have the amounts, we have no idea which hospitals we’re talking about.

The government’s own data shows that hospitals are overcrowded, the government’s own data shows that hospitals are in desperate need of repairs—$3.2 billion worth of repairs—and the government’s own budget shows that hospital funding is not keeping up with inflation and is not keeping up with the growing population.

Yesterday, the Ontario Health Coalition reported that 94,000 people took the time to call on the Liberal government to stop cutting hospital care. When will the Premier listen to Ontarians and stop the cuts to our hospitals?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are doing precisely what they’re asking. We are increasing funding to our hospitals—$345 million this year. The third party voted against our budget, which had that allocation. They voted against our budget that allocated $1 billion more to the health care budget—$52 billion that we invest. They voted against a provision in the budget that doubles the amount that we allocate to deferred maintenance, from $50 million a year to $100 million a year.

If this was such an important issue to them, if it wasn’t just some political, partisan spin that they’re trying to use here, why didn’t they support it in the budget when it doubled the amount of funding that would have gone to deferred maintenance?

Energy policies

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Saying that the sell-off of Hydro One will build transit isn’t true, and anyone who says so is more interested in political spin than facts.

Will the Premier stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve been very clear that building infrastructure—including transit—transportation infrastructure around the province is a priority. It’s a cornerstone of our economic plan. That building is happening, and part of that, which we ran on, was looking at the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario and leveraging those assets to invest in new assets. That’s what we’re doing with Hydro One. Those investments are going to benefit people across the province, including the people in the riding that the member represents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, yesterday was Hydro One’s first private annual general meeting. The sell-off of Hydro One slashes provincial revenue. It will cause the deficit to skyrocket. It will mean hydro rates will go up. When the Liberals try and suggest otherwise, they’re insulting the intelligence of everyone in this province.

Will the Premier stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I honestly think what insults the intelligence of people in this province is a party that suggests that they can do everything—including building transportation infrastructure—with no way to fund it, Mr. Speaker—absolutely no plan, absolutely no indication of how they would fund any of the things that they suggest; no understanding of how business works, as the questions around the hospitals indicate; no understanding of what it costs to build transit and transportation infrastructure in every corner of this province. That insults the intelligence of people in this province.

What we’ve brought forward is a realistic plan that actually gets shovels in the ground, rail on the roads, and expands transportation across this province.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, selling Hydro One is about one thing and one thing only: It’s about the Premier getting a one-time cheque from shareholders so the books will look good in the next provincial election. That’s what it’s about. It’s bad energy policy; it’s bad environmental policy; it’s bad economic policy. And everybody knows it.

Speaker, will the government admit that they have made a mistake? Will they recognize that they’ve made a mess of the energy system in this province and will they stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, just two or three: yes, yes and yes—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The reminder you’re going to get is not going to be helpful.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I said “Minister of Finance.”

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s all about creating greater value for the people of Ontario. The members opposite have failed to recognize that by enhancing the value of this corporation—which is now more valuable than it was before—we still retain, at this point, 70% ownership of that company. We’ve made a commitment that we will always be the largest shareholder—

Mr. Paul Miller: We don’t own it. We don’t own it.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: We will always be the largest shareholder. We will not allow any other person or company to have more than 10%. The issue of forgone revenue that the member speaks of is the fact that we are reinvesting it in other projects, in other assets, to gain even greater value. Furthermore, the company is now going to produce even more value and greater dividends for the province, even with the lower ownership.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario continue to own this corporation, and the people of Ontario will benefit as we proceed forward.

Energy policies

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Premier. Last week I hosted a town hall on natural gas with over 150 residents in attendance. They want answers. Municipalities have stated that they will mobilize against this radical agenda if the government wants to go ahead with its leaked plan.

In my riding of Chatham–Kent Essex and across the province, thousands of jobs depend on the natural gas industry. They need and deserve certainty. So Speaker, is the Premier amending the building code to phase out natural gas?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’ve repeated often in this House that we have, in the 2016 budget, $230 million to invest in expanding natural gas to rural communities. We also have seen changes in the Ontario Energy Board regulatory framework that make it easier to expand natural gas. Union Gas, at the present time, has five applications before the Ontario Energy Board to expand natural gas—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: They have five applications before the Ontario Energy Board. They’re working with over a dozen other rural municipalities to expand natural gas into rural communities.

They just don’t want to admit that we are investing in rural communities like they never even thought of.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the Premier: Speaker, the Premier’s refusal to answer basic questions is a betrayal of the people she once swore to serve. As a matter of fact, the people of Ontario worry about how their Premier is spending billions of their dollars to travel the world to build her own climate change legacy.

Here’s what the president of the Canadian Gas Association, Timothy Egan, said with regard to the Premier’s agenda: It is “incredibly irresponsible.” It will destroy a proud industry, kill countless jobs, ruin families and drive heating costs through the roof.

Our offices get numerous calls each day about natural gas. People have been scared for weeks because this government is too scared to release the real details. MPPs can’t do their jobs and provide answers.

Speaker, why does Premier Wynne continue to turn her back on rural Ontario and ignore their questions? Are you or are you not amending the building codes?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Once again, the opposition doesn’t want to accept the realities. The reality that they’re accepting is a draft document that was leaked to the media. They accept it as fact. So in the coming weeks, there will be a fulsome climate change action plan in place, and then they can respond. Then we can have the conversation.

We have probably done more consultation with the gas sector than with any other sector, as we lead up to this, over the last year and a half to two years. They have an open door—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’re expanding natural gas, particularly into rural communities. That’s a reality they don’t want to accept, and it upsets them to see—

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

New question.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. New Democrats support a strong public pension plan. We believe that all Ontarians should be able to retire with dignity. This government, however, has taken it upon itself to exclude thousands, if not millions, of Ontarians and their families.

This month, the provinces are set to discuss a potential increase to the Canada Pension Plan, a plan that leaves no Canadian behind. Even the federal government has expressed concerns that the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, which currently leaves out thousands of workers, may prevent a future CPP enhancement.

Premier, will the government support a universal enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan so that every Canadian can benefit?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for her question. I know that she has been the critic on this particular file.

The member opposite knows full well that Ontario has provided strong leadership when it comes to retirement security in this province. That leadership is something that is moving us forward as we look to implement the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

We have consulted very widely on this policy, and we’ve received input from all sides: from business, from—

Mr. Paul Miller: You got nothing from the retirees—nothing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned. I would have gotten the message long ago.

Minister.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: We are creating a secure retirement savings floor for the people of Ontario so that when they retire, they can retire with dignity.

Our Premier and our Minister of Finance in fact have led national conversations when it comes to the expansion of CPP, Mr. Speaker. We are currently at the table and we remain at the table as we build a stronger retirement system here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: During committee this week, New Democrats called, as always, for a universal Ontario pension plan, but the government voted down each and every one of our amendments. This Liberal government believes that only some workers in Ontario should be allowed to participate in the ORPP.

Canadians pride themselves on having a public health care system, a public education system and a public pension system that benefits us all. Speaker, it’s part of who we are as Canadians.

Now, however, it looks like the Liberals’ design of the Ontario pension plan may jeopardize a future CPP enhancement. Premier, does this government actually believe that it has the mandate to redesign the CPP?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, our government believes that after a lifetime of working, Ontarians deserve to retire with dignity and with security. That is what we’re building. We are moving forward with the implementation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

We are at the table as conversations are under way with the CPP expansion, and those discussions, we’ve always said, will take time. We’re part of that conversation.

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that when people retire, they have a predictable stream of income in retirement. That is exactly what they will have with the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. It will bring financial security. It will ensure that when people retire, they can do so with dignity and that they have that lifetime income. That’s to ensure that, in fact, when our young workers retire, they will have the retirement security that they don’t have today.

Injured workers

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Today, June 1, marks the 33rd annual Injured Workers’ Day. As the minister reminded us a few weeks ago in the House, despite our progress, too many people continue to lose their lives or suffer an injury or an illness simply because they went to work. No job is worth a life. No job is worth an injury.

I know that every year, the Minister of Labour addresses injured workers and their representatives when they assemble here. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please share with us what we’re doing to improve the lives of injured workers and treating them with the respect and dignity they deserve?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks to the honourable member for that excellent question. I want to also take this opportunity to thank all the groups that have come down to visit us here, as they do on an annual basis, at Queen’s Park.

Speaker, on this issue, prevention is key. But when that prevention simply isn’t working and injuries occur and fatalities occur, those who are injured need to know that they’re going to be treated with dignity and they’re going to be treated with respect.

We should be proud in the province of Ontario. We’ve come a long way. The province’s annual rate of workplace injuries has dropped by more than 40% in the past decade. We should be proud of that, but we shouldn’t be satisfied for one minute with that. There’s a long way to go. We shouldn’t rest as long as one person is injured on the job. I’m proud of the government’s record in this regard, but not satisfied. There’s a long way to go. We’ve got a number of plans in place. I look forward to meeting the injured workers today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the minister for that response. I was pleased to join him earlier this year when we opened an office to assist injured workers in Ottawa.

We all know that many workplace incidents can be prevented. Workplace injuries should never just be seen as a cost of doing business. It’s important that Ontario has a workplace culture that protects workers and prevents injuries from happening in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what steps are we taking to ensure that our loved ones and friends return home safe after a day at work?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, once again, to the member for that excellent question. We’re working very hard at the ministry with partners right around this province to keep the injury numbers down and to eliminate deaths. We’ve almost doubled the number of workplace inspectors in the province of Ontario to look at health and safety. We’ve increased the amount of health and safety training that is now mandatory in the province of Ontario. Every single worker in this province must take basic health and safety training before they enter the workforce.

We’ve got mandatory specialized training for those people who work at heights. Speaker, since last April, 100,000 Ontarians have taken that training of working at heights.

Workers who are new to the job, including young workers—this is so important, Speaker. Young workers are three times more likely to be hurt on the job than older workers. We need to concentrate on that. At the Ministry of Labour, we’re doing exactly that.

I’d ask all members to spread that message through their own constituency offices about the importance of health and safety.

Climate change

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the environment minister. Speaker, I’m sure you have seen the news that California and Quebec’s recent cap-and-trade auction flopped. In fact, only 11% of the allowances were actually sold. Now California is scrambling to make up for this funding shortfall.

Still, the environment minister actually told TVO yesterday that he isn’t worried about similar problems in Ontario, even though the government has promised to spend $1.2 billion in cap-and-trade funds on a lottery list of Liberal pet projects without even raising a dime. The Liberals are spending money they don’t have.

How will the government cover the tab for the Liberals’ billion-dollar spending spree if Ontario’s first cap-and-trade auction crashes, just like California and Quebec’s did?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: You don’t want to take action.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You want to gamble?

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, it’s the Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry. Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

This is a market system. There are periods—we’ve had over a dozen auctions now where they were oversubscribed. The last one was 95%. This was lower. At different points in the compliance period, there will be greater or lesser demand. We are early and far away from the end of the next compliance period. We expect fluctuations, Mr. Speaker.

It is a market mechanism, it is not a politicized system, and it works on supply and demand, which, the last time I looked, was a fairly consistent principle with Conservatives, who like markets and like the market to solve problems. So we’re using a market mechanism that is working all around the world. Within the next 12 months, over half the world’s economy will be covered by a carbon-pricing system, the vast majority of it the cap-and-trade system that we’re talking about: Japan, China, Germany, Britain, California.

It’s a market. It will go up and down. We have confidence in markets—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the minister: The truth is that the minister is planning on funding shortfalls, and he said so. He actually told TVO yesterday, “We know in the earlier years, until the market is mature, you’ll see more dramatic swings.”

I find it unbelievable that the Liberals are willing to write billion-dollar cheques without knowing how much money they’ll have in the bank. With no contingency plan in place, the Liberals will once again leave Ontarians with either more debt or more taxes.

So I ask the minister to be clear with the people of Ontario today. Are the Liberals going to plunge Ontario deeper into debt or raise taxes to cover the funding shortfall after their first cap-and-trade auction crashes?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, if you needed more proof that