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

October 8, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Oct-08 (PDF)

L070 - Tue 8 Oct 2013 / Mar 8 oct 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 October 2013 Mardi 8 octobre 2013

WEARING OF BRACELETS,

PINS AND RIBBONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

PAN AM GAMES

PROTECTION OF RESOURCES

PAN AM GAMES

GO TRANSIT

JOB CREATION

MINISTRY GRANTS

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

SPECIAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GEISSBERGER FARMHOUSE CIDER

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

HOSPICE VAUGHAN

QUINTE AGRICULTURAL

HALL OF FAME

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

NAVRATRI

CONNECTING LINK PROGRAM

DAVID LEWIS PUBLIC SCHOOL

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

MEMORIAL PLAQUES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

AMENDMENT ACT

(SPRING BEAR HUNT), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DU POISSON ET DE LA FAUNE

(CHASSE À L’OURS PRINTANIÈRE)

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

BREAST CANCER

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

SMALL BUSINESS

BREAST CANCER

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

SMALL BUSINESS

BREAST CANCER

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

SMALL BUSINESS

PETITIONS

LANDFILL

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

SHALE BEACH

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

AIR QUALITY

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

INDOOR TANNING EQUIPMENT

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

WIND TURBINES

SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

AIR QUALITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION

ACT (TANNING BEDS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

(LITS DE BRONZAGE)

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES GRANDS LACS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

WEARING OF BRACELETS,

PINS AND RIBBONS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services on a point of order.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: A point of order, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning.

I believe you’ll find that we have unanimous consent this morning for today that all members be permitted to wear bracelets and lapel pins and ribbons in recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons and pins. Do we have consent? Agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 3, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

An Act to establish a new regime for the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste and to repeal the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 / Projet de loi 91, Loi créant un nouveau cadre pour la réduction, la réutilisation et le recyclage des déchets et abrogeant la Loi de 2002 sur le réacheminement des déchets.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very pleased to have been asked, chosen actually, to speak on this bill this morning, following the remarks made last week by our critic the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, who I think dissected Bill 91 rather expertly. I want to thank him and his staff for doing such a thorough analysis of a bill that purports to do one thing and does absolutely the opposite to what it said.

In fact, I should start by qualifying that the minister, in due respect, was here listening to the remarks by our critic Michael Harris. One of the remarks in there that I’ve taken the liberty of looking at, the remarks made on October 2—for the viewers who would like some accurate content, perhaps they should take a look at the remarks on October 2 when he concluded his one-hour statement. What was said there—and I think it’s a permissible comment, with the indulgence of the Speaker—in his remarks he said, “But, Speaker, let me tell you, the minister was actually playing an even sillier game.

All the bill actually does is move eco taxes from your receipt to the price tag on the store shelf.”

In fact, he had claimed that he was eliminating all the eco taxes and he’s not; he’s hiding them. He should have been straightforward, telling—look, everyone in here is for clean air, clean water, clean soil; everyone in here. There’s no question of that. If they impute motives that are other than that, it’s inappropriate. Let’s put it that way.

They went on to say, as well, that the—these are quotes so people can look it up and verify it. He went on in his remarks—and, again, I want to thank his staff because of the way they researched the bill, which is a very technical bill. I’ve had a chance to look at it, but it’s actually 66 pages. There are 133 sections. There are two sections that deal entirely with setting out regulations. We’re really not sure what those regulations are going to be, which causes me to worry. What are they hiding here? Either they’re for it or they’re against it, but you can’t have it both ways.

You can’t say one thing in public and then find out in the minutiae the detail of these very lengthy regulatory sections, because those sections themselves will end up with more red tape, more red tape for perhaps the generators of waste. Now, I agree: Source reduction of waste is really the way we should be going.

I digress briefly, but I do want to put on the record these formal remarks. He’s saying—I’ll just read it here because it’s so good: “I left off by saying that this bill actually continues every single eco tax program the Liberals ever created ... that fact didn’t stop the environment minister from claiming that it did this summer. In fact, the day the minister announced he would be tabling Bill 91, he, of course, huffed and puffed in front of the media that he was getting rid of eco taxes. Too bad for him that the entire press gallery here at Queen’s Park didn’t believe” a thing he said.

“In fact, I remember a certain Canadian Press reporter tweeting that the minister’s claim was the ‘most misleading public statement’ by an Ontario cabinet minister. The rest of the media agreed. They immediately”—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member—

Mr. John O’Toole: Pardon me.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You will withdraw.

Mr. John O’Toole: Withdrawn. I’m not challenging the Chair, but I’m quoting, and it was permitted. It’s in the Hansard. So you’d have to go back and withdraw Hansard. So I shouldn’t—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You caught yourself at the very end: You shouldn’t and you won’t. Simply withdraw and leave it at that. Stand, please.

Mr. John O’Toole: Withdrawn. Thank you very much, Speaker. I wasn’t trying in any way to start this day in sort of a combative way, but now that we’re there—I’m only kidding. But there you go.

I’ll only say this: I have great regard for the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Bradley. He’s been here—I think he’s the longest-serving member. As such, it’s a tough file. In fact, the Attorney General for Ontario is here, and he had that file at one time, and he knows how tough a file it is, because there are competitive interests there, and we know on the whole that waste diversion and recycling and all that, it’s important to stem it. I always say we should leave the big box at the big box store. You understand? It should be their responsibility to deal with it.

Now, that’s actually one of the strategies that our leader, Tim Hudak, constantly preaches on: source reduction. In fact, even in government itself, we should stop some of the waste going on here, whether it’s the announcement today by the—I may be off topic a small bit, but it’s still about Bill 91, because the waste, the scandalous waste of money, is one of the things where you could stop all this. We wouldn’t have to create all this infrastructure to deal with waste if we didn’t create the waste of money itself.

I think this all makes sense if you think about it, because here’s the deal: The Auditor General is going to announce today what it cost to cancel the Oakville plant. Now, the reason is we have no idea what it was, but I was promised by the Premier and the Minister of Energy that it was $40 million. Now, how wrong can you be? I think it could be 10 times, 100 times wrong. I don’t know. But this bill here—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Very good timing. You will come back to the topic, please.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you very much, Speaker. The emotion level is high here today because of that scandal that’s about to unfold.

But Bill 91—that is the one. It’s the Minister of the Environment’s, and they’re setting up these unelected groups again. They’re sort of like the environmental LHINs—do you understand?—to look after this thing.

Now, who’s going to check the checker? That always becomes the question. Where’s the money to audit this stuff? Where’s the money to investigate and enforce the rules? I believe it’s a fundamental responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment.

In fact, in my riding of Durham, which includes Uxbridge, Scugog, which is like Port Perry, and Clarington, which is Bowmanville, Courtice, Newcastle and a lot of other communities—here’s the point: One of the two big issues I have is the spreading of sewage sludge on farm fields when in fact there are processing plants within a reasonable distance. The second one is commercial fill. All these condos they’re building in Toronto—this applies, Mr. Speaker. For all these condos, if you’re going up four storeys, you probably have to go down four storeys, and where is that dirt going?

That dirt for the Olympics, for instance, right down here in the port lands—why was nothing ever built there for the last 100 years? Why? Because it’s contaminated. Those were the old factories, the tanneries and stuff like that. Where are they moving that soil? They’re moving that soil to my riding, in Uxbridge, Port Perry, and in fact they’re moving some to Seagrave right now. They’re claiming they’re going to build an airport. It’s a huge hole in the ground that they’re filling up with—I believe 250,000 trucks are going to come up those roads, destroying the roads.

The enforcement of that is supposed to be by the York district office for the Ministry of the Environment. With all due respect, the staff have limited resources, I get that. Dave Fumerton is the director. We talk to him regularly to see if they can enforce making sure that the fill is indeed safe, that it isn’t contaminated. They say they have this new plan now with soil. It’s called soil remediation. What’s that about?

I went to that plant on Toy Avenue in Pickering, run by Green For Life, and they’re remediating the soil. What are they doing? Well, they’re aerating it; they’re turning it and putting it in windrows, supposedly. They also have these biological bugs they spray on it that eat the carbon or the petrochemical component of it. Then these microbes die. I said, “Well, when they die, they must have ingested this stuff, so it’s still there. It’s just inside their bodies.”

There’s so much double-talk on this file, I can’t believe it. If it’s contaminated, it goes into the water. It could eventually affect the water table, which could affect people’s wells. For years we called them brownfield sites. Whenever you had old gas stations around that were closed and probably the gas containers in the ground ruptured, that petrochemical stuff went into the soil, and eventually it leaches and migrates from property to property. So nobody wanted those sites. No one ever developed them because of all the liability attached to it. That’s the second problem.

The third problem that I have here is the whole idea of enforcement. The Ministry of the Environment just can’t do it. Here we have another bill laden with regulations about enforcing the source reduction of waste in Bill 91. Now, again, I’m going back to the notes that were—they’re not really notes. The Hansard, really, is the notes that I’m talking about. I just received another bit of information here as well, which could be quite handy. It says—this bill, we should be clear—we oppose the bill. For the record, for Hansard, our critic Michael Harris has said that we oppose the bill.

But with the majority and the coalition between the NDP—they love the environment. They’ve got to explain to me how it’s going to work. Of course, the government side, it’s their bill; they’ll all be whipped into voting for it. Probably, they haven’t even read it. That’s the most discouraging part.

Ms. Catherine Fife: We read budgets. We read bills. Yes, we do.

Mr. John O’Toole: You’ll have your 20 minutes or hour, and I’m waiting for your remarks to try and defend—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Your remarks should be made through the chair.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m glad you’re listening, because there’s a lot to be said here. The Waste Reduction Act is a Liberal shell game that shifts eco taxes from the consumer’s receipt to the price tag. We’ve said that. The bill will not only fail to meet the Ontario PC Party demand to scrap eco taxes, but it also fails to eliminate the Liberals’ recycling cartel and the government’s unaccountable oversight agency, Waste Diversion Ontario.

These are failed objectives, and they certainly can’t be acceptable to the opposition party, my colleagues and our leader, Tim Hudak.

The Liberals plan to give the agency enforcement powers and the authority to set collection fees from businesses, which will then be passed on to consumers as part of the eco taxes paid on the product price tag. So it’s hidden. The person walks in to buy a battery—$9? Inside that $9 package is a tax that goes to deal with the waste, probably. How are we going to enforce all this? You set these objectives, these laudable goals—through you, Madam Speaker—of reducing waste in Ontario. From every account I’ve heard they haven’t even come close to the promise of reducing it.

This comes down to a fundamental plank in my problem, and my frustration here every day is that you can’t trust them. It’s like the gas plants. They said it was going to be $40 million. Now we’re going to find out it’s going to be $400 million. And Premier Wynne admitted it: It was done for political goals. She was the vice-chair of the campaign and she said that they cancelled those plants to save seats; she said it.

Then it comes back to the word “trust” on Bill 91, Madam Speaker. The trust thing, I’m saying, is where I really get frustrated. If you’re dealing with someone in a debate, you can’t win the debate if the other person isn’t trustworthy, like telling the truth, if that’s okay.

But anyway, the Liberal government turns these powers over to this agency, even though for five long years, it authorized the Liberal recycling cartel to impose exorbitant eco taxes in Ontario, including—the farmers in my riding love this one because we fought this, and I think they’ve reversed it—the 2,000% tire tax increase in April and a $40 levy on a big-screen TV last May. Those are two examples where the consumers of Ontario are trying to say—it’s the shell game part of it. This is waste.

For instance, we get a lot of calls—and I’m sure, Madam Speaker, you do—on the price of gas. “How come the price of gas is so high?” I said, “Well, when the Liberals harmonized the provincial sales tax with the federal GST, gas went up 11 cents overnight,” because gas never had provincial tax on it.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Yes, it did.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, it didn’t. No. See, there’s the minister. No, it didn’t. It had an ad valorem tax. It had—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Oh, that’s a tax.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, the tax was at 14.3 cents per litre, but it never had provincial tax. It had GST on it, the federal portion, but I digress.

Every time they can get into your pocket—deeper and deeper and deeper. This eco tax is just another opening and the price is hidden. Those batteries are $9?

Mr. Todd Smith: They’re going to be $15 soon.

Mr. John O’Toole: That’s exactly right. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is paying close attention, which is a good thing, because I have had the privilege to speak this morning and he’ll be next.

Waste Diversion Ontario has broken the trust—there’s the word, “trust”—of Ontarians time and time again and should not be rewarded by more power, bigger multi-million-dollar budgets funneled through the eco tax program. So it is disheartening—and I’m not for one moment trying to explain or apologize, Madam Speaker, to the people of Ontario, because listen, we’re here representing our constituents—that’s the first and most privileged role that we have: to listen to them and to respond to them—and they are concerned about the environment. I’ve explained in my riding the inordinate rules that aren’t being enforced.

Here are some more rules that are going to cost more money and I don’t think are going to even solve the problem.

In fact, as you probably know, Madam Speaker, the review of the Aggregate Resources Act, ARA, has just been completed. A select committee dealt with it, and it affects a lot of things on the Oak Ridges moraine, where all the aggregate come from. My riding is rich in aggregate and I’m proud of that. I think it’s an important resource in Ontario; I recognize that. But then when you look at it, the rehabilitation of these sites is important.

That part of the bill, the rehabilitation of sites, is another function of both the Ministry of Natural Resources as well as the Ministry of the Environment, which ties back into: Do the jobs that they’ve got in legislative responsibilities now. Why are you starting to get deeper into the regulatory world of waste diversion? Again, it even says it in the notes here, it’s a matter of trust.

If I paid, let’s say, for a big-screen TV, and I’m about to close the sale today, and somebody says, “Well, there’s a recycling thing here of $50”—wow. You might have a second thought about it. But how it’s going to work today: You’re going to buy the big-screen TV; it’s going up in price. You won’t know that there’s $50 for an eco tax for recycling.

That’s the problem. It’s the transparency, the lack of accountability. Those instincts within this style of the current government talking very pleasantly, proper smiles and sort of the way you communicate and that, but at the end of the day, if you can’t be trusted, then the game’s over.

So with Bill 91, what we’re trying to say here is the bill purports to do something—and this was reported by the media—but does completely the opposite. It just puts it all inside the closet so it can never be seen again.

I go on here: “The hasty introduction of Bill 91 is the result of a number of factors, the most significant of which has been pressure from the Ontario PC Party, more specifically, Tim Hudak and Michael Harris. Our announcement last November of reforming the province’s recycling policies created a groundswell of activity amongst stakeholders from all sectors, especially with the resulting news coverage declaring that we’d be scrapping the eco tax.”

Now, they’re saying they’re scrapping it—and I’ve said this; it’s the third time. Often you have to say things 15 times for people to get it. They’re not scrapping it; they’re hiding it, period. Okay? End of sentence. You’re creating another unelected organization to be accountable to. You can’t get to them. If you have a problem with a hospital, you can’t get to them. You can’t get through the LHIN to find out why they aren’t providing certain procedures in your local hospital.

There has been increasing pressure from waste haulers and processors to create a more powerful government agency to regulate the recycling sector in favour of their industry and at the expense of business paying into various government recycling programs.

More than anything, the corrupt, tired, scandal-plagued government under criminal investigation can’t afford any more controversy, so they’re tabling a bill to trick Ontarians into believing the Liberals will be eliminating the eco tax, and it seems like a good way to challenge and change the channel.

There’s more to be said on this, and I would refer the viewer, once again, to the remarks made by our critic Michael Harris from Kitchener–Conestoga, a young, new member here. He has done a remarkably informed job on dissecting a very complex Bill 91 and coming up with the hidden pieces that the public should know about. So take the time and look up Hansard on the Ontario legislative website. Look carefully through it, and you’ll find out why that package of batteries, that can of—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Comments or questions?

Ms. Catherine Fife: We are coming from a completely different place with regard to Bill 91. We do, of course, support increasing targets and increasing enforceable standards.

I think we do share some concerns, though, around the Waste Reduction Authority. We really hope that you don’t give them bonuses just for doing their jobs or sticking around or showing up for work. I think that there are some good concerns that we have with regard to true accountability from that authority.

There are some good things, though, in this bill. If you read it, you’ll see that there are some good things, because we have to make up for 20 years of lost traction and lost progress. So we do need to accelerate our efforts as a province to reduce, reuse, recycle and recover, and the recovery piece is not embedded into this bill. We need to refocus our attention on avoiding sending things to landfills altogether.

Ontario’s solid waste facts: 75% goes to landfills; diversion rate, 23%; energy recovery, 2%. What a missed opportunity in this bill to generate energy through waste. There is room for improvement, and we are going to tackle those problems when it gets to committee. It’s going to get to committee, because we’re going to support it, because something needs to be done. I know you believe in doing nothing, but we believe in doing something and making it stronger. That’s what the people of the province expect from us in a minority government setting.

Energy from waste generates clean, renewable energy, addresses climate change and creates green jobs in sustainable waste management. There’s so much potential for us on the waste diversion. We’re going to make it stronger. We’re focused on it and we actually have the expertise to make it happen. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Speaker. I’m pleased to respond to what we heard this morning from the Conservative member.

I think we’ve all agreed from the beginning that the system we have is broken. Certainly, the 23% or 25% figure that you’ve heard on diversion is so low that the system is broken. It’s a system that we inherited 10 years ago and a system that just is not doing the job.

I read the comments of the member from Davenport and the member for Kitchener–Conestoga in response to the minister’s presentation. The third party wants to work to get a system up and running that’s going to look after the waste of this province. There’s a lot involved, because it’s not only less landfills, which always cause problems in communities—they’re needed and you have to grow them because we’re not diverting our waste—but it’s a generation of 5,000 direct jobs that we can achieve through using more of our waste and mining our waste for the valuables that are in there.

You know, that’s a different concept. The third party wants to work with us and come up with a system that’s really good. I think the opposition has to look at what they’re doing. They should be jumping into this and saying, “Let’s get Ontario the proper system for handling our waste, for minimizing landfills, for creating jobs etc.”

A business group that has responded says, “A more streamlined Waste Reduction Act, focused on principles of producer responsibility and addressing the concerns highlighted in our submission, could provide a legislative framework to enable the development”—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to join the debate and bring remarks on the comments made by my friend from Durham on the Waste Reduction Act.

This clearly is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in the province of Ontario. That’s why we’re opposed to it. We don’t need to get in this game. The Waste Reduction Act, as my friend from Durham pointed out, is just another way for this Liberal government to create public sector jobs at the expense of private sector companies. These private sector companies are the ones that are creating wealth and creating jobs in our province today. We can’t afford at this time to create more public sector jobs.

We’re going to create, as he mentioned, a LHIN for recyclables. We don’t need that, because these recyclables have a value. They’re a very valuable commodity. They are a valuable product. All we have to do as a government, as our critic Michael Harris has pointed out many times, is set the targets and the expectations of our government and then get the government out of the way. It will require audits, and there are very competent companies out there that will audit the producers to make sure they are diverting their waste away from landfills.

And because these tires, as the member from Durham mentioned, have a value to them, they’re sought after. I can tell you right now that 95%—there’s no problem here when it comes to recycling tires in the province of Ontario; they are all making their way to the Ontario Tire Stewardship. If we actually fix this bill, which is unnecessary, and get out of the way, get government out of the way, it’s going to create more companies that will want to get those tires. We’re seeing it across the province right now.

So I commend the member from Durham. I commend the work of our critic Michael Harris on this file. We don’t need to create another government bureaucracy, and that’s what this bill aims to do: having garbage cops on the streets of Ontario. We don’t need that. We can police this without creating another bureaucracy.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Davenport.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Thanks very much, Speaker. I’m happy to join the debate on Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act. I appreciate the comments from the members from Durham, Kitchener–Waterloo, Ottawa–Orléans and Prince Edward–Hastings.

As most members of this House know, I’m not a member of the Liberal government; I do not agree with the actions of the Liberal government. I believe that we have a much better framework to do business in the NDP. That said, however, better late than never.

So 10 years later the Liberals have shown up and they’re ready to do some work, maybe, on this file, which, I have to say, contrary to what the opposition says, is important and necessary. I wish that the official opposition would put away their talking points, would put away their ideology because it just doesn’t fit right here.

There is a huge problem here. We are the worst in this country when it comes to waste diversion. The “waste” in the title of this bill could apply to a waste of time for the last 10 years that the government has been here, for sure, but a waste of time particularly on this issue—a waste of opportunity.

The Conservatives, if they believed in job creation, would take a look at the facts here and take a look at the fact that seven jobs could be created for every one job in just throwing trash away. If we actually put people to work to divert waste, to recycle and to reuse waste, we could be creating jobs here. Supposedly that’s what the official opposition would like to do. Instead, they don’t want to get to work here. I think that’s very unfortunate.

The issue of the third party—what they’re calling the “waste reduction LHINs”—I’ve got concerns about new bureaucracies being set up, but in in this case this is because neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will actually protect the Ministry of the Environment; they will not stand up and say, “We actually need to protect our environment.” So creating this third party might be the only way to actually make sure that we’re enforcing waste diversion in this province. That’s unfortunate, but I think that’s a result of what you guys have been doing here for too long.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Durham has two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O’Toole: I seek unanimous consent to get another half an hour just to wrap up. Agreed?

I want to comment on the two members from the NDP. I’m quite impressed that you’ve talked about the effectiveness of energy from waste. I’m interested in the member from Ottawa–Orléans—I’m not sure he is—because they have plasmafication in Ottawa.

Here’s the issue: I have the first and most modern energy-from-waste plant in my riding. It’s under construction. If you’re driving down the 401, Minister, at Kingston, you’ll see the big—it’s under the tightest emission regulations. I believe that the region of Durham, and Roger Anderson as well—I’ve talked to the ministers directly. You’ve got to enforce the emission targets. That’s the key thing, so keep up.

But our plan, the PC plan, the Tim Hudak team plan is this: Rather than create a complicated bureaucracy with massive cost for consumers, we will just simply get it right. Under our plan, the Ministry of the Environment would set measurable, achievable recycling targets for manufacturers and importers of electronic waste. The minister then would set environmental standards to ensure the materials are actually recycled. Then we would monitor the outcomes. That’s in place. That’s doable today. We don’t need another bureaucracy.

This is what has happened under this government: They want more taxes first, called eco fees. It’s just a shameful response to an environment that we know is part of having a healthy quality of life and, in fact, a healthy economy. This plan does everything that it says, only it does it behind closed doors. In fact, it doesn’t eliminate eco fees at all, which is a tax on consumers, really. It’s like an HST, is what it’s like.

I would also say that if you really feel strongly about this, you should contact your Liberal member and tell them to withdraw this bill, and work with Tim Hudak and the plan that we have for Ontario. It’s called Pathways to Prosperity—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further debate?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m pleased to rise today to talk about Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act. I want to thank the members who have spoken on this bill today for their insights and their thoughts. I’m eager to add to the discussion around this important issue.

My understanding of the bill, as it stands at second reading, is that Bill 91 is a step towards making producers responsible for the waste they produce. I hope we can all agree that, in that principle, it is a very good idea.

As we know, progress on waste reduction and recycling has all but stalled over the past 20 years. More importantly, Ontario has the worst record in Canada. I read yesterday in the Toronto Star that Toronto is now the fourth-largest city in North America, and the population has more than doubled between 2006 and 2011. With so much growth, we need to ask ourselves why we have not prioritized our waste management and infrastructure, leaving us in a position to play catch-up to the demands not just in the GTA, but for the entire province. It’s time for this province to rise to the challenges of effectively handling our waste.

Before we can look to the future and to what needs to be accomplished, I believe we need to understand the history of waste management in Ontario. I see the history of waste management in Ontario as a history of community action for a cleaner environment and of companies trying to off-load responsibilities for their products’ waste and the costs of dealing with waste onto the consumers and taxpayers.

Back in the 1960s there was an increase in packaging and non-refillable containers. In the 1970s and 1980s, we saw soft drink companies fighting against government regulations that would require them to use refillable containers.

Moving on to the 1980s and the 1990s, companies sought to have municipal and provincial governments pay for municipal blue box programs. These programs were struggling to cover costs of collection with lower-than-anticipated secondary material prices. In 1987 the Ontario government, with Minister Bradley as the environment minister, reached an agreement in exchange for support for the blue box program. Unfortunately, this deal also allowed for soft drink producers to walk away from the agreements made in the 1960s and 1970s that made producers 100% responsible for deposit-refund and refillable containers they were flooding into the market.

Then in 1995, the Conservative government chose to end the provincial subsidies for the blue box program, off-loading the costs to municipalities. While it doesn’t come as a shock that Conservatives would off-load services, it is shocking that it took another seven years before the issue was dealt with again.

In 2002, the Waste Diversion Act imposed a 50-50 cost-sharing for blue box programs by producers and municipalities, but this new act did not fix the long-standing disagreement between both parties. Municipalities complained about the rising costs of recycling new lightweight materials, which they could not control, and companies complained about the rise in municipal collection costs, which they could not control. In other words, the problem was shuffled around with no one looking to take real leadership on this issue.

I am pleased that history will show that the NDP changed that approach. Our government played an important role in the advancement of recycling in Ontario. We implemented a comprehensive waste reduction action plan in 1991 and in 1994 enacted regulations covering municipal waste, ICI waste, composting and product packaging. By 1992, the NDP government had already met the 1989 target of diverting 25% of solid waste from disposal facilities, and we passed the regulation in 1994 which expanded the blue box programs. Municipalities across the province were set up to recycle aluminum, glass, newsprint, plastic bottles and steel containers.

Unfortunately, waste diversion rates have stagnated since that time. Almost 10 years later, in 2004, the environment minister, Leona Dombrowsky, announced the government’s intention to develop a strategy for Ontario that would divert 60% of the province’s waste from disposal by 2008.

Mr. Jonah Schein: But nothing happened; they didn’t do anything.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: A very good question. Let’s ask the question: How successful was that plan? Well, today, waste diversion rates in Ontario remain stuck at around 23%. We send 77% of our waste to disposal, causing significant environmental cost, and even more disappointing has been the loss of our economic potential. Clearly, the leadership role played by the NDP government was a major factor in achieving the current standard for waste management in this province.

Now that we have looked to our past, I want to talk about our current situation today. As I said earlier, Ontario’s waste diversion rates are among the worst in the country, and the amount of waste we produce continues to rise every day. We’ve lost track of the 3R hierarchy: reduce, reuse and recycle. In some cases, the government has spent more time focusing on burning waste rather than reducing it. It’s time to return to the three Rs; they aren’t just a lesson for our children in school.

Our progress in reducing packaging has been minimal. We’ve moved away from refillable containers, and shamefully, we are one of the few provinces without a deposit return program for beverage containers.

Too much material is still going to landfills, wasting economic opportunities in the recycling sector and the opportunities to create jobs in our province. Recycling creates seven to 10 jobs for every one job in the disposable industry, which is truly significant to my riding in London–Fanshawe, which has unusually high unemployment rates.

Waste reduction and resource conservation is a huge economic factor, contributing over $3.2 billion in revenue and 14,000 direct jobs in Ontario. That number could be much higher if we only had the leadership and the vision to make that happen.

Even the Environmental Commissioner stated in 2010 that “‘current programs under the” Waste Diversion Act “do not encourage producers to focus on waste reduction first, reuse second, and recycling third. Instead, they generally focus on finding the least costly means of collecting and recycling materials.... there is no direct financial incentive provided to individual producers to reduce their costs through product design, such as designing a product that is easier and cheaper to recycle. The lack of direct financial incentives to improve product design can be an impediment to reducing waste, increasing reuse, and ultimately striving for zero waste.’”

Under the current legislation, the government lacks the authority and the oversight to set binding targets and to fine companies who don’t meet diversion targets. This is not the leadership this province needs, Speaker: legislation that protects producers while ignoring the public good—not just the public good but a public need. We need to address our waste by the most effective and affordable possible means.

The industry-funded organizations prove that fact. They serve industry’s interests. They focus on keeping costs to producers down, rather than focusing on the public interest of minimizing waste and ensuring producers cover 100% of end-of-life management costs of their products.

Even now, the funding for blue box programs has fallen onto cash-strapped municipalities, meaning that programs are too limited and not convenient enough for families. Successful programs are supported programs, yet this government has continued the trend of off-loading of services and responsibilities. It has become so commonplace that there are times when I can’t tell them apart from the Conservatives.

Too little has been done to address waste reduction in the institutional, commercial and industrial sectors. We see this through the off-loading of costs onto consumers who have been hit with unfair eco fees set by unaccountable industry-run stewardship organizations, organizations that directly undermine the public confidence in government recycling programs, with no fear of reprisal.

The lack of leadership on waste is shown over the years again and again. We see it with individual producers, who have been provided with no economic incentive to reduce waste or improve their products. This lack of adequate oversight has led to the export or landfilling of materials, which pollutes our environment here in Ontario and overseas. And growth in the recycling sector has been stifled by the monopoly of stewardship organizations.

We’ve examined our history and the current state of waste management. That’s a little bit of a backgrounder. It will be interesting to see if this government is ready to take on a leadership role and bring a vision for waste management to the table, or will they simply pay lip service to the monopoly of organizations who have dominated the waste management discourse over the past few years?

We know that effective waste reduction legislation requires us to be working toward a vision of zero waste. It also insists upon a framework that recognizes the hierarchy of the three Rs—reduce, reuse and recycle—and clearly establishes standards and enforcement by government.

Further, any waste or reduction strategy should include education and public awareness, along with convenience for the consumer. If it’s not easy for people to use, then they simply won’t do it. That is why the education and awareness portion is vital to the success of the issue. Also, we need to ensure that companies, and not municipalities and taxpayers, pay the full cost of dealing with their waste in an environmentally sound way. Hopefully, Bill 91 is a small step towards making producers responsible for the waste they produce and taking on the challenges of waste management in this province.

I am concerned with the limitations of this bill but believe that we need to take it step by step towards prioritizing our waste management.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Point of order: I apologize to my colleague, but I do not believe a quorum is present.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Call in the members.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you.

We’ll return to the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. That was a welcome interruption by my colleague there, because it’s apropos to the next topic that I’ll be speaking on. No offence taken, and we’re good.

So let’s talk about the meat and potatoes of the bill. As I understand the intent of this bill, it sets out diversion targets and enforceable standards for producers to meet. It also creates a Waste Reduction Authority to enforce waste reduction activities. It phases out industry-funded organizations like Stewardship Ontario but allows producers to band together and form intermediaries; in other words, they can create third-party service providers or administrative organizations to meet new waste diversion targets.

It allows municipalities to register with the WRA, which is the Waste Reduction Authority, thus obligating producers to pay municipalities for the collection and recycling of designated materials like tires, paint, batteries, packaging etc. Fees paid for municipality collection are negotiated by the municipalities and producers, and the WRA will be entitled to arbitrate or to set compensation payments if parties can’t agree.

It further prevents retailers from applying a separate eco fee to products by requiring all-in pricing for consumers, so that consumers know what they’re paying; there are no hidden costs or hidden fees that they’re not used to—you know, a little while ago, when you went to Canadian Tire and paid for some paint, and all of a sudden you had an eco fee on that product. So it’s all in, one price, and it’s all included. That’s the way it should be; there shouldn’t be any surprises at the end of the day.

It also expands waste diversion to the institutional, commercial and industrial sectors, ICI, for example. It makes printed paper and packaging designated materials. That’s important, as well.

While much of this bill sounds promising, I feel that we really need to discuss the limitations of Bill 91 in order to improve it. The bill is a good idea, it’s a good start to talks about how we can effectively have better waste reduction in our communities, in our country, but I’m really looking forward to having this bill passed so that we can do the real hard work and dissect this bill very thoroughly in committee.

Bill 91 does not mention the aim of achieving zero waste or the goal of protecting the environment and human health. The longer-term goal of the act should be to move forward as a province, where goods which are not safely recyclable are no longer sold here. That’s an important thing we also need to discuss.

Speaker, as noted before, Bill 91 also does not recognize the importance of the hierarchy of the three Rs: recycle, reduce and reuse. I remember when I was a younger person—not that I’m that old—that was really what we talked about in school. It was a mantra that we always had. We had environment days and we made robots out of tin cans. We were encouraged to think about ways to use recyclable products, to make things in our life so that we could reuse them.

I was at an event at Art in the Park where we had crafters and artists. It was very interesting. This lady had a display and she actually took plastic garbage bags and was making rugs out of them. She was so encouraged by making less waste in her community, that she actually produced something that was very usable for other people. She would sell them to people for cottages or decks. They were very handy because they were plastic and they would last forever and wouldn’t wear out.

So it was encouraging to see that there are people out there, and I know there’s a lot of environmentalists out there, who really want to take hold—and not just recycling. It’s extremely important, but sometimes the materials that we have that we can recycle and reuse, we can actually use them in our daily lives. I was very encouraged to see that she was taking that on and passing on that information.

We also need to look at how to expand the recycling process. We have the recycling in the LCBO, but why don’t we look at expanding the recycling to wine bottles? I know that the BlueGreen Alliance has called for that. It would be great to create these green jobs and reduce waste and even give a market advantage for Ontario wines, so I think that would be a great way to put that to use, recycling wine bottles and creating jobs and getting us ahead—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Pop bottles.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Well, pop bottles, yes.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Twenty-five years ago in Alberta they were recycling pop bottles.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: We’re not supposed to converse directly with other members, but I’m just going to take that comment quickly on pop bottles. Twenty-five years ago, we used to recycle pop bottles. Now we’ve got cans and we recycle cans. But it’s a good idea that we start with the wine bottles, because we already do that at the LCBO. This is just a logical step, to expand that recycling even further and create more jobs and help the Ontario wine industry as well.

Speaker, there are some good things in this bill, and I hope that the Conservatives will recognize the benefits of having a greener environment by taking the initiative and having a more proactive waste reduction policy enacted in our province.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Don’t count on it.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Now, I heard a despairing remark from my seatmate, but we always have to remember that as long as we’re here in this House representing the voices of our constituents, which should be our intent and the goal of why we were sent here, then we have to try to break through the party lines or partisanship and get our point across. It’s human nature that an idea that’s brought forward today may not be at the right time, but if we persist, who knows in 10 years where things can go?

Thank you for allowing me the time to speak on this act. I hope we can all agree that more work needs to be done at committee but it certainly is the right way to go in our environment and waste reduction for all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m pleased to rise in support of the revision of the Waste Reduction Act. I know that people speak about reduce, recycle and reuse, and I’d like to add another called rethink.

I’d like to tell you a story about a wonderful organization that has done exactly that, called Windfall. It was Michael Prue from the Beaches who introduced me to this extraordinary organization which actually diverts 20 million tonnes every year from landfill. How they do that is that in Ontario, and in Canada in all probability, organizations and retailers who have new clothing that they cannot resell end up putting it into dumps.

So this organization actually takes this new clothing—not used, new clothing—and gives it to shelters and to organizations, a number of them through Ontario, where they can use this clothing for people who need new clothing. For someone who has been in a shelter, who has had to leave their home, there’s nothing worse than having somebody else’s used pajamas on a bed. It’s much nicer to have a pair of brand new pyjamas along with that brand new teddy bear that’s sitting on the bed.

This organization, Windfall, has done an extraordinary job in terms of how it reduces, reuses, recycles and rethinks the use of 20 million tonnes that normally would go into—and that’s waste diversion of the right kind. That’s happening in Ontario. As matter of fact, it was Madame Meilleur, the Minister of Community and Social Services at the time, who supported this organization that we continue to support.

The other one we do is the Furniture Bank, and it’s exactly the same thing. People who need furniture get their furniture for nothing. The idea is you have your used furniture, it goes in, and it’s fixed if it’s needed or refurnished or whatever needs to be done. Then, not going into the landfill, it becomes a part of somebody’s home. So good things are happening in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: I want to quickly get on the record following a debate this morning. Bill 91 is nothing more than the Liberals’ desperate attempt to change the channel on their failure to increase waste diversion in Ontario. In fact, in 2008, the Liberals promised to achieve a 60% waste diversion rate. Speaker, do you know where they’re at today?

Mr. John O’Toole: Where?

Mr. Michael Harris: At 23%.

Mr. John O’Toole: Oh no.

Mr. Michael Harris: That’s right, 23%, and the province has had a waste diversion rate for the last 10 years.

But here’s the worst part of the Liberal record: They’ve actually created a decline in the recycling rate for Ontario’s largest source of waste, which is the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, the ICI sector. This sector represents 60% of Ontario’s waste. But for 10 long years, the Liberals had ignored it, and they refused to enforce the existing recycling regulations on the ICI sector, which are known as the 3R regulations. I know the former minister will know exactly what I’m talking about.

What has the result been? Well, the AG found last year that the Liberals have actually let ICI waste diversion drop from 19% to just 12%. That is a significant decline. Obviously, we need leadership on the waste diversion file, but instead of showing true leadership, the Liberals have tabled a bill that will create more red tape and, of course, more taxes. Tragically, it will keep municipalities and stakeholders more focused on fighting over money than actually protecting our environment.

So I’m calling on the Liberals to drop Bill 91 today and adopt our plan, the PC plan, for greater waste diversion in Ontario. That starts with scrapping eco taxes, eliminating useless bureaucracy and then creating the right conditions for economic growth in the waste management sector. Our plan would empower the Ministry of the Environment to set measurable and achievable recycling targets, establish environmental standards, monitor those outcomes and enforce the rules. That’s it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I want to take the opportunity to thank the member from Davenport for his lead-in on this important issue and the member from London–Fanshawe as well for her

part in the debate today.

I sat actually for a number of years on the waste management planning strategy committee of the region of Niagara when I was a regional councillor. I can tell you that Niagara’s diversion rates are far higher and have been than 23%. When we talk about 23%, we’re talking about an average across this province.

In fact, I took the opportunity today to have a look at the region’s website, and they’ve been participating in a program called the Ontario Electronic Stewardship for the collection of electronic waste for recycling. Since 2009, this effort has actually saved 200,000 tonnes of electronic waste from going into the landfill sites. In Niagara alone, we have diverted over 402,000 kilograms of electronic waste from actually going into landfill sites. There are municipalities that are doing far better than 23%.

In Niagara, we also have a program set up where, a couple of times a year, you can bring in all of your leftover paint, all different kinds of household cleaners, fluids—anything that is a contaminant that we wouldn’t want to go into the landfill site. In the region of Niagara, they’re also out, a couple of times a year, at the market, doing educational programs in the communities on how to continue to divert waste.

I think that this bill is an important one. I know that we’ll be proposing some amendments when it gets to committee. But for the greater good of our community and the world, I think it’s somewhere we need to go.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I too would like to congratulate the member from London–Fanshawe for giving a very good historical background with respect to recycling and the dealing of waste in Ontario over the last 25 or 30 years.

We have to do better. We simply have to do better. What this bill does is it makes the producer of a product responsible for its ultimate disposition into new product or into reusing the product at the end of its life cycle. That’s what this bill does.

The current bill doesn’t do that. The current bill was passed by the Conservatives back in 2002, and doesn’t give the government enough power to basically make sure—

Interjection.

Hon. John Gerretsen: We’ll talk about eco fees in a few minutes. We’ll talk about eco fees.

Speaker, if you listen to the Conservatives, they basically say that it’s a tax, and that’s the end of it. But we have to get rid of this stuff in a proper way. The only way to do it is to make the producer ultimately responsible for the proper disposal of the items. It is as simple as that. They will then come up with better methodology in actually how to do it.

Mr. Steve Clark: Michael Harris has got the better plan.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, you know, your plan is exactly what the old bill is all about. The old bill that was passed in 2002 is exactly what you’re proposing now, and we all agree that it’s not working to the same extent that it should be working.

I will be speaking about that in a few moments, Speaker, because I’ve been waiting for this moment for an awful long time, to get my two cents in with respect to proper waste disposal and waste diversion in Ontario.

In the meantime, I’d like to congratulate the member for London–Fanshawe for an excellent presentation.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you to everyone who participated in this conversation, this debate today.

I think the main goal that we all want to get to is that we don’t want to have pollution where we live. We don’t want to have—

Mr. Jonah Schein: We don’t want to ship it to China, either.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, exactly. We don’t want to have it where we live. We don’t want it in our backyards—you know that old saying—and we don’t want to ship it anywhere else; we don’t want it overseas.

I think this bill needs to be really taken seriously. We always talk about pollution and how it’s going to affect the next generation. Everybody’s worried about their children and their grandchildren. Waste is a terrible thing to pass on as a legacy to the next generation. We have to get really serious about it and make sure that we have this bill so that producers are responsible for the products they bring into the stores, into retail, for us to use.

We have to also maybe even take this a step further at some point. There are many municipalities that have the green bin, where you take your organic waste, and I think that’s a great initiative as well. We used to have a composter, and that’s where a lot of the organic material went. But not everybody has a composter. When you actually start adding that up into the landfills, that’s also something that we can do proactively to minimize waste.

I think having the bill—that sets the vision of waste reduction, but we must take it seriously and make sure producers are responsible for what they bring into our society. We also have to take the lead on making sure that we hold people accountable for that waste reduction and toxins that go into our landfills, so that we can have a safe place for our children to be raised.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I just need to interrupt before we move on in the debate.

I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members’ public business such that Mr. Balkissoon assumes ballot item number 54 and Mr. Dickson assumes ballot item number 60.

Further debate?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Before starting the debate, I would just like to introduce two people who work in my office. One of them is Sabrina Grando, who has been with me for the last 10 years and as my chief of staff has been acting in that capacity for the last six years or so; and Liz McLennan, who’s my legislative assistant.

Speaker, I had the great honour and privilege of being an environment minister here in the province of Ontario for three years back in 2007-10. There are two main issues we face as a society here in Ontario: (1) the ever-growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots in our society, but that’s subject to a debate of another day; and (2) we’ve got to deal with global warming, with the ever-increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions that we are producing.

We live in a great province—2,500 kilometres from Cornwall to Kenora. We aren’t into the environmental movement to the same extent that Europeans are or many other people in developed countries because we’ve got a great land mass and relatively few people, and so other countries have been forced into doing the environmentally right thing for many, many years. The way we’ve always dealt with our items that we want to dispose of is, we used to call it “the dump.” Then we said, “Okay, that’s no longer acceptable terminology. We’ll call it ‘the landfill.’” This province has got hundreds and probably thousands of landfill sites.

Now, of course, we’ve got an even better word. We give them some environmentally green name etc., but it’s basically still the same thing. Once we finish with something, we put it down a hole and then somebody else can worry about it so many years down the road. As a result, many of our waterways are polluted—or close to it—and many of our greenhouse gas emissions actually come from these dumps, these landfill sites. We’ve got to simply do better.

The Tories, back in 2002, came up with

an act, and I’m sure they wanted it to work. It didn’t give any real power to the Ministry of the Environment and the government to deal with proper recycling and reducing. Yes, we are a little bit better off. We’re doing 23% now or 25%, but most of the stuff still ends up in landfill sites.

So we brought in the eco fee. They call it a tax. I can tell you, Speaker, that I worked on it for a good three years when I was there to bring in a system whereby basically we made people aware of the fact they have to properly recycle, and we basically left it up to industry to implement a proper fee structure to make sure that the items were properly disposed of at the end of their lifecycle.

Most companies—and they will go nameless at this point in time—didn’t like it very much. They felt it was the responsibility of the city or the township: “After it’s over and done with, let them just deal with whatever are the after-effects of products that are no longer usable.” They basically undermined the system in 2010. Items that should have been charged a penny were all of a sudden charged a dollar. Of course, you know what broke out. People were very upset, and rightfully so.

I make no bones about the fact that that system could have worked if the vast majority of manufacturers and retailers had wanted it to work. But it didn’t work, and we know that it didn’t work. People were upset over the fact that on a tube of something or other that cost maybe $9, they were charged $1 instead of a penny. Many of these companies, by the way, knew darned well what they were doing, in my opinion.

What this bill does is, it makes the producer of a product responsible for the ultimate reuse of that product, the ultimate proper disposal of that product and mining it into new products. There are some fantastic companies in this province. We’ve got a tire recycling outfit just outside of Stratford that takes old tires, makes them into crumb tire and basically uses it as part of the paving material for new roads.

There are some great electronic recycling organizations in this province. GEEP comes to mind—but I know there are many others that I’ve had the opportunity to visit—where basically they take pieces of electronic equipment, take it apart bit by bit and reuse the materials into new product. Sometimes they melt it down and they reconfigure it etc. Think about it. When we’re building something new and manufacturing something new, we have a choice: We can either mine the product in the traditional sense, or we can start to reuse the products that have already been built and reconfigure them into new product. There are some great companies that are doing that.

What this bill is really all about is saying to producers, “When you put the price of something together, there are labour costs and there are material costs, and you’d better also factor in the proper disposal costs of that item.” It makes sense. Why should society be left with all of the unusable products that are out there, and why should municipalities be left with having the responsibility of putting it into landfill sites so that these young pages here, 40 or 50 years from now, can be paying for the proper cleanup of those landfill sites in the first place?

There are some awful landfill sites in the province of Ontario, and sooner or later, they will have to be cleaned up, and there’s going to be a huge cost to that.

Doesn’t it make a lot more sense to say to a producer that, when you make something, at the end of its life cycle you have the responsibility to properly dispose of it in one way or another—by recycling, by reusing, by other things?

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’re not even telling them what they have to do. You’re just telling them they’re going to have to pay for it.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, somebody has to pay for it. Somebody has to pay for it, and the producers of the—since they’re making the goods in the first place, they are the logical person to pay for the proper disposal of that particular item as well.

To listen to the Tories, you would think—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Order.

The minister may continue.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I would just say to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke that that’s not the way we behave in eastern Ontario, the way he’s behaving here this morning.

Speaker, let me just say this: It is absolutely incumbent upon all of us, regardless of what side of the aisle we’re on, to make sure that products, when they are no longer needed, when they are no longer useful—that we use that material in order to create new products. That is the best—

Interjections.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’m sorry, Speaker, but there’s so much interference here right now. I’m just wondering what the member from—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Order.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Neanderthals on that side.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Objection, Speaker. Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Speaker: I just heard the Minister of Community and Social Services, Comsoc, refer to the members on this side of the House as Neanderthals, and I would ask that he stand up and apologize and withdraw and act like a man.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Point of order, Speaker: I didn’t mean to insult Neanderthals.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member to withdraw.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Sit down.

I’d ask the member to withdraw.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’ll withdraw.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member to come to order.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I would ask the member to come to order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the members to come to order.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It being almost 10:15—

Hon. John Gerretsen: It’s only 10:14, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I know, but this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: It gives me great pleasure to introduce, in the west members’ gallery, the family of our exceptional page from Leeds–Grenville: Peyton Horning. I’d like to introduce to members of the Legislature her mother, Alexandra Prefasi-Horning; her father, Paul Horning; her sister Taylor Horning; and I’d like to introduce her grandparents Suzanne and Ron Prefasi. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear ribbons in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons to signify cancer. Agreed? Agreed.

Start the clock.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to welcome the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to Queen’s Park. In the gallery are a number of representatives including Keith Currie, Neil Currie, Brent Royce, Eleanor Renaud, Ralph Brodie, Debra Pretty-Straathof, Paul Wettlaufer, Joe Dickenson, Peggy Brekveld, Larry Freeman and Rejean Pommainville.

I had a great meeting with them this morning, and I hope all members will attend their reception this evening at 5:30 in room 228.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the OFA to the Legislature. I hope everyone takes a chance to listen to their message. Agriculture is very important to this province and they are great ambassadors.

Mr. Bob Delaney: In the galleries today will be some students participating in a program called Let’s Talk Science. I’d like to invite members to join me, the Let’s Talk Science students and Amgen Canada in committee room 230 for lunch today and to learn more about the results of this year’s program.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of our family, Kathie Dick, who is in the gallery. She is a retired registered nurse.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we’ve got some guests today I’d like to introduce from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation: Deborah McNorgan, Anthony Miceli, Beth Hampson, Bruce Cole, Maddy Viray and Dr. Betty Power.

From Shoppers, which is supporting the pink bus: Sean Webster, Akeel Jaffer, Dalia Salib and Lisa Gibbs. And from CIBC, another sponsor: David McGown and Angela Sarino.

Welcome to them all.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I am delighted to introduce and welcome a delegation from Italy: Mayor Corrado Calvo, mayor of Rosolini, a town in the province of Syracuse in Sicily. He’s accompanied by his family: wife, Maria Luisa Basile, and children Antonio and Maria Chiara Calvo.

I would like also to welcome Dr. Francesca Ciccazzo, city councillor; Salvatore Cataudella, responsible for social services and education; and from the Eloro Cultural Association, Mr. Joe Ricupero; Rita and Salvatore Bazzano; Connie Ricupero, vice-president; and president, Enzo Di Mauro.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rob Leone: I’d like to recognize, in the members’ west gallery, James Roy, from the riding of Cambridge, who is leaving my office and going to join the office of the member for Northumberland–Quinte West.

Hon. David Zimmer: I would like to introduce, in the east gallery, Bob Potts, the principal negotiator, Algonquins of Ontario; Clifford Bastien Jr., chief, Mattawa/North Bay Algonquin First Nation; Alan Pratt, legal counsel, Algonquins of Ontario; Chief Patrick Glassford, Algonquins of Greater Golden Lake; and Jim Meness, councillor, Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to welcome Eduardo Harari, who is the vice-president of community for the York Centre Federal Liberal Riding Association. Welcome, Eduardo.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just wanted to add my welcome to that of the member for Oxford to the members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who are here for Agriculture Week.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, later today we will learn a little bit more about what you and Dalton McGuinty have been working so hard to hide these last three years. We know that you and Dalton McGuinty made a snap decision to cancel gas plants with no thought whatsoever on their cost, the analysis on the damage it does to our reputation, our hydro system or the lost jobs.

You sometimes seem to pretend that you once met Dalton McGuinty at a cocktail party, or that you once maybe crossed his path at a Liberal convention, but nobody believes that. We know that you were the co-chair of the campaign. We know that you were at the Premier’s right hand when this decision was made. You signed off on the document at cabinet authorizing the cancellation of this gas plant.

So, Premier, can you tell us once and for all: If you signed the document, if you made the decision and you made the call, how can you claim you knew nothing about this project to begin with?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say that, to the contrary of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, I have done everything in my power to make sure that every question that has been asked has received an answer. That’s why 160,000 pages of documentation have been provided to the committee. That’s why we moved to broaden the scope of the committee. That’s why 62 witnesses have been able to go to the committee and answer questions.

I said from the moment that I came into this job that I wanted to make sure that there was an open process and that, where there were questions, those questions would be answered. I’m not going to pre-empt the release of the report by the Auditor General. She will release her report this afternoon, and we will have the discussion that will ensue from that, but our objective has been to open up the information and provide that information to everyone who has been asking questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Leaders take responsibility, Premier, and leaders take action. Nobody has been fired. Nobody has been released from their job. You actually promoted the people behind this into higher positions in your cabinet. You’ve actually given the green light for more, and the problem is that this scandal approach that puts the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of the interests of hard-working Ontario taxpayers every time continues. We’ve seen it with eHealth. We’ve seen it with Ornge. We’ve seen it with the Wynne-McGuinty cover-up on the gas plant scandal—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: And now, with the Pan Am Games scandal, the $500,000 grant that went to one of the largest entertainment companies in Canada for the NBA all-star—this abject waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars to advance the Liberal interests. Premier, enough is enough. When is this going to come to an end?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My responsibility and my job is to advance the interests of the people of Ontario, whether that means providing information when questions are asked by the opposition—we have done that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s all about me asking for quiet.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, it is. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: And I have been very clear that I take responsibility for mistakes that were made. I have apologized, and I apologize for mistakes that were made in terms of the siting of those gas plants, but the reality is that every party in this Legislature—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will come to order—second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Every party in this Legislature agreed that those gas plants should be relocated. I would also say that every party in this Legislature agreed that getting the Pan Am Games would be a good thing for Ontario. John Tory and Howard Hampton wrote letters of support. They thought it was a good thing to have the Pan Am Games. Apparently, the current leaders don’t agree, but I think that having the Pan Am Games in Ontario and the legacy that will ensue is a good thing—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, it’s pretty basic. If my daughter, who turned six last week, apologizes, but then does the same thing over and over again, she’s learned no lesson. The problem is, your apology is empty when we see the same scandals erupting with the Pan Am Games and the grant of a half million for the NBA all-star game.

These attempts to put the Liberal Party ahead of ordinary, hard-working taxpayers have real-world consequences. Today at City Hall in Toronto they’re debating whether they can actually fund the new subway to Scarborough because this billion dollars that you blew on the gas plants could have completed that project. It could have created jobs in the province of Ontario. It could have relieved gridlock. But instead, you decided to blow a billion dollars on saving two Liberal seats.

Premier, you’ve learned no lesson. The cover-up continues. When is this all going to come—

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, happy birthday to Miller. I hope she had a lovely day. I would say that it is absolutely critical that the government learn from mistakes that are made. That is what I have said all along. That’s why we have a new process in place for siting energy infrastructure. It’s very important that we learn.

I would suggest that talking about the creation of 26,000 jobs by bringing the Pan Am Games to Ontario is something that we all agreed in this House was a good thing. The legacy of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Renfrew will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew will come to order, in case you didn’t hear me the first time. He knows why I’m not happy with what he said.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The legacy of sports venues that we will have in this province that will allow athletes for generations to come to be able to train—those are very, very good things. I am proud of the reality that we won the games and that the games are going to be here, and they’re going to be a great success.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. You admitted that cancelling the Oakville gas plant was a political decision. You told this assembly that the final price tag would be $40 million. Her hand-picked OPA said that that number was spectacularly wrong and it was actually $310 million. She was forced yesterday to acknowledge that the costs were “unacceptably” high, and then today we learned in the Globe and Mail that there would be no cost at all had it not been a political decision. So we are left to draw two conclusions.

Premier, when you signed the cabinet document cancelling the Oakville power plant, is it fair to say that you were either so far in over your head that you didn’t understand what those costs actually were? Or did you mislead this House all along that it was more than $40 million?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First, I’m standing. Your mike’s not on, so when I finish, then you can stand. The member will withdraw, but before she stands I’m going to tell everybody that I sense there’s a trend coming, and if it’s going to happen, I’m going to pass questions.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I withdraw it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now it’s time for an answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just be clear once again on how we got here. Our government listened to the advice of experts and sited two power plants over the objections of local residents, which was something that shouldn’t have happened. Over time it became evident that the concerns of the residents were, in fact, legitimate and we needed to make a change. The government listened to those concerns and cancelled the power plants for relocation elsewhere. Everyone agreed. The PCs agreed; the NDP agreed. The estimates of the cost varied, but all of them—and I’ve said this—were unacceptably high and that money should not have been spent in that way.

Everything that we did, though, in the run-up to and in the process of cancelling—the advice that we got was that if we had waited longer, it could have been much more expensive. That is the reality of what was happening at that time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Premier. A government without credibility certainly has no legitimacy, and this government has lost all credibility on the Oakville gas plant cancellation and on their entire long-term energy plan.

It is clear that the Premier has told us false numbers in this House all along. The Premier has admitted that the cancellation was a—

Interjections.

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

While I have both groups deciding how I’m going to judge and rule on language in this place, I’ll make the judgments on that.

I’m going to caution the member that I do not like the idea that you’re trying to find ways to say something that you’re not supposed to say directly—trying to find an indirect way to say it. I caution the member, last warning.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier has told this House numbers on various occasions that have been debunked outside this House.

Speaker, the reality is they made a political decision. The Globe and Mail has acknowledged that today.

She insults every single Ontarian when she says, “I really feel that my responsibility … is to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.” Talk about a deathbed conversion. She was the one who cancelled the plant. She signed the document, and she was the one who sat at the cabinet table.

So, Premier, will you finally admit in this House today that you knew all along that that $40 million was wrong and you made a crass political decision to—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that governments learn from mistakes that are made. For example, when a subway tunnel is built and is filled in, it’s very important that governments learn that that’s not a good idea and that in fact sets back transit building. When an asset like a public highway, like the 407, is sold—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just as I was attempting to bring attention to the opposition for its loud, boisterous voices, I will do so with the government benches, in the name of the minister of rural Ontario and the Attorney General—along with those on the other side who are doing the same.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When, for example, an asset like the 407 is sold, it’s very important that governments and future governments learn from those kinds of decisions and mistakes.

When these gas plants were relocated, I said over and over again and I continue to say that there were mistakes made; there were things that happened that should not have happened. I take responsibility for those, and my responsibility is to make sure that they do not happen again.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If I had a cent for every single time a Liberal on that side of the House stood up and said, “It’s not going to happen again,” after Ornge, after eHealth, after OLG, after Pan Am, after, after, after every scandal, I could afford a power plant in Oakville.

For months my party has been calling for a judicial inquiry into this, but we now know that you will go to any lengths to suppress and obscure the truth and ensure that we don’t receive all of the true numbers. You have obstructed—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no, no. That does go over the line so I’ll ask the member to withdraw. If you do not redirect in any other way, then I’m passing.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Sure, Speaker. My question—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

Premier, given that the two gas plant cancellations have now become the largest political scandal in Ontario’s history, where hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was abused in order to save Liberal seats, will you finally admit today that you have orchestrated a scheme that outperforms the federal sponsorship scandal and that you have ensured that the people of this province are going to be paying well into the future—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I wrote to the Auditor General. I asked the Auditor General of the day to look at the Oakville situation. I met with the Auditor General yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I have done everything in my power to make sure that the information that was asked for has been made available to those who have asked. I have opened up the process because I believe that it is our responsibility to learn from decisions that were made and make sure that those decisions, were they wrong-headed, are not repeated in the future. I believe that is our responsibility.

But the bottom line on energy in this province is, when we came into office, there was not a reliable transmission grid. There was not reliable generation. We have cleaned that up; we are closing the coal-fired plants. People in this province can depend on energy. They can depend on transmission. It’s clean, it’s renewable, and we have turned the corner on the fiasco that was left by the—

Interjections.

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

New question.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. In 2010, the Liberal government in which the Premier proudly served cancelled a private power contract in Oakville, a contract that they had just signed months before. On October 18, 2010, the Minister of Energy said that “the costs, if there are any at all,” will “not even be close to the fearmongering numbers....”

Does the Premier still stand by her government’s comments in 2010?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: One of the issues about this whole discussion has been the degree to which the numbers have varied. There has been uncertainty in the advice that has been given to us repeatedly. Every time that I have spoken in the House, I have spoken with the numbers that I have been given, whether it’s in 2010, 2011 or today. The reality is that the numbers have varied. That is the case; that is the reality that we’re dealing with.

Unfortunately, it has been a challenge to get a handle on exactly what the numbers are, so that is why I asked the Auditor General to look at the situation. I asked her to give us an overview of the situation as she saw it, and that is what we will hear today when she releases her report at 3 o’clock.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, with all due respect, it hasn’t been the numbers that have been varying; it has been the information the Liberals have been able to give to the public that has been varying every single time. For two years the government refused to disclose information pertaining to the cost of cancelling the private power deal, blocking freedom-of-information requests and dodging questions in this House. They signed the contract; they cancelled it. But they refused to share the facts with the people of Ontario who would be paying the bills.

At one point, the Minister of Energy told me, “We’ll be happy to share ... the results of” the discussions with TransCanada when “they’re done ... we’re confident they’ll result in a good solution for everyone.”

Does the Premier think that her government delivered a good solution for everyone?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think I’ve been very clear that I haven’t thought this process has been a good one at all. I said that from the outset, there should have been a better process in the siting of the gas plants.

Since I have been in this office, I have opened up the process. We’ve broadened the scope of the committee. We’ve provided 160,000 documents, and provided an opportunity for all the questions that the opposition members had to be answered.

The important piece right now is that we listen to what the Auditor General says and that we make sure that the policies that we’ve put in place going forward address the concerns, address the issues and address the mistakes that were made. That is our responsibility; that is what we’ll do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After the election, when the government finally, grudgingly admitted that the public would be on the hook for the Liberal Party’s crass decision, the member from Don Valley West, the current Premier, said: “The total cost of the relocation is $40 million.”

Does the Premier stand by her own assertion that the total cost of this crass political move would be $40 million?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, those are the sunk costs and those are the costs that are not retrievable and are not paying for any future benefit, and I think the leader of the third party knows that. I do stand by that number, but I have just said that the numbers have varied, that there have been other costs that have been included, and that is what the Auditor General will clarify today.

The fact is that we have opened up the process. In terms of the information that’s available, we have worked very hard to make sure that everything that has been asked for has been provided. That’s why 160,000 documents have been provided and that’s why 62 witnesses in 93 hours of testimony have gone before the committee to answer all of those questions: because we opened up the process.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. People know what’s going to happen today. The Premier will say sorry again and declare it’s time to turn the page. But the only reason that we are on this page is because at every single step of this saga, the government put the Liberal Party’s interests first and the people stuck paying the bills were an afterthought.

Does the Premier really think that the government deserves credit when they fought against transparency and accountability relentlessly for years?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have fought for transparency. Since I have been in this office, and throughout the run-up to the leadership, I said that it was absolutely imperative that we open up the process and that we provide information, and that’s what we have done.

But just to the leader of the third party’s point: In terms of how we got here, I think it is important to remember that there were experts who advised that the location of the gas plant should be where it was originally. The community objected to that, and I think it was at that juncture where the community was objecting, where there were voices being raised, and we did not pay close enough attention. We did not have a process in place that would have taken into account the concerns of the community. That’s where the original mistake was made, Mr. Speaker. That’s what we’ve corrected. That’s what can’t happen again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier can try to replay it however she wants. The reality is, they signed the contract, and just a couple of months later, they cancelled it. Her story does not hold water, Speaker.

At every step of this scandal, the Liberal government has put its own political skin first. Transparency, honesty and the people of Ontario were distant afterthoughts for the Liberal government.

The Premier now wants credit for calling the Auditor General, but the reason we need the Auditor General in the first place is that at every single step along the way, this Liberal government has put spin, cynical politics and self-interest ahead of Ontarians.

Does the Premier realize that we are here today because her government has never once been upfront with the people of Ontario about how much it wasted on the Oakville gas plant?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I guess my question back to the leader of the third party is whether she understands that we’ve contracted to build 21 gas plants; 19 are up and running. These two did not—the process did not work as it should have.

But our interest is in the interest of having a stable electricity system in this province for the people of Ontario. My question to the leader of the third party would be, does she understand that? Does she understand the mess that the electricity system was in when we came into office in 2003, and did she have a plan to—

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Be seated, please.

I’m looking for individuals. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order—last time. And the Minister of Rural Affairs is going to come to order. That’s his second time.

If anyone chooses to try to out-shout me, you’ll lose, and any other comments that are made when I’m trying to get control of this place.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, does the Premier know that every single person in Ontario knows that the difference with these two plants is that they threatened five Liberal seats if they were allowed to go forward?

People in this province are coping with very tough times, and a lot of them are wondering about whether they can hold a job, whether they can pay the bills, whether they can find the health care that they need for their loved ones. They see a government that has not only put the needs of their party ahead of the needs of the public, but that has acted as though people have no right to this information, even though they’re the ones who are stuck paying the bill.

So does the Premier understand that when she says sorry yet again today, it sounds like just another piece of empty Liberal spin?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just do not accept the premise of the leader of the third party’s question, because the fact is, I have opened up the process. I have not been trying to hide information; I’ve been trying to provide information.

I know that people are struggling. I know that it is very important that we focus on the economy and work with the private sector to create jobs, Mr. Speaker. I understand that. But I also know that if we don’t have a reliable electricity system in the province—and I’m not talking just about the blackout; I’m talking about the state of our transmission, the state of distribution, the state of our renewables. We’ve worked on all of that since we came into office. We had a plan. We’ve executed it. There were two gas plants that the process did not work for. We’re changing that. We’ll make sure that that doesn’t happen again. But we have turned the corner on the electricity system in this—

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

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning. My question is for the Premier. Later today, we’ll learn from the Auditor General just how desperate you were to save the Liberal seat in Oakville. We’ll learn three years after the cancellation of the gas plant just how much cash you were willing to squeeze from Ontarians to put the Liberal interests ahead of theirs. But you already knew what you were getting us into when you signed the cabinet document that started this whole payment process back in July 2011.

So you either knew the magnitude of this cancellation and what it would mean to families or you blindly signed a document, not caring how much you spent to save that Liberal seat. So which was it, Premier: “I don’t know” or “I don’t care”?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have appeared before the committee. I’ve been quite clear about what I knew and what I didn’t know. What I will say again is that we were advised that waiting to relocate the plant until after construction had begun could have been much more expensive, so we were doing everything that we could to mitigate those costs.

The reality is that I appeared before committee. I was very clear about my role, which was not central in terms of decision-making. What we have done since I’ve been in this office is to have opened up the process to provide all of that information, and people have come before the committee and have answered the questions from the member opposite repeatedly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, the most astonishing fact is that while many of us spent the last 12 months trying to get to the truth, we still don’t know how much it cost to cancel the Oakville plant. The Premier talks about transparency, but 150,000 documents later, they were still able to keep the truth from us.

You knew last fall, when you tried to pass off $40 million as the amount, that it was much, much more than that. Your energy minister has said $40 million. Other members of your caucus and your cabinet have said $40 million, but we know that number is not true.

So, Premier, who are you going to hold accountable over this? Who is going to lose their job? Is it going to be the energy minister, the finance minister, or should it be you, Premier?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You may be surprised at my next comment.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The very reason that I wrote to the Auditor General and asked the Auditor General of the day to look at the Oakville situation, Mr. Speaker, was because there was confusion. There were questions about the numbers. The $40 million in sunk costs was not the whole cost. It was very clear that there were a lot of questions about what the total cost was. That’s why I asked the Auditor General to look at the situation. That’s why we’re getting a report today. That’s why the Auditor General will be releasing her report and there will be more light shone on what the costs were.

Had I not wanted that information out, I wouldn’t have asked the Auditor General to look at the situation. I did that and opened up the process. That’s why we’ll get the report today, Mr. Speaker.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Published reports suggest that this afternoon’s Auditor General’s report will show that TransCanada would not have been entitled to damages if the government had not pulled the plug as part of its seat-saver program. These reports say that because of opposition from both the township of Oakville and residents, TransCanada would likely never have gotten a shovel in the ground and the contract would have terminated on its own.

Why did this government waste hundreds of millions of dollars cancelling the Oakville plant when it had no legal obligation to do so?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I think the first point is that we should wait for the Auditor General’s report to come out this afternoon.

The second point is there has been testimony in front of committee about the situation in Oakville and the efforts that were being made both by the municipality and by the power plant.

More importantly, perhaps the honourable member in his supplementary wants to explain his opposition to this very plant. Maybe he wants to explain why he told InsideHalton on October 7, 2010, “I don’t agree with the Oakville power plant. I don’t think it is necessary.”

Perhaps he wants to talk about why the member from Beaches–East York, his colleague, said, “I’m glad that the people of Oakville came to their senses. I’m glad the people of Oakville hired Erin Brockovich and did all the things that they did in order to have this killed.”

Mr. Speaker, it’s a bit rich for that member, who led the opposition of his party against this plant, to stand up—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, you can tell you’ve got a good question when there’s a major dodge going on.

If the Oakville contract had simply run its course, it likely would have been terminated due to events beyond the control of TransCanada. The company would have been entitled to no damages under that scenario. But that scenario would have taken several years to unfold. It would have threatened the Liberal seat-saver program.

How does the government justify a crass political decision to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to save Liberal seats?

Hon. John Milloy: This is so rich, coming from that member. When there was an issue in his own riding with Portlands Energy, a very similar one, this is what—let me quote from the Beach-Riverdale Mirror:

“Tabuns vowed he won’t be bound by the Liberal government’s plans for his riding, which include constructing the natural-gas-fired $700-million, 550-megawatt Portlands Energy Centre at the unused R.L. Hearn station in partnership with TransCanada Energy.... ” Listen to this quote, everyone. Listen to this quote from the member: “‘This is going to be a political decision, but it needs someone who’s going to be a champion for Toronto–Danforth,’ he said.”

Mr. Speaker, it’s a little rich that that member could stand here today and ask that question.

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Finance. I know that for many years, our government has taken a leadership role among the provinces in promoting the establishment of a common securities regulator for all of Canada. Businesses in Ontario and in my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham have long been concerned that our current system is a patchwork of securities regulators that place unnecessary costs on business and add to the burden of red tape facing their competitiveness.

My constituents and businesses in my community are pleased to hear that you have made recent announcements on steps to correct the current system. Can you please provide the House with an update on the establishment of a common securities regulator for all of Canada?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member from Oak Ridges–Markham for the question. She’s absolutely correct: Our government has long advocated for and taken leadership in the creation of a co-operative securities regulator right here in Canada.

A few weeks ago, I was pleased to be joined by my counterparts from the federal government and British Columbia to make that historic announcement. Together, we’ll establish a co-operative regulator.

In our last budget, we laid out the framework for such a regulator, and this agreement is based just on that. It will add real benefits to Canadians and to our businesses; it will increase the ability of those businesses to raise capital; and it will allow households to save and invest with more confidence. Of course, in all, it will help create jobs and grow our economy.

Mr. Speaker, this is important: Toronto and Ontario are home to Canada’s largest securities market and regulator. As has long been said, that co-operative securities regulator should be based in Toronto, and that’s exactly where it will be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the Minister of Finance for providing that update. I agree that this new regulator is long overdue and will help to ensure that Ontario and Canada maintain our competitive advantage and prosper in a globalized world.

I know this issue is of special importance to the minister, as he provided a statement to this assembly in March 2010 advocating for a co-operative regulator. Given the minister’s recent announcement with British Columbia to establish a co-operative securities regulator, it is essential Ontario continues to lead the Federation in building consensus on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please speak to some of the specifics of this new regulator and how Ontario will engage more provinces in this process?

Hon. Charles Sousa: While the head office will be based in Toronto, it will build on and respect the unique strengths across the country by creating regional offices as well.

Essential to the new co-operative regulator will be this pooling of provincial, territorial and federal expertise. It will allow Canada as a whole to better compete in the global economy. It will reduce costs, increase efficiencies to capital markets regulation, strengthen the competitiveness of the economy and attract more investment, all the while enhancing the reputation of our country’s financial services sector, much of which is based here in Ontario.

This was a provincial solution, Mr. Speaker. It’s a bottom-up approach, and it’s working. This is an historic moment, making all of Canada, as well as Ontario, a more attractive location for investment.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Premier. Premier, today the Auditor General will hand down yet another report. This will be the sixth special report from the AG in four years. These six reports on scandals are in direct response to your government’s actions.

With the eHealth report, Premier McGuinty said, “We welcome the auditor’s report, we accept his findings and we commit to adopting every single one of his recommendations.”

With the consultants in health care report, Minister Matthews said, “Thank you to the Auditor General.”

With the Ornge report, Minister Duncan said, “I look forward to the recommendations of the Auditor General….”

With the Mississauga gas plant cancellation report, Premier, you said, “We welcome his report….”

Since it’s clear you don’t have a jobs creation plan, is this your big plan, to keep the auditor employed, after thanking her, of course?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for a little bit of meat in that question. The reality is that, as the reports come forward and as the recommendations come out—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, the member asked the question. I’m sure she wants to hear. And the other members are shouting somebody down, and I don’t think that’s going to get anywhere.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Of course, Mr. Speaker, when the reports are tabled, we appreciate them and we receive them, but the next step is to implement them, and that’s what we do. We’re implementing the recommendations.

When I talk about the way government has to learn from challenges and mistakes that are made, that is about implementing recommendations of the experts who look and say, “This is what happened and this is what should happen next.”

We’ve implemented the recommendations on Ornge. We’re implementing the recommendations on eHealth, and I look forward to the recommendations of the Auditor General today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Julia Munro: The Auditor General’s responsibility is to assess the value for money of a government project or program. She asks, “Did the taxpayers get their money’s worth?” From the past six reports, the answer is a resounding no. Your government has heard so much advice from the Auditor General that people are left wondering if you rely on the Auditor General’s reports as part of your strategic planning.

My residents are understandably aghast at the gas plants scandal, and they want your government held accountable for all its actions. How do you explain your record of scathing Auditor General reports to taxpayers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here’s how government works: Any government of any stripe has a plan. We have had a plan; we have implemented our plan. At regular intervals and sometimes in special reports, the Auditor General and other externals officers will look at what government has done and will make recommendations that will improve the process.

I think that it is a sign of a strong and intelligent and learning government that when those reports come forward, when recommendations are made by people who have expert advice, that we can implement changes, and government then can evolve to be more accountable and to do the business of government and the business of the people of the province better.

I think that’s what government exists to do. It exists to improve the lot of people in the province, to provide services in a way that is rational and that is cost-effective. There can be recommendations from sources, including the Auditor General, that can improve those processes.

We look forward to the recommendations of the Auditor General this afternoon.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games. Two weeks ago, I met with workers from Clairmont Electric, in Hamilton, to discuss safety concerns they had about the construction at the Pan Am stadium. They informed me that they were asked to sign a document permitting non-electrical workers to install electrical equipment, all in the interest of cutting costs. The College of Trades, which this government established, was put into place to prevent these types of practices.

Does the minister believe that the use of labourers with no specialized training in electrical work is the safest way to install electrical equipment at the Pan Am venues?

Hon. Michael Chan: This is more of a labour issue, and I’m going to direct the supplementary to the Minister of Labour.

Talking about the capital project on Pan Am Games, we are doing a fantastic job up to this point of time. I’ll tell you why: All the capital projects are on time and on budget. The early numbers coming back here are under budget—under budget, Speaker; at this point in time, $50 million under budget. This is very good news for the Pan Am Games.

We are right now on stage two, which is the operation of the Pan and Parapan American Games. This week, the international people are in town. PASO are in town to celebrate the Pan and Parapan Am Games.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, the safety of the spectators and the athletes who will be using the Pan Am venues should be the minister’s primary concern. Unfortunately, the minister has decided to give Pan Am executives lavish bonuses but cut costs by hiring non-electrical workers to do electrical work. Those bonuses will be rolling in, I think.

Will the minister get his priorities straight and put public safety above the perks of Pan Am executives?

Hon. Michael Chan: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: To the member opposite’s question, the health and safety of workers and the public is obviously the paramount priority for the government.

The certification of trades falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. However, during the transition period, enforcement of said certification currently falls under the Ministry of Labour.

Ministry of Labour inspectors carry out this enforcement during field visits. An inspector visiting any construction project would routinely audit compulsory trades, including electricians, and take enforcement action where a non-licensed person was performing the work of an electrician.

In this particular case, the Ministry of Labour has visited the site seven different times on different matters to make sure that all rules are complied with. It is our understanding that the College of Trades is aware of Clairmont Electric’s concern, but no formal complaint has been filed at this time. Therefore, no investigation can be done of the issues that have been raised by the member.

PROTECTION OF RESOURCES

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, Atikokan is a community in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan about two hours west of the city of Thunder Bay. In the day, Atikokan peaked at a population of 7,000, 8,000 or 9,000 people, and that population growth was fueled by the creation of two large mines, Steep Rock Iron Mines and Caland Ore.

Necessary for the creation of those mines was the creation of a series of earthen dams in and around the area to prevent natural drainage from flowing into those mines. Once the dams were created, the lake was pumped out, and the mines were created. Now, one of these earthen dams is called the Hardy Dam. This dam has been the subject of concern since first being identified by the MNR some years ago with the potential for some failure.

My question to the minister is simply this: Can the minister describe for the community of Atikokan and for this House what we’ve done up until this point to ensure the structural integrity of that particular dam?

Hon. David Orazietti: The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan is raising a very important public safety concern in his riding. The Hardy Dam is one of 391 dams that our ministry is responsible for across the province. This year, MNR will allocate $6.25 million to repair and maintain these dams. The dams provide a number of benefits, including controlling flooding and drought, producing hydroelectric power, providing recreational opportunities and preventing the spread of invasive species.

We take the safety of all dams, including the Hardy Dam, very seriously. We’ve undertaken emergency repairs in response to the sinkholes and seepage issues that have developed at the Hardy Dam site. Since 2004, we have spent over $1 million on engineering evaluations, repairs and installing equipment to help monitor the dam.

MNR has retained a senior geotechnical engineer to monitor the dam. We’ve also installed equipment to measure hydraulic pressure inside the dam.

The senior geotechnical engineer will review the data, and we will ensure that there’s ongoing—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the minister for that response. As he’s aware, there is significant political concern from Mayor Brown in Atikokan—from the entire council in Atikokan—about the results if that dam were to fail.

Highway 622 is a main artery in Atikokan. That would be compromised. There’s a rail spur line that feeds the Ontario generating plant that’s now being converted to biomass. That would be compromised. The ski hill would be compromised.

But perhaps most importantly, should the dam fail, the infill rates from that failed dam into the old mine site that currently contains significantly contaminated water would raise the rates of infill to the point where that mine site could potentially overflow its banks, and that contaminated water could then potentially find its way into the Seine River system. This would be a consequence of international proportions.

Minister, thank you for what we’ve done so far. Speaker, my question is: Can the minister describe for the political leadership in Atikokan and northern Ontario what our plans are on a go-forward basis?

Hon. David Orazietti: The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan is aware that we are taking immediate steps to ensure public safety with respect to this dam. We’re in the process of securing a contract with an engineering firm to repair the dam and reduce water pressure, and funding has been allocated for the project to begin immediately.

MNR expects the repair work to extend the dam’s operating life by about 10 years, allowing time for a long-term decision on the future of the dam.

Monitoring of the dam has been increased to twice daily, with regular reports from those on site. We’ve also established an emergency preparedness plan, which is designed to ensure MNR and its partners are prepared to implement measures should the failure occur.

This plan ensures stakeholders are notified and that we’ll work together with the emergency response officials to implement measures to ensure public safety. We’ll continue to work with the community of Atikokan and stakeholders to ensure the long-term stability of the dam.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question today is for the Premier. Premier, it’s easy to be generous when you’re spending other people’s money, and you’re definitely setting an example.

Recently, you defended the $7-million bonus package for TO2015 executives saying it wasn’t “out of whack”—public servants receiving 200% of their bloated salary for showing up for work. Then, you let 76% of them take advantage of taxpayer money and more by misfiling their expenses.

Tomorrow, you’re throwing a lavish Pan Am party for $500,000. Out of respect for the Ontario taxpayer, Premier, the Ontario PC Party unanimously agreed not to attend.

Premier, are you going to continue to let the entitlement thrive, or shut these ridiculous completion bonuses down and stop the frivolous spending?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said in response to an earlier question, we bid on the Pan Am Games. The Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party agreed that it was a good thing to do, that we should go for it and we should try to get the Pan Am Games here in Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, your leader agreed.

So as the host of the 2015 games—just to the issue of the reception—it’s a requirement to hold a general assembly reception, to host that meeting here in the venue where the Pan Am Games are going to be held. The host for the next Pan Am Games will be chosen as a part of that meeting. So it’s all part of the package.

We believe that the 26,000 jobs that are going to be created as a result of having the Pan Am bid, the legacy venues for athletes for generations to come—we believe those are good things. It’s unfortunate, I think, that the opposition doesn’t agree.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: Premier, no one disagrees that the Pan Am Games are going to be a good thing for Ontario. We’ve never said anything different than that. The question is, at what cost? And what is the cost?

I want to be clear that the Pan/Parapan American Games are about our province and about our athletes, yet the average income for a high-performance athlete at the Pan Am level is $29,000—$10,000 less than the average Canadian personal income. More tellingly, it is $450,000 less than that of the Pan Am CEO, who’s definitely taking home the gold there. And that doesn’t include the 200% bonus just for showing up for work, or the unlimited expense account, or the world-class partying, or the countless other perks that we’re still learning about.

Premier, is prolific spending a new Pan Am sport?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that in order to be able to get these games, we had to compete with cities around the Americas. In order to get the Pan/Parapan Am Games, we had to put in place a competitive bid. Part of that competitive bid was having in place a secretariat, having in place a compensation package that would bring people in who would run the games, the calibre of which would have competed with the other cities. That’s the reality.

I’m not defending particular compensation packages. What I’m defending is the notion that we would have the Pan/Parapan Am Games, that it’s a good thing for the province, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is the member from Renfrew tired yet?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I’m wondering if the member from Prince Edward–Hastings is.

You have 10 seconds.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: These compensation packages are based on the officials from Vancouver 2010 and the London 2012 Olympic Games, successful events. This is the largest multi-sport—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. That’s 10 seconds. New question.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, I met with mayors from the Niagara region. The lack of convenient and affordable regional transit was raised by them: the fact that there are summer-only, weekend-only GO trains to and from St. Catharines and Niagara Falls, but not a single weekday train for Niagara commuters who need to get to work in Hamilton, Burlington or Toronto.

How is it that this government has hundreds of millions of dollars to move gas plants and protect its own interests, but no money to put in place year-round daily GO train service between Toronto and the Niagara region?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I really enjoy the third party, because they’re never crass or political. Unlike all the other parties in the House, they are above politics. We listened to questions about Windsor and London for some reason last session, and now they’ve discovered Niagara region. Someone bought them a new map. I’m so glad these are not politically motivated questions, because you people never do that; you’re not politicians.

Mr. Speaker, we have expanded track. We are building a new station in Hamilton. We now have the GO bike service. We’re working with Mayor Diodati to put in unprecedented levels of transit investment. We’re well aware of that agenda.

We’re still making up for cuts from the two parties opposite when they were in government, but I’m glad the member opposite has a map of Ontario now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you for that very insulting answer.

The people of Niagara region and the commuters would take GO Transit and avoid congested highways if there was reasonable GO service. Instead, the Liberal government expects Niagara Falls and St. Catharines residents to wait up to 90 minutes for a weekday morning GO bus. That’s not feasible for busy families with many demands.

Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on its own interests, why won’t the government invest in the needs of Niagara residents and commit now to a delivery date for all-day GO train service to Niagara? The mayors want to know—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. I’d like to ask the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek not to heckle when your member is asking a question.

Answer, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: One of my partner’s favourite activities is getting on the bike trains that go to Niagara and do