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

March 10, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Mar-10 (PDF)

L149 - Thu 10 Mar 2016 / Jeu 10 mar 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 10 March 2016 Jeudi 10 mars 2016

Orders of the Day

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

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

Sign-language

interpretation

Introduction of Visitors

Member’s birthday

Oral Questions

Pesticides

Ontario budget

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Special-needs students

Public transit

Ontario budget

Climate change

Housing Services Corp.

Steel industry

Education

Ontario budget

Animal protection

Energy policies

Wind turbines

Legislative pages

Deferred Votes

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

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

DANI

Poverty

Sheila Ward

Leo McArthur

Pay equity

Hazel McCallion

Hospital funding

Mining industry convention

Fashion History Museum

Introduction of Bills

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

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Canadian Agricultural Safety Week

Petitions

Health care funding

Dog ownership

Public transit

Health care funding

Mental health and addiction services

Lung health

Health care

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Lung health

Hydro rates

Health care funding

Elder abuse

Health care funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Men’s Health Awareness Week Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Semaine de la sensibilisation à la santé des hommes

Maternal Mental Health Awareness Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à la santé mentale maternelle

Domestic and Sexual Violence Workplace Leave, Accommodation and Training Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le congé et les mesures d’accommodement pour les employés victimes de violence familiale ou sexuelle et la formation dans le lieu de travail

Men’s Health Awareness Week Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Semaine de la sensibilisation à la santé des hommes

Maternal Mental Health Awareness Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à la santé mentale maternelle

Domestic and Sexual Violence Workplace Leave, Accommodation and Training Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le congé et les mesures d’accommodement pour les employés victimes de violence familiale ou sexuelle et la formation dans le lieu de travail

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 9, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act respecting greenhouse gas / Projet de loi 172, Loi concernant les gaz à effet de serre.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people I represent in London West. In particular today, I am honoured to join in this very critical debate about the government’s Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act. Certainly, this is an issue that is vital to my community. It’s vital to the 107 ridings that we represent in this chamber. It’s vital to Legislatures across this country and around the world.

In London, there was a city council report that looked at infrastructure needs and the vulnerability of infrastructure to climate change. That report noted that in the last 30 years London has had five severe flooding occurrences: in March 1977, September 1986, July 2000 and then twice in 2008, in April and December. The report said that climate modeling based on more up-to-date rainfall events and patterns suggests the city of London can expect to experience more frequent and severe precipitation events in the future which may seriously impact various public infrastructures.

So there are costs associated with not addressing climate change. The costs go beyond economic. They are, obviously, environmental; they’re also political. Speaker, the decisions that we make on this bill are going to be far-reaching in terms of their implication, so we need to get this bill right.

I want to state at the outset that New Democrats unequivocally support a cap-and-trade system. We recognize the urgency of taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the urgency of moving to a low-carbon economy. Climate change is real, Speaker, and the consequences of inaction are devastating. The stakes are too high to play around with half measures or to put a plan in place that doesn’t have the buy-in necessary to truly make a difference.

We’ve already seen how this government’s failure to listen to expert advice, to heed the warnings that have been sounded, has undermined environmental initiatives in the past. We can’t afford another green energy debacle. It tainted the whole notion of green economy. It made people cynical about the government’s motivations in moving ahead. Instead of a collective commitment to promote sustainable development, to support environmental responsibility and ecological stewardship, people are starting to look at government legislation as simply greenwashing.

That’s why New Democrats have been insisting that the cap-and-trade system that is established by this bill is fair, effective and transparent.

What do we mean by each of these tenets?

By fairness, we mean that we need legislation that will unify Ontarians, not divide them. There is nothing that divides people more than the feeling that some are being asked to contribute more than their fair share while others are getting a free ride. New Democrats want assurances that the cap-and-trade system will not disproportionately affect low-income Ontarians. They already pay a much greater share of their income in home heating and gas for their vehicles, so we want assurances that low-income Ontarians won’t be disadvantaged.

In addition, we don’t want to see people who live in remote and northern communities across the province disadvantaged by the system. Northerners and people who live in rural communities don’t have the same options as those of us who live in southern Ontario to reduce carbon emissions. They don’t have access to transit. They wish they had access to transit, but they don’t have any other choice but to use their vehicles to get around. So they are limited in their ability to reduce carbon emissions. The same thing goes for those who live in rental apartments. They don’t have the ability to turn down their thermostat or replace their windows with energy-efficient upgrades.

So the impact on renters, on low-income people, on northerners and on those who live in remote and rural communities will be much greater, and we need to ensure that there are some mitigation measures put in place so that these people don’t disproportionately carry the burden of moving to a low-carbon economy.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t increase costs for gas and heating? No, it doesn’t. But what we do need to do is look at ways to mitigate the impact of these costs. This is what is being done in BC, it is what has been done in California and it’s what is going to be done in Alberta. We know that in BC there is a special rebate for low-income families. California requires that at least 25% of cap-and-trade revenues are spent on programs that benefit disadvantaged communities, and Alberta’s new plan includes a consumer rebate that will offset the impact of carbon pricing on most households in the bottom 60% of income across that province.

New Democrats are not the only ones who are calling for measures to share the burden fairly to help low-income Ontarians be part of the solution. The Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Clean Economy Alliance have also urged the government to include requirements that revenue from the cap-and-trade program be used to counteract the impact of the program on low-income communities.

In spite of what the government has heard from organizations like the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Clean Economy Alliance, the Ontario government’s proposed system does not recognize fairness as one of the fundamental principles that need to be in place for an effective cap-and-trade system.

I now want to turn to transparency, which is the second key tenet of any effective program of cap-and-trade. The government says that the revenues that are generated by the cap-and-trade system will be dedicated to climate change action. However, we understand that the money is going to flow into general revenue. The greenhouse gas reduction account that the government is setting up is not a separate, special-purpose account at all; it is an accounting procedure. The rules are flexible, as the Financial Accountability Officer has pointed out.

The government can basically spend the money that is put into the account on anything it wants, including deficit reduction. There’s no guarantee that cap-and-trade revenues are going to increase overall funding for climate change action, no commitment to record money in/money out. The balance of the account can be spent on programs that are either directly or indirectly related to greenhouse gas emissions, but there are no guidelines about what this actually means and no firm restrictions on how that money can be spent.

New Democrats are calling for the money to flow into a separate account that is separately and transparently audited and directly connected to targeted, measurable and independently verifiable greenhouse gas reductions. We want to see the revenues that are generated used to actually help mitigate the effects of climate change and bring about some of that fairness I talked about earlier. This cannot be done if the government is unwilling to open the books and tie this funding to evidence and to require tangible results.

Finally, but of course most importantly, is the tenet of effectiveness. That is the third of what we see as the absolute fundamental preconditions for a cap-and-trade system. Because what good is the bill if it is not effective in actually reducing emissions? The way that the program is set up in this legislation is with as little oversight as possible. The system is delegated to an unaccountable private corporation that is not subject to public oversight. It’s not subject to the Auditor General or the Environmental Commissioner, which we, Speaker, see as unacceptable.

The Financial Accountability Officer has said it is impossible to know if the revenues will actually be spent on new greenhouse gas emission reductions. The Environmental Commissioner is shut out of the legislation. She is not given access to the information and data that she would need to properly assess the system.

We need look no further than Quebec to see what can happen when a plan is announced but there is no effective oversight put in place. New Democrats want to see this system work and we are looking forward to amendments to make sure that it does.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m not sure how familiar the member is with the bill. First of all, yes, it’s separately accounted for; that’s a higher standard. Second, all money going in has to be recorded. All money has to be post 2014. Additional GHG reductions have to be estimated, they have to align with the action plan and they have to be specifically measurable.

No other jurisdiction in the world has that. Yes, the Auditor General will be tracking this. The Environmental Commissioner will be tracking this. Quebec just adopted our standards. Alberta and BC are planning increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta is planning increases. Manitoba: The NDP government there is adopting a similar system, very similar, and we are working very closely with Premier Selinger’s government. California is still trying to get to 1990 levels, which we’re 6% below.

Mr. Speaker, this is a higher standard than anybody else, including New Democrats in Manitoba and Alberta. They have not had the standard. Quebec is now adapting the standards that we have. So if any member in this House has any difficulty understanding how the money is flowing, I would be glad to meet with them and take them through line by line exactly which programs are there. We are also a member of both WCI and the Compact of States and Regions, which require independent reporting, which is a higher standard than almost any other subnational government. If anyone in this House can find anyone who has a higher standard of transparency, please let me know.

As for low-income housing and low-income issues, I worked with Senator de León in California, I went down there; we’re looking at their programs. Part of the design of the social housing program, which is one of the advanced pilot projects, was designed very much along the lines of California. Mr. Speaker, we’ve been working with the Suzuki foundation, Environmental Defence, Sustainable Prosperity, large groups. We’ve had David Sawyer, who is one of the best economic modellers right now, do the work. I think we need to get this to committee soon, so we can actually hear from this expertise that the opposition would like us to involve.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m proud to rise on behalf of my residents in Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Interesting to hear the comments back and forth. I know the NDP, of course, on paper—this-cap-and-trade would set up a huge bureaucracy. Of course, huge bureaucracies are something the other two parties love. They chew up a lot of the scarce resources we have, taxpayers’ money. If we’re going to really share the burden fairly, this should be revenue-neutral, where the money comes back. Sure, we’re talking about a price on carbon, but this should not be a tax grab. We see, contrary to over here across the floor, that the budget is very clear: It’s $1.9 billion to pay off the deficit in 2018.

We don’t think that’s fair; we think it will hurt the economy. If you really want to benefit the people of Ontario, give that money back.

I have a small oil company in my riding; it also serves Quebec. His plea was: Stay away from cap-and-trade. There’s a huge bureaucracy in his own company—lawyers, experts and consultants—and he said, “We paid a huge amount of money to California for offsets. That does not benefit anybody in Canada, when your money is leaving the country.” So on top of the fact that it’s not revenue-neutral—that’s very clear in their own documents and in the budget—we see a big export of our own scarce dollars, and we need to do something.

It may have been a Freudian slip, but the Premier called it “crap-and-trade,” and I think that’s not too far from the truth. We have to get away from something that just—they tried it in Europe, and it didn’t work. It was a huge bureaucracy that collapsed, with a lot of people getting into the market selling offsets that weren’t really beneficial to the system. It just hasn’t worked anywhere else.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: C’était très intéressant d’écouter ma collègue de London-Ouest présenter les bons côtés et les moins bons côtés du projet de loi. On est ici, vraiment, pour dire : « On appuie ce type de projet de loi. On est en faveur depuis des années, et on veut que ça vienne en Ontario. » Réduire les gaz à effet de serre, c’est un projet de société, c’est un projet de générations. Il faut prendre le premier pas. Je vous dirais que le premier pas aurait dû être pris il y a plusieurs années.

Mais, ça étant dit, il faut s’assurer que le projet de loi qu’on met de l’avant va donner des résultats. On voit, dans d’autres juridictions—puis elle a donné les exemples au Québec—où, bien qu’ils ont mis en place un système semblable au nôtre, on n’a pas vu de réduction dans les gaz à effet de serre. Donc, on veut que ça donne des résultats. Dans un deuxième temps, on veut que ça soit juste.

Moi et mon collègue devant moi, on représente des communautés du Nord. On sait tous que, dans les communautés du Nord, oui, on utilise plus d’essence parce que les distances sont plus grandes et les transports en commun n’existent pas. Dans un deuxième temps, oui, il faut chauffer nos maisons plus longtemps et un peu plus. Je suis à Toronto en ce moment. Il fait beau. Hier, les gens mangeaient dehors sur des patios. Chez nous, il y a quatre pieds de neige. Il n’y en a pas de patios ouverts. Ils n’ouvriront pas pour plusieurs mois. Il va falloir continuer à chauffer nos maisons.

Donc, vous pouvez voir que, quand on parle de justice, si les gens du Nord finissent par payer plus parce qu’ils n’ont pas le choix, les gens vont se révolter contre ça. Il faut prendre en compte l’aspect humain de nos projets de loi, et ça, ça veut dire justice.

Dans un dernier temps : la transparence. Quand il y a 1,9 milliard de dollars qui vont rentrer dans les coffres du gouvernement, il faut savoir où ça va aller.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Arthur Potts: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the comments made by the member from London West. It’s not that we haven’t heard these comments before. The fairness, transparency and effectiveness approach is what I’ve heard from every member of that party. I know that deep down they support what we’re doing, and there may be little nooks and fixes they want to make.

I have to respond to the notion we’re hearing from the members of the official opposition that this is a tax, because it’s not; it’s a regulatory fee. We all know that regulatory fees have to be spent in a very narrow, specific way and, as we heard from the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, it’s all subject to the oversight of the public accounts committee and the Environmental Commissioner. So we know that we have the openness, we know that we have the transparency, and there will be fairness built into the system.

But you have to understand that the revenue-neutral concept—what BC has done—isn’t working. You don’t have the money to expend on targeted investments that will actually show real reductions in greenhouse gases. If you actually do the analysis of the emissions in BC, you’ll find that they are rising. Where in California and Quebec emissions are declining, in BC they are rising because that process isn’t working.

You don’t get serious, good greenhouse gas emission reductions unless you target opportunities for common, regular people to invest in hybrid cars, to invest in ground-source heat pumps and a whole bunch of others. So, revenue-neutral? No. We believe this will be revenue-positive to people who take action on climate change.

It may be time we just put this to committee. Let’s get the other stakeholders into the committee to start, and they can see through all the bafflegab we’re getting from the other side.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for London West. You have two minutes.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Beaches–East York for their comments on my remarks.

I just wanted to respond to the minister and point out that it is not just New Democrats who are talking about the lack of transparency. As I mentioned in my speech, the Financial Accountability Officer himself said—and I’m quoting here—“It is unclear to what extent these new revenues”—these new cap-and-trade revenues—“will be directly tied to new program spending or can be used to fund existing spending commitments.” There is nothing in this legislation that ties the revenues that are generated by the cap-and-trade system to actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The other big concern, when I talked about fairness, transparency and effectiveness, is that currently the bill before us includes this exemption so that all of the largest polluters in this province get a carbon tax holiday. They don’t have to pay for their carbon emissions until some undetermined date,

whereas Ontario families—including those with the lowest income, including those from remote and rural communities, including those who rent apartments rather than own—all other Ontarians are being expected to start paying as early as January 1, 2017. This will be perceived as not being fair. It is a disproportionate sharing of the burden that will fall on the shoulders of Ontario families while large polluters are getting a bye because they get a carbon tax holiday.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 172 on behalf of my constituents in Ottawa South. I want to start by congratulating the minister for bringing this bill forward, for his passion and his openness to all members of the Legislature. I am going to repeat something that he said—not quite as how he said it, because it was to respond to the member from Niagara Falls, who asked for this response yesterday. I appreciated what we thought was a compliment. I understood the spirit it was made in so I won’t be giving him a relative answer; I’ll be giving him an accurate answer of exactly what this bill is going to do.

The proposed Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act would ensure transparency and accountability by committing to invest into projects that reduce greenhouse gas pollution and establish a greenhouse gas reduction account with the funds. Mandatory climate change action plans would need to include details related to how proceeds would be used, the estimated amount for funding for each action, a timetable for implementation, an estimate of the emissions reductions, and the cost per tonne of those potential reductions. We heard, in the minister’s last two minutes, his response to how those funds are allocated and dedicated to those purposes. It’s a regulatory fee.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that all members of this Legislature are concerned about the environment. It’s evident in this debate. If I listen to the members opposite, I hear support for the policy of cap-and-trade, that they have a favourable position towards that. The member from London West just said she unequivocally supports cap-and-trade. I heard member after member yesterday speak to their support for cap-and-trade.

Now, I know that the opposition party had a bit of a revelation. I don’t want to denigrate it and I want to believe the sincerity of it. The commitment would be better demonstrated if they had got their petitions down by yesterday afternoon.

What happened yesterday afternoon, for those of us who were here, was the debate kind of devolved into something that was not really great debate. It was probably entertaining for some of us in here. I participated in it. It probably contributed a lot to the greenhouse gas emissions from this particular building yesterday, and I don’t think it was particularly productive.

The member from Essex put it very clearly: This is far, far too serious an issue for us to devolve debate into what it devolved into yesterday. It’s picking up and starting to get to it today; you can hear it by some rhetoric coming out with regard to who said this, who said that and what people’s intentions are.

In China, I think it was in Beijing, they had their first red alert smog day, and what that means is: Don’t go outside; it will make you sick. Now, I remember watching movies of the dystopian future where we’re all walking around with gas—

Ms. Cindy Forster: The Fog.

Mr. John Fraser: That’s it, The Fog.

Maybe debate is devolving because we’ve had a lot of debate; we’ve had 10 hours of debate on this.

Here’s how I hear the positions: Over here, they support cap-and-trade; they’re concerned with transparency, and we are responding to that. I get that, I know where they are coming from. Conservatives are over here saying, “No, you’ve got it all wrong. Last weekend we decided we are in favour of putting a price on carbon.” Yesterday, I heard the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke say that Mike Harris and Ernie Eves closed the coal plants and that we just locked the gate.

That’s what makes me doubt the sincerity sometimes or the commitment to the new policy that they found last weekend. I’m going to accept their sincerity; I still have questions about their commitment.

It’s very clear where they stand and it’s becoming an opportunity to use highly inflamed rhetoric around the use of that money that I think is inappropriate rhetoric. It’s fine; we can use it in this House. What I think of it is maybe not what everybody else thinks of it. Using terms like “slush fund,” and rolling it all up—I think that when you’re starting to get to that point in the debate, you’re not actually debating the substance of what’s there.

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, that’s exactly what I’m talking about, Mr. Speaker. This is far too serious for us to devolve down to this kind of rhetoric and debate.

I listened closely to the debate yesterday, even the stuff that I would say got a little out of hand. I participated in that. The positions are very clear. The positions are very clear about where everybody is coming from. I agree with the member from Timmins–James Bay when he said in yesterday’s afternoon debate, “I want this bill to go to committee, so that other people can look at it and tell us what they think.”

So given all those things, I move that the question now be put.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Mr. Fraser has moved that the question be now put.

I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House, which was just under 11 hours.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote will be required. This vote will be deferred until after question period.

Vote deferred.

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 1, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: This is not the first time that we’ve dealt with this particular issue. This bill, in a different machination, was before the House in the previous Parliament. There’s some good in what the government is trying to do, but I’m thinking it’s leaving a lot of municipalities scratching their heads and figuring out how they’re going to pay for this.

The way the government has set this up is that rather than the people who cause the cost of having to pick up the large recycling of those items that are covered by this bill, boxes and other such things—rather than them paying, we’re essentially asking ratepayers to pay. And the municipalities are saying they’ve only got so much that they’re able to do when it comes to room with the budgets they’ve got, and where are they going to get the money to offset all of this?

I think municipalities are willing to do their part, but we need to have some system by which the people who make the products also have to pay at the front end so that it’s not the ratepayer at the end of the taxes who ends up having to pay. It’s always the same story with these people. It seems that the government has a predilection for passing on the cost from industry and pushing it onto the consumer and, in this case, the ratepayers of our municipalities.

J’ai entendu, par exemple, de la ville de Hearst, qu’ils ont eu un débat assez animé sur cette question, justement, peut-être il y a un mois passé. Je sais que j’en ai parlé avec une couple de conseillers, dont André Rhéaume, et d’autres. Eux autres soulèvent la question et ils disent, « Écoute, on veut faire ce qui est bien et bon, puis on veut faire notre part. On comprend tous qu’à la fin de la journée, on a besoin d’avoir un système de recyclage qui marche, qui fait du bon sens et qui accomplit le but d’assurer qu’on recycle autant que possible plutôt que de mettre des affaires dans les dépotoirs.

Mais, pourquoi est-ce que c’est la municipalité qui va devoir payer la majorité du coût pour être capable de mettre ce système-là en place? »

So, donc, les municipalités, telles que Hearst et telles que d’autres communautés qu’on a entendues à travers AMO, the Ontario municipal association, disent qu’il y a un vrai problème avec la manière que cette affaire-là est faite. Moi, je me demande pourquoi le gouvernement a fait la décision de changer un peu le concept du premier projet de loi, qui aurait vu une plus grosse responsabilité de la part de l’industrie que dans cette version de la loi—à cette heure qu’ils sont une majorité—où on va transférer le coût à ceux qui payent les taxes dans nos municipalités.

Je pense que le gouvernement a manqué un peu son coup. Possiblement, si on est bien chanceux, quand ce projet de loi arrive au comité, il va y avoir une chance pour les communautés, telles que Hearst et d’autres, d’arriver devant le gouvernement et de leur poser cette question-là.

Je vais vous dire à ce point-ci, monsieur le Président, que je ne sais pas si vous le savez, mais la province de l’Ontario est plus grande que Toronto. Il y a d’autres municipalités. Il y a des municipalités comme Hearst, des municipalités comme Ottawa, Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Cornwall, Sarnia—il y a bien des municipalités dans la province. Mais ce gouvernement, quand ça vient à l’habileté du public de venir présenter devant un comité, ils disent, « Oh! On va aller à Toronto. On va rester ici, et tout le monde a besoin de venir à Toronto pour présenter à ces comités. »

Dans le cas de ce projet de loi, je pense qu’on serait très bien servi si le comité embarquait dans un autobus—ou dans l’avion, dépendamment d’où on s’en va—et puis s’en allait à quatre, cinq ou six communautés à travers la province et parlait à des municipalités moyennes, plus grandes et plus petites pour savoir ce que veut dire ce projet de loi-là, comment ça va marcher pour eux autres et comment on peut améliorer le projet de loi pour faire ce qui est bien et bon quand ça vient à l’environnement.

I don’t know anybody, Mr. Speaker, who doesn’t want to do what’s right for the environment. We are all living on this very small planet, and we all want to do our thing to make sure that we don’t pollute our planet and leave the planet in worse condition than when we were born on it. So we have to do our bit, and recycling is a big part of that.

As I was saying—it’s a big surprise. I know that the government thinks that there’s no other place but Toronto. I love Toronto; Toronto is a beautiful city. It’s got a lot to offer—great people. But you know what? There’s more to Ontario than just the city of Toronto, and that’s why committees, when it comes to hearing from the public, shouldn’t just stay here in Toronto in the Legislature. We should actually do what this Legislature did for over 100 years until these guys came along, and that is to travel committees out into the community.

When I got here in the 1990s, almost every controversial bill got to travel, and they would travel at least two to three weeks. If a government was doing a bill that affected northern Ontario, guess where that bill went? If the bill affected eastern Ontario, guess where that bill went? There was a sufficient amount of hearings that the public and those people affected were able to come forward.

In this case, we know that especially small communities across Ontario have an issue with this bill. Sitting on councils in municipalities across Ontario, from Welland to Port Colborne to Hearst to Chapleau and to other communities, those aldermen and councillors that sit at those council tables want to do what is right. They’re green in their own right. They want to do their bit in order to make sure that we leave for our children a planet that is livable and not polluted. Part of doing that is making sure we have good recycling programs. But they want to do that in a way that makes sense for their communities.

So I would argue, let’s travel this bill. Let’s allow this bill to go to some of the communities that are going to be affected by it so that we can hear from residents, councillors and various people that are interested in this, so that we can actually get it right and actually finish amending this legislation in a way that people will say, “You know what? I can stand behind this. This is a really good bill.”

Is this a good idea? Absolutely. Nobody is going to argue this is a bad bill. But I think it can be made a lot better, and I think one of the ways that we do that is that we go out and travel.

So, donc, avec les couples de minutes qu’il me reste, je ne veux que répéter que ce qui est important dans une démocratie, c’est de donner l’habileté au public d’avoir la chance de connecter avec leurs politiciens et d’être capable de connecter avec cette Assemblée. La manière qu’on fait ça, c’est à travers nos comités législatifs.

Comme j’ai dit tout à l’heure, non seulement les francophones mais la population ont toujours eu la chance dans le passé de venir présenter. Je demanderais au gouvernement, quand ils envoient ce projet de loi au comité, qu’ils s’assurent en effet qu’on ne fasse pas d’audiences publiques seulement ici à Toronto, mais qu’on fasse des audiences publiques dans d’autres communautés qui vont être affectées par le projet de loi.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

L’hon. Glen R. Murray: Merci pour l’intervention du membre de Timmins–James Bay.

Nous avons beaucoup de discussions avec l’organisation des municipalités de l’Ontario, avec ROMA, et j’ai reçu la semaine passée une soumission de l’association municipale qui inclut des révisions de la loi. En général, je suis très d’accord avec ça.

We’re working very closely, as a matter of fact—the discussions we’ve had with AMO, ROMA, NOMA and FONOM, from the member’s area. I’m glad he’s advocating for this. I think it’s important, and I hope people continue to. I have confidence that he does—few people understand the north as much as the member, who’s a well-known pilot and has probably seen more of the north than others. My family is in Sudbury and the Nickel Belt, and I am about as un-Toronto as a Toronto Centre MPP can be, having been mayor of a capital city where we’d call people like Gilles almost a southerner. So I understand the weather, the challenges, and we’re being very sensitive.

We’ve actually set standards which are quite interesting, and I credit northern municipalities and rural municipalities. We’ve put service standards in that no one else in Canada has. It’s interesting, because I immediately got a call from municipalities in northern and remote British Columbia, and it looks like the BC government is moving there. So there is a strong consensus amongst the environmental groups and the municipalities.

There is still some more work to do, to do some of these issues, but since this bill has gone through three debates now, people are anxious to get onto it. This is the third introduction of the bill. What’s different, and I just want to take a moment, because I think from this Parliament—there’s ideas from all parties. You’ll see a lot of people’s fingerprints in here on both sides of the House. There are many good ideas that have been offered over the years that we have tried to incorporate here.

This is actually called the “circular economy” bill, not just the “waste-free” bill. The other bill that we debated earlier today is actually the “low-carbon economy.” I think, as members look at it, we are trying to get to a zero-waste economy by 2050, and a zero-carbon economy. The implementation of these two bills will be some of the biggest challenges we’ve ever had in Ontario because this is really economic legislation more than it is environmental legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m a little sad that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change had to end there because I was very interested in hearing what else he has to say about a zero-carbon economy. I think that we are all concerned about climate change in the House. We all want to see less waste. But we want to see it done in a fiscally responsible, transparent manner that doesn’t rob people of their future through increased taxes. Our party is supporting, obviously, a revenue-neutral plan for taxing carbon.

That’s not what we’re seeing from the government at all. We’re seeing a slush fund being set up to fund their projects, which they are not able to fund even though they are collecting revenue. Why? Because of mismanagement.

I am very concerned about northern communities. The member from Timmins–James Bay brings up a lot of excellent points that a lot of times, here in the south, here in the GTA, we don’t think about: the difficulties in the northern communities. They don’t have transit and then they’re supposed to pay an extra 4.5 cents a litre in taxes to offset carbon. They have no other options. What are they supposed to do, Mr. Speaker?

A main train line to take people up to northern communities was—

Mr. Jim McDonell: They cancelled that.

Mrs. Gila Martow: —cancelled, and people are sort of trapped.

Yes, there’s a lot more we can do to reduce waste, but people don’t want to see neighbours pitted against neighbours, going through each other’s garbage. They don’t want police coming and looking through their garbage. The government doesn’t necessarily know how many people live in a household.

I think that there are a lot of topics that really need to be discussed before we ram through legislation that can hurt our communities.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s a pleasure to get up and do two minutes on Bill 151, on waste reduction and resource recovery. I can tell you that for probably eight or nine years as a regional councillor, I sat on waste management’s planning, steering and—there were two or three committees in the region of Niagara at that time. It is a real struggle for municipalities to get their minds around this. They try many different things. They do all kinds of pilots.

I know that in my own riding, we used to have two small contractors, Burger and Protz. For many years, they were the waste management people. When the region took over waste management from municipalities, there was this promise that waste management costs were going to go down. Well, in fact, they didn’t go down, because after the first contract with waste management, which was a lowball, it edged out all the small contractors.

It took lots of people who were making $18, $20, $24 an hour at that time—I’m talking more than 10 years ago—out, to waste management which now has one guy on a truck making just over minimum wage, driving, jumping out, emptying the recycling and emptying the garbage.

Bigger isn’t always better in the world of waste management. I think that there are jurisdictions that we can learn from that have simplified it. I often hear from seniors—older seniors who are still in their homes—about the difficulty they have with cutting the cardboard, tying the string around it, having three or four different boxes and trying to deal with their organics.

We also have young families who are trying to work two and three jobs who just don’t have time to follow all these rules. I think that we need to find simpler ways for people to actually try and reduce waste, in their own ways.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: What is this bill all about? This bill can be summed up in a few, fairly simple descriptors. Some $1 billion worth of recoverable material each and every year is lost to landfills. How much goes into landfills? This bill is about trying to find $1 billion a year in something like eight million tonnes of waste that gets sent to landfills. If you really want to find an issue in your community, propose building a new dump; propose transporting waste through your community. This bill is all about, how do we reduce that?

What’s the benefit of this bill? The benefit of this bill is that by recovering resources from waste, you can create something in the neighbourhood of 13,000 new jobs in the province of Ontario and contribute something like $1.5 billion to Ontario’s GDP. This is important. Just look at what a great recovery that Ontario has had in manufacturing, a subject I’ve spoken about particularly in our riding, where manufacturing has been one of the real drivers of Mississauga’s economy coming out of the recession.

The green economy is going to be one of the major drivers of the first half of the 21st century, and Ontario has got a lot of raw material that, at the moment, is locked in landfills. What this bill is all about is opening up that industry and enabling the recovery of glass, metal, plastic and organic waste, and by reprocessing that and repurposing it—particularly such multiple-use materials as metals, for example; separating out iron, copper, lead and all other metals—you can recirculate them and put them right back into new construction.

That’s what this bill is about, Speaker. It’s about jobs, it’s about investment and it’s about moving forward in the 21st century.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to thank the members for their comments.

In the two minutes that I’ve got left, I want to congratulate a municipality that is actually getting it right, and that’s my home town, the city of Timmins. We have a really excellent garbage and recycling system where it’s all done at the same time. They’re dual-combination trucks. What you have is a grey bin and green bin. They are quite large: A green bin is as big as this—pretty large—and the grey is a little bit smaller. You do your separation of garbage at your home and put your recycling, obviously, in the blue bin, I should say, and you put your garbage in the grey bin.

I’ve got to tell you that at our house and at the cottage, where we have that system, it is unbelievable the amount of garbage that we actually put into the landfill now as compared to before. You can go an entire week and cook for your family and have the grandkids over and do all the stuff you got to do, and you’re lucky if you put out a garbage bag. I’m not talking a big green one, but one of those kitchen catchers of garbage into the grey bin, because everything, once you start separating it out, is pretty recyclable.

It’s kind of funny. Imagine little old me, Gilles from northern Ontario, with my family—I’ve become the recycle czar. I’m the guy who opens up the garbage at the cottage and goes, “Hey, you guys put Kleenex in there. What’s that doing in there?” My family gets a big joke out of that because they’ve never seen me as that type of guy. But I see the value of it because it has really meant that we are not putting into our landfill a whole bunch of recyclables that have some value, that we can bring back into the economy, and, more importantly, that we are able to have a green environment.

I’ve only got a few seconds. The other side thing: We had a huge bear problem in the area where I’m out at, Kamiskotia. One of the things that helped is that they reopened the dump. But this whole system about how we deal with our garbage at our own properties through this system has also assisted in diminishing the amount of bears that wander on to our property.

So to the city of Timmins, a shout-out. I think they’re doing a great job.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member for Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 151 this morning. I thought I might be speaking to a different bill this morning, but I’m looking forward to having a few comments on Bill 151 anyway.

Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2015 and the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2015 and to repeal the Waste Diversion Act, 2002, is a government bill put forward by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Mr. Speaker, our party has said we support this bill, although we are advocating for some changes. It is a topic that I’ve talked about before. In fact, when I learned in the last few minutes that I would be speaking to this, I went back in history to see one of the first times I was talking about the general concept of the bill.

It turns out—time flies—it was Thursday, May 19, 2005, when I had the opportunity to put forward a private member’s bill. At that time, I was debating my own private member’s bill, which was Bill 195,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to the stewardship of products and of the packages or containers used for products. That really was the same general idea of what this bill is trying to do.

Initially, when I was going to do the private member’s bill, I was just looking into deposit-return systems, which I thought worked quite effectively to recycle materials and reuse materials, particularly the system The Beer Store in Ontario uses, which has been so effective. But after meeting with constituents in my riding, in particular Dr. Jim McTaggart-Cowan—he had been out in British Columbia, where they had a product stewardship system, and he brought that to my attention, so I decided to expand my private member’s bill to be more about product stewardship. I want to quote from that, from 11 years ago, to talk about what product stewardship is.

“So what is product stewardship? It’s a management system based on industry and consumers taking full responsibility for the products they produce and use, from their inception through to their final reuse or recycle state. It’s cradle-to-cradle management. The way it works is that government, on behalf of consumers, has three supportive roles.

“First, it identifies which products it wants embraced, establishes targets for product capture and charges industry with the responsibility of forming a management board and preparing stewardship plans. Second, it assists industry by putting in place regulations to support the collective industry approach and ensures a level playing field for all corporations involved in the relevant sector. Third, it approves stewardship plans, monitors industry progress and ensures that plans are altered to achieve overall objectives.

“Through this product stewardship approach, government moves away from funding, at taxpayers’ expense, waste management. Instead, it holds industry responsible for the full life cycle of a product but leaves it to industry to find the most cost-effective and efficient way to achieve it, assisting where necessary and desired.”

I went on to illustrate, using the deposit-returns example, how that would work. In the case of beverage containers, “First, government designates beverage containers. Then government establishes a recovery rate of, say, 85% in three years. It charges industry with the responsibility of forming a management board, which prepares a stewardship plan. Government approves and monitors the stewardship plan, which, in this case, includes a deposit-return system. If industry doesn’t meet the target of 85% recovery, it must make changes to the plan.

In the case of a deposit-return system,” the simple way you change the plan, the most likely thing you would do, is increase the deposit, which would then incent people to return the beverage containers.

“Product stewardship works because industry comes up with the solutions. They know their business best, and they will come up with solutions that are both cost-effective”—because they’re responsible for a lot of the costs—“and that get the job done.”

I went on to talk a bit about BC, because at that point—and now here we are 11 years later—BC was so much ahead of us here in Ontario.

“In the year 2000, BC recovered 61% of glass bottles, compared to 45% in Ontario, 73% of PET, compared to 16% in Ontario—that’s probably why we have so much plastic in our ditches—and 84% of aluminum cans, compared to 50% in Ontario.”

They had a system for paint, which we just don’t have in Ontario, under their product stewardship system. In BC, where paint is a designated product, it has changed the way they sell paint. Here in Ontario, our system is biased towards larger containers. Most of us have garages or basements full of partly filled containers of paint which, hopefully, eventually get disposed of in the proper way at one of the centres, where they can at least keep it out of drains and sewers. When you buy the four-litre container, it’s cheaper than if you buy one litre, so we usually buy four litres.

Who doesn’t have a garage—and this is me, 11 years ago—full of partly filled paint cans? Where does the paint end up?

In BC, product stewardship has changed the way they sell paint. There are more water-based paints. In some cases, you can bring your own container and have it filled. A 2003 BC government

summary report looked at the paint stewardship program, which covers paints, solvents, flammable liquids, pesticides and gasoline. It is run by Product Care, a national, non-profit stewardship association made up of 100 brand owners. Product Care’s membership includes manufacturers, distributors and retailers. In 2003, they collected 5,683,000 equivalent litre containers of paint and gave away 107,000 litres in a paint exchange program. Flammable liquids collected were 121,000 litres, and pesticides collected were 31,000 litres.

The way they used that was that 4.6% of paint was given back to consumers; 66% was recycled/reprocessed as paint and used in concrete manufacturing; 29% was used for energy recovery through fuel blending; and 0.2% was incinerated; 0% was landfill.

You can see that product stewardship—this is way back in 2003—in BC was working. I’m proud to have brought this up in the Legislature back in 2005, with that private member’s bill that I’m very proud of. That’s an approach that our party, in later years, has adopted, and I’m happy about that, because I think it makes sense. I’m happy to see that the government is implementing a system that picks up some of those ideas.

I’m sure there are still some concerns, particularly in the municipal area and what happens with the funding of the blue box system to do with this, and we’ll be watching that very, very carefully.

The Ontario PCs certainly have long championed a plan to increase recycling and reduce waste through innovation and competition among businesses in the private sector. That’s exactly what I was talking about in my private member’s bill.

Under the PC plan that we put forward, we would set measureable and achievable recycling targets for businesses, establish environmental standards and enforce the rules. Instead of government being in the business of trying to run these systems—which governments generally are pretty inefficient at doing, and usually make lots of mistakes—you have governments do what they should do, which is set the targets, be the enforcer and make sure the rules and the targets are met. If they aren’t met, then there are ways of achieving that, by fines or other means the government has.

It’s certainly an approach that I’m pleased to see, in this bill, Bill 151, that the government is moving towards. We will certainly be very interested to see, in the way that it’s implemented, that it’s done in a way that benefits the province.

We want to see a legislated timeline to eliminate some of the existing programs the government has, some of the eco tax programs. We want to see the waste cops that police recycling bins and garbage cans around the province dropped, and we want to see a reduction in the red tape and the costs in the current program.

Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to have had a few minutes to talk about this important bill. Certainly, our party will be looking forward to it and following it closely. We support in principle the bill, but there are lots of details that we will need to follow as it moves into committee etc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you so much, Speaker, for allowing me to put a few words on the record.

It was very interesting to listen to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, especially when he was talking about paint. I agree. I’m as guilty as everybody else. An entire wall of my garage is full of quarter- and half-empty paint cans, and I have some more in the basement. I’m guessing that I’m sort of average in that category.

The paint cans are really just an example as to why it is so important to travel with this bill, because life is different in the different parts of this beautiful province that we represent, and there are great ideas throughout. Wanting to recycle, wanting to recirculate, wanting to be green, is something that is shared throughout Ontario. You can travel to big areas, small areas, rural or remote. We all share the same thing: Nobody likes garbage. If it can be reduced, reused, recycled, we’re all for it. Sometimes there are some pretty nifty ideas that have been put forward. Let’s travel this bill. Let’s bring it to the different areas.

I can tell you that garbage pickup and recycling in my riding is very different than in Toronto. I represent 30 little villages; none of them are big enough to be a municipality. None of them have mayors or councillors or anything like that, but everybody wants to recycle. What happens in my neck of the woods is that you usually have a neighbour with a pickup who will come around, you give him or her your garbage and they bring it to the dump for you. What happens at the dump is very different than what happens at the curbs for most of you. Come and see how it’s done.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Chris Ballard: This is one of those debates that I like to participate in, because I think we’re all on the same page when it comes to recycling and the impact that waste diversion has on our environment, and especially, as well—something that we forget about—the impact it has on our economy.

As a town councillor in Aurora, I know that we struggled with waste diversion costs and blue box costs, but we knew that we had to provide this service. This is a much-needed service that our residents were demanding and our residents used. I know, at the same time, our municipal partners have struggled with those costs, so it’s a good thing to see these recommendations put forward.

Just flipping to the economic argument for recycling, we’re stuck at about 25% of waste diversion, we’re told, which I think is appallingly low. I know that people want to do more. I know that my neighbours, friends and family want to do more. We need to help them to do more. This bill will help them do just that.

Things that leap out at me when you look at waste diversion in Ontario: For example, there is right now about $1 billion worth of recoverable materials lost to landfills across Canada each year. I find that mind-boggling, that we would be throwing away valuable material. I heard the member from Timmins–James Bay talk about going through the household waste to make sure not an ounce of metal went out. He should meet my wife; she is unbelievable. Not a bag leaves the house, not a garbage can goes out of our house, without my wife going through it and pulling out everything that can be recycled. Heaven forbid if she catches you throwing something out that can be recycled.

This bill is going in the right direction, and I’m so delighted to see the support thus far.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Actually, I would like to follow on the pattern that has been created by the member for Newmarket–Aurora. On the issue of personal responsibility, I think that this bill missed a huge opportunity not to reference the fact that it all begins with individuals who make choices. We need to have a better understanding of those choices.

On the one hand, packaging has advanced tremendously in terms of its ability to bring an apple in its own little cradle from Chile, South America or South Africa, anywhere in the world, and all those individually wrapped fruits are there. But they also come with their waste and the question of the appropriate diversion for the packaging that’s used. I think that this bill needs to also provide people with an understanding. When we go to the grocery store, we want our food to be in bags or containers or things like that that are hygienic. We don’t want outbreaks of diseases, but there’s a price to pay, and that price to pay is the kind of packaging that we have today.

I would just want to remind people that, as a consumer, you also have a responsibility for the products you buy and the manner in which you dispose of their packaging.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: The NDP, for many, many years, has pushed to have producers pay more of the freight around the packaging they produce. I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, but anything bought in recent years is packed mostly with Styrofoam, something that does not degrade in any way. I know just recently, having bought a new printer for my home last week, there were probably 10 pieces of Styrofoam. Inside the box, there were four more boxes. Each cord was in a box instead of perhaps being wrapped in a piece of paper—newspaper or some kind of paper. It filled my grey box when I did my recycling on Sunday afternoon.

I know that the Niagara region, where I live, is certainly weighing in and having a look at this bill, as well as the waste-free bill. They are concerned—I was reading an

article in the local newspaper—and at this point, they don’t know what it’s going to mean to municipalities because there’s not a lot of detail in the bill. It’s really enabling legislation, so they don’t know what role municipalities are going to play at the end of the day. They wonder whether or not blue boxing will actually move to the private sector and what role they’ll play in that.

But what they did say was—and we’ve heard it here this morning from several people—that when they open garbage bags in the Niagara region, 50% of it still should be in a green bin, a grey bin or a blue bin, and that diversion rates have really stagnated. So whatever we can do to improve that certainly will help in my riding, where we still have a landfill site.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Parry Sound–Muskoka, you have two minutes.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 151, particularly from the riding I represent, Parry Sound–Muskoka. The environment is certainly one of our top concerns, so any bills that are relevant to the environment, including how we deal with waste, are very important to my riding.

Waste diversion in Ontario has been stalled at 25% for many years, so I think we need to look at systems that work better. That’s why I was very proud, back in May 2005, to put forward a product stewardship bill where industry is responsible for the full life cycle of products, so that they look at things, as was mentioned in some of the comments from other members, like packaging and whether you can recycle or how you deal with the packaging and how you minimize packaging as part of selling products, because the producer of that packaging is responsible for it and has the cost of dealing with it.

I would like to thank the member from Nickel Belt, who suggested that we should be travelling with this; I agree. That’s where we get good ideas. It was a constituent of mine, a scientist, Jim McTaggart-Cowan, who had spent a lot of time in BC, who was the reason I did a product stewardship bill. I was initially just going to do a deposit-return bill. I learned from his knowledge that it made a lot more sense to talk about not just deposit-return but more about full life cycle and product stewardship.

The member from Newmarket–Aurora was talking about cost; the member from York–Simcoe was talking about personal responsibility; and I thank the member from Welland for her comments as well. It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity this morning to speak to this bill.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much. Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 10:10 to 10:30 a.m.

Sign-language

interpretation

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Timmins–James Bay on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion amongst the House leaders this morning. I’m seeking unanimous consent to allow a sign-language interpreter to be present on the floor of the chamber to interpret the second question and supplementary of the third party, and the minister’s response.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay is seeking unanimous consent to have an interpreter on the floor for a question. Do we agree? Agreed.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce Dick Hibma. He’s in the audience today. He is the chair of the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority. He’s a great community supporter, and we welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to join the member opposite and welcome Dick Hibma to Queen’s Park, along with his colleagues in the conservation movement: Lin Gibson, the vice-chair of Conservation Ontario; Mark Burnham, vice-chair and treasurer of Conservation Ontario; Kim Gavine, general manager of Conservation Ontario; and representatives from many of Ontario’s conservation authorities in the public gallery. I invite all members to attend their reception at noon. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome Brian Tayler, Sue Buckle and Dave Mendicino to the Legislature. They’re here with the conservation authorities today.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want all members to welcome Tony Saliba. Tony is a dedicated public servant of over 25 years. He has been with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services for all of his tenure, working in our correctional institutions and regional and corporate offices in various roles.

Tony’s commitment is unparalleled. Most recently, he worked tirelessly to help construct and commission the new South West Detention Centre in Windsor and the Toronto South Detention Centre. Tony’s retirement at the end of this month is well earned. We thank him for his service and wish him all the best. Thank you, Tony.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I am so proud today to introduce three very special students who have been able to attend Queen’s Park today. Omar Elchami, Hannah MacLean and Becca Haggith are here today for question period. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: I don’t believe he’s in this room, but he is in the building. John Cottrill is the CAO of Grey Sauble Conservation Authority. I welcome him to Queen’s Park and thank him for all his work on behalf of our nature conservancies.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Joe Garro, who is the father of page captain Andrew Garro.

Member’s birthday

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: The member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, early this morning I got an email from my wife, who said I was to let the assembly know that the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane will be celebrating his birthday next Monday, and that we wouldn’t be here next Monday so I should do it today.

Hon. Liz Sandals: He isn’t even listening.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to take the liberty of making sure that the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane—

Interjection: He’s still not listening.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to take a moment—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I understand the nuances of the House. Please, forgive me. I don’t want to chastise anybody on this one.

I just wanted to make sure that the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane heard that Uncle Ernie said “Happy birthday.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t mess with somebody’s birthday. That’s all I’ve got to say.

Oral Questions

Pesticides

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. We know this Liberal government can’t get anything right with the neonics ban. The Liberals are telling farmers they can no longer use this pesticide. Yet in the next breath, they’re telling farmers that they must protect their crops from the corn flea beetle. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The only possible treatment for this pest that has been approved in Canada is—you guessed it—neonics.

Does the Premier agree with the principle that agricultural policy should be based on science, not emotion? And can the Premier name one single grain farmer in the province of Ontario who supports their reckless policy?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On this side of the House we believe that pollinator health is very, very important to the ecology of our planet. Over the last few years, overwinter honeybee mortality rates have exceeded what is normally expected.

I understand that this is a huge concern. It’s not just a concern among beekeepers. This should be a concern for all of us, that we have strong pollinator health, because really, that is how the ecosystem works.

We’ve experienced in Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My intent is to remain consistent with my expectations from both sides: questions put, answers put. I need to hear.

Please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —a large number of acute bee deaths, spring, summer and fall months. We’re taking a precautionary approach—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Immediately after I asked for attention, the minister from Prince Edward–Hastings decides to tell—

Interjections: Minister?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t have a crystal ball.

Member, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re taking a precautionary approach, and Ontario farmers who can demonstrate the need will continue to have access to neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: To the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change: Speaker, I know how much the minister is on Twitter, and I can tell you, if he cared to know what farmers think, he wouldn’t be blocking some grain farmers from his personal account. The truth is, I worry that the Liberals don’t care what farmers think.

Farmers continue to ask this government for clarification on how to protect their crops this season from the corn flea beetle, since the only treatment available is a seed treatment, but the minister won’t say. In fact, government officials have admitted to farmers that the minister has the power to fix this mistake and allow Ontario farmers to protect their crop this year against the corn flea beetle. So why won’t the minister act? The minister has the power to work with farmers and prevent the loss of crops this season.

Speaker, will the minister put politics aside today and actually work with grain farmers to develop this solution?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The original question was directed to the Premier. It will be directed to the Premier, and it will be the Premier’s choice as to who answers the question.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just say to the leader and to the member opposite that this actually was an issue when I was the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We were working with beekeepers, we were working with grain and oilseed farmers, and the current minister—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The current Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change have worked very closely together, because this is such an important issue. Of course it’s an important issue to grain farmers, but this is an important issue across the agriculture sector, and it’s important across our society that we have strong pollinator health.

Farmers who can demonstrate the need still can use neonicotinoid-treated seeds, but the fact is, we have to make sure that we have strong bees in this province.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the Premier: The facts speak for themselves. The Liberals have botched the rollout of their neonics plan so badly that they are now facing lawsuits from farmers. In fact, five busloads of grain farmers attended a hearing yesterday in Toronto to get the courts to clean up the Liberals’ mess. How many farmers will face financial hardship if changes aren’t made to the ban? You know what? Sadly, the Liberals refuse to listen.

Speaker, does the Premier not understand the concerns of Ontario farmers? Or is this the Liberals’ new agricultural policy: “Do what we say, or we’ll see you in court”?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just say that there has been an enormous amount of pressure from other jurisdictions, in Europe and so on, to actually put a ban in place on neonics. We didn’t do that.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: You have government officials saying—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member asked the question.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We said, and I said, and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has said that putting a ban in place was not based in science. That wasn’t what we were going to do—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s the second time. The member asked the question, and heckling is not really logical to me.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no. It’s not a debate.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We didn’t leap to that conclusion. We’ve taken a precautionary approach. Quebec has adopted and supports the same policy.

As I have said, Ontario farmers who demonstrate the need—because there are different conditions in different parts of the province—can still use neonicotinoids.

Ontario budget

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. This is my last question in the Legislature this week, and I wanted to remind everyone how much more expensive—

Interjections.

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

Interjection: You guys need a break.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Somebody might be looking for an early one.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no. Let’s not use this to get the last shot in, please.

Leader.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the government may be averse to tough public policy questions, but I wanted to remind everyone, during this last question, how much more expensive life will be in Ontario after this budget.

According to the CBC report on February 26, this budget increases virtually every other government service fee. At the same time, it cuts popular middle-class tax credits for education and active children. Life is just more expensive for the average family.

Mr. Speaker, my question is, how out of touch is our Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to go over what our budget does. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition might see that there are some elements of this budget that he actually should support.

For example, taking action on climate change, and investing cap-and-trade proceeds transparently into green projects that reduce pollution, might be something he’d like to support.

Transforming student assistance, actually providing free tuition for low-income families and more affordable—this is important, Mr. Speaker, because the Leader of the Opposition talked about the middle class. In fact, what our budget does is provide more affordable tuition for middle-income families. I would think he would support that.

I was at the ground-breaking of a station on the Eglinton Crosstown today—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll come back to that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Absolutely.

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The Minister of Natural Resources said I was wrong when I called out the government for raising fees connected to his ministry. It appears that the minister did not read pages 190 and 191 of the budget. Those pages explicitly state that fees will be going up. Page 190 specifically lists which fees are going up: fees charged for driver and vehicle licensing, camping in Ontario parks, fishing and hunting licences, just to name a few.

I assume the Premier has a better grasp of what’s in the budget than her ministers do. Will the Premier apologize for making the lives of those in rural Ontario so much more expensive?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me just continue. I was talking about the infrastructure investment that we were making. I was at the ground-breaking of a station on the Eglinton line today.

Also in our budget, and just to speak to the fee issue: the lowering of hospital fees, making the shingles vaccine free for eligible seniors, and the elimination of the Drive Clean emissions fee. In addition to that, we are helping families with the cost of electricity—residential electricity users—saving them about $70 a year with the removal of the debt retirement charge. And we are improving services for children and youth with autism, a $333-million investment that will help hundreds of families around this province, middle-income and otherwise.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: That answer wasn’t even remotely connected to the question—not even remotely.

If you have a child playing sports, the Liberals took that help away. Do you like the great outdoors? That costs you more now. Getting a degree? The Premier took those tax credits away. Have to renew your driver’s licence? Well, those fees are going up. Seniors needing medication? Sorry, the Liberals are making that more expensive.

Can the Premier tell this House which one of her billion-dollar scandals she’s using all these fee increases to pay for? Is it eHealth? Is it Ornge? Is it the gas plants? Which one of this government’s scandals is this budget paying for?

Interjections.

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

I’m going to take a moment to ask the deputy House leader to check his comments, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to talk to the 173,000 seniors who will no longer pay any deductible, whose medication will be free in Ontario because of the changes that we’re making.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to talk to the thousands of young people from low- and middle-income families who are no longer going to have to pay tuition at all or not as much tuition. They are going to have access to post-secondary education and therefore access to a better job that will help them in their lives, but that will also help our economy to grow. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to talk to those families.

I would also ask the Leader of the Opposition to talk to the families of children with autism who have not been able to get service who are going to receive service, and support and resources in order to get their children service. I’d ask him to talk to those families and see what they think about the support that they’re getting.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre.

Speaker, I live in beautiful northern Ontario, and I can assure you that things cost more in northern Ontario than they do down here. Seniors across northern and rural Ontario also live with higher costs.

Does the Premier think that it is fair to nearly double the drug costs for most seniors living in northern and rural Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think that what is fair is that low-income seniors who are not able to pay the deductible for their medication—that we would remove that cost from them, and that 173,000 more seniors would pay no deductible and would receive their medications without any payment. I think that’s what is fair.

In terms of the second part of that initiative, I have said over and over in this House that we have a regulation that has been posted. We are hearing from folks in the process of that consultation. If that threshold is not right, then we will, in response to what we hear, make a change.

But 173,000 more seniors in the north, in rural communities and in our urban and suburban centres will no longer have to pay a deductible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, I and New Democrats believe that the strength of our health care system comes from universality. It is there for all of us. In public the Premier certainly talks about universality in health care, but right now her actions are speaking louder than her words.

Most seniors will see their medication costs get more expensive. Can the Premier tell us how many seniors will end up paying more for their medication?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would have assumed, but I don’t know if the member opposite understands that everyone who we’re talking about in terms of the 173,000—

Mr. Paul Miller: Oh, no, no one else understands but you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): What I understand is that the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is coming closer to the Speaker and I am hearing him again.

Mr. Mike Colle: He’s in the wrong seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Nor do I want to hear someone else armchair-quarterbacking my rules.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Those 173,000 seniors, Mr. Speaker, have been paying a $100 deductible for their medications. They will no longer have to pay that. I actually would have thought that would have been a policy that the NDP would support: removing a cost for seniors that has been there for many years and that they will no longer have to pay. We are removing that, and 173,000 more seniors will not have to pay a deductible that they have been paying for many years.

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

M me France Gélinas: I am worried about the one million seniors who will have to pay more. Most seniors in northern Ontario can’t afford to see their medication costs double. When the camera is on, the Premier is all about universal health care based on need, not on ability to pay, and that we need more drug coverage. But the Liberal government is moving in the complete opposite direction. It is a plan that is bad for one million Ontario seniors and doubly hard for the struggling seniors of the north. Does the Premier really think that another 20 days is needed to realize that her plans move Ontario in the wrong direction?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, it is really disheartening to hear the third party talk about this program in this fashion when 173,000 new seniors will go from paying a $100 deductible each year to paying zero dollars deductible.

I know the leader of the party is in the north today and tomorrow, having consultations. I think it’s her responsibility not just to talk about the increase that was conceived of and considered in the budget that we’re going to consult on, but to also talk about the 173,000 individuals who will no longer pay any annual deductible. Because to do otherwise is not doing the right thing for the people of Ontario. Many of those people reside in the north. They will benefit from this change. We’re consulting on the rest of it. It’s a figure that’s important, 173,000, so nearly half a million Ontario seniors will pay no deductible whatsoever.

Special-needs students

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. This morning, I was joined by students, parents and advocates in calling on the government to ensure that specialized provincial and demonstration schools that support deaf, blind, deaf-blind and/or other severely learning disabled students in Ontario will remain open.

Provincial and demonstration schools play an important role in helping kids with exceptional needs to succeed. Parents, students and community organizations are very concerned with the so-called consultations currently under way. If this government was truly consulting, they would not have stopped enrolment into these specialized schools. Speaker, my question is simple: Will the Premier guarantee that no provincial or demonstration school will be closed as a result of consultations? Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to begin by welcoming to the Legislature this morning students from the Robarts provincial school for the deaf and also, I believe, from the Amethyst Demonstration School in London. I’m not sure if there are people from other locations, but I think Robarts and Amethyst families and students are here. Welcome to the Legislature.

I do want to say that we’re committed to the success and well-being of every child and student, including students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, who are blind and have low vision, deaf-blind or those with severe learning disabilities. Just like the member opposite, we do care about that.

I want to assure not just you, Speaker, but also the families and students who are here today, that we have made no—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to go back to the Premier. Kids who currently attend Amethyst Demonstration School in my community of London are here with us today, students like Becca Haggith and Omar Elchami.

Becca Haggith is also a pupil at the provincially run Amethyst Demonstration School. She has jumped seven reading levels in less than two years. Omar has gone from a grade 2 reading level to a grade 7 reading level, thanks to specialized programming and supports offered by Amethyst school. We have heard from many other students across the province that these programs have the ability to truly change lives.

In my community of London, both Amethyst and the Robarts School for the Deaf are on the chopping block. Can the government please explain to these kids here today and across the province why they are stopping enrolment at such schools if they are really, truly only consulting?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’ve actually had the opportunity to visit with parents and visit with students, not just at Amethyst but also at the Trillium Demonstration School in Milton and the demonstration school at Centre Jules-Léger in Ottawa, which is the French-language demonstration school. We are just sorting out the scheduling for Sagonaska in Belleville.

I would like to agree with the member. It is very clear that the focused programming that is provided at the demonstration schools—the focus on reading—is absolutely, transformingly effective for the students who talk about being able to enter the school with a kindergarten or grade 1 level and leave the program a year or two later at a grade 9 reading level. That’s totally transformational.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, I would really like to hear from the Premier on this. The Minister of Education herself continually stands in the House and talks about how great provincial and demonstration schools are for our communities, the important role they play and the life-changing experience students are able to have. As such, it truly boggles the mind to think that this government is considering closing these programs, leaving our most vulnerable kids behind.

I will ask again: Will the Premier admit her mistake and guarantee that all provincial and demonstration schools, including the ones in my community of London, will stay open?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Liz Sandals: What I want to reflect on is that the four demonstration schools serve about 155 children right now. We know that there are thousands of children in Ontario who are struggling to learn to read, and we want to make sure that we can learn from the programs in the demonstration schools. How do we deliver those focused programs that can help children catch up in their reading skills so that they can thrive in programs? We need to figure out how to learn from the demonstration schools and to be able to do that all over the province, not just in four locations.

We need to understand how we can help more children benefit from these wonderful programs which target children who are at average or above intelligence but who just haven’t been able to—

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

New question.

Public transit

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. Today marks the third time in three weeks that I have had to question the Premier and the minister about their lack of oversight of what many are calling the “rogue” Liberal transit planning agency, Metrolinx.

Mississauga mayor Bonnie Crombie is calling Metrolinx’s behaviour appalling, saying, “They operate within their own set of rules,” after inspecting yet another botched development for a simple bus station.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish says that she thinks “it’s appalling.... This is disgusting,” and she adds that she doesn’t even trust them.

Speaker, if our municipal colleagues don’t trust them, how can the people of Ontario trust the Premier to oversee Metrolinx’s spending of billions for transit expansion across the province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for his question. I actually had the chance to speak—or converse or communicate—last night with Mayor Bonnie Crombie from Mississauga, I had the chance to speak with a couple of our caucus members from Peel region from Mississauga today, and I also have spoken to Metrolinx board chair Rob Prichard just this morning as well. I understand that there are some concerns that have been expressed by residents in Mississauga as well as by municipal councillors. The commitment that I conveyed to the mayor was that we would continue to work with her and her council and her staff and her residents to make sure that we can get this right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Busy night there.

Speaker, in the last month, we’ve continued to hear stories of the Liberal transit planning agency wasting taxpayers’ money, from the UP Express planning to a train shed too small to fit the trains. Now we have a bus station in Mississauga where bathroom ventilation exhaust is aimed at a swimming pool—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: —where bus passengers can peer over backyard fences into homes and lights are shining all night. Mayor Crombie says, “There were design changes after the (public) consultation,” leaving the neighbourhood to pay the price. If Metrolinx is “rogue,” as the mayor indicates, then it’s this government that has allowed it to go that way. It’s their responsibility.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Harris: Yes, it is.

Speaker, will the Premier please explain to Ontarians how they can trust her with the billions of dollars she’s overseeing to build, operate and manage transit in Ontario?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I mentioned in my original answer to the first question, I’ve had a chance to speak to the mayor. We will, on a going-forward basis on this particular issue, continue to work with her, her council and people who live in her community.

But I have to point out that this is a government, thanks to the leadership of our Premier and our Mississauga MPPs on this side of the House, that is investing billions of dollars, including in Mississauga: the Hurontario LRT, in addition to more GO service on the Lakeshore West line and ultimately on the Milton line that runs through Mississauga.

I know that Mayor Crombie and her council and, most importantly, the residents of Mississauga understand that, unlike the last time, when that party—the Conservatives—were in power, we’re building transit, we’re not killing it. As the Premier mentioned, we were at an LRT station this morning. We’re building along Eglinton. We’re building in Mississauga. It’s about time you recognized our progress.

Ontario budget

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week, the Financial Accountability Office released its commentary on the budget’s fiscal plan. The FAO says that this budget continues to rely on “aggressive plans to limit the growth in program spending.” The Liberal government likes to congratulate itself on the fact that Ontario already has the lowest program spending per person in the entire country, but New Democrats know that it’s Ontarians who feel the impact day in and day out. The 2016 budget already doesn’t keep up with inflation to meet the educational and the health care needs of Ontarians, building on years of cuts.

My question to the minister is simple. This year’s budget cuts almost $1.5 billion to the public service. What other program cuts are in store for Ontarians next year and the year after that?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. It gives me the opportunity to express once again the tremendous amounts of investment that we’re making in our economy, in our programs, in the programs that are essential and valuable to families across Ontario, like health care and education. Over $1 billion more is being invested in our education system and in our health care system.

We’re being very progressive in this budget while still balancing the books by 2017-18 and thereafter. This is done in consultation with, and with the work of, many across Ontario. Our economy is growing. Our businesses are growing. Employment is growing. We are actually outpacing the United States in growth. Our debt-to-GDP is strong relative to what it was expected to be. Mr. Speaker, we’re heading forward and progressing forward because of the work we’re doing in conjunction with businesses and the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Speaker, the minister should read his own budget. On page 256, it’s almost $1.5 billion in cuts to education and even post-secondary education—in-year cuts.

Again to the minister: The FAO also highlighted that this government’s fiscal plan depends on “optimistic” assumptions for revenue growth, pointing to more than half a billion dollars year after year from more asset sales.

The budget, however, isn’t transparent. It doesn’t tell Ontarians exactly what assets will be sold. Speaker, they can’t blame us for questioning them. No one thought this government would sell off Hydro One. Some 80% of Ontarians have been loud and clear about stopping the sale of Hydro One, but this government refuses to listen to anyone, not even the citizens who took the time to come and speak to the finance committee directly through the budget process.

Can the minister tell Ontarians exactly where that money is coming from, or is that a secret too?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, as finance minister, I did, in fact, invite the finance committee to meet and to discuss some of the consultation on the work that was being done. They instead asked me to go to them, and I did. I shared with them some of the work that had been going on and in recognizing how important it is for us to continue investing.

Let me clarify: We’re investing more in health care. We’re investing more in education. We’re investing more in post-secondary. We’re investing more in children’s and social services, like autism and special needs. What we are doing is to provide more for cancer treatment, for hospitals, for home care, for long-term care, and for hospices and palliative care—the very things that were consulted in the consultations. That’s what people were asking for; that’s what we’re delivering. And, Mr. Speaker, we’re balancing the books at the same time.

Climate change

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Like everyone in this House and also within the PC Party, I was genuinely surprised when the Leader of the Opposition proclaimed over the weekend that his party now supports carbon pricing. I was surprised given that the PC Party of Ontario has bitterly resisted, at every turn, every single environmental initiative that our government has taken, from closing coal plants to investing in green energy.

I also know that the minister has legislation before this House to combat climate change through cap-and-trade; however, despite flip-flops by the Leader of the Opposition, I have continued to hear members of his own party oppose our plan.

My question to the minister: Can he inform the House on why Ontario’s proposed plan to combat climate change is the best to reduce emissions while also growing our economy?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I think we recognize that to reduce emissions, people need help. So we have a fund coming from a polluter-pay principle that puts money back.

Many members over here are running online petitions. We have carbon calculators and we have links to the programs of our province and municipalities. It’s interesting, Mr. Speaker, because the members opposite—Nipissing, Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Perth–Wellington, Sarnia–Lambton, and Haldimand–Norfolk—are all running online petitions against carbon taxes, against their own party’s position.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Focus.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

It was really wild for me because the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke was demanding that we spend more money on home retrofits—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —on propane and oil; at the same time, they’re running petitions against any revenue, and the balance of the caucus thinks it should be revenue-neutral so there will be no money for carbon reduction programs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A reminder to stay focused on government policy, please.

Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you to the minister for that response. It is indeed confusing where exactly the Leader of the Opposition stands and what the rest of his party actually believes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m going to ask: If members already have been instructed to stay on government policy, just ask the question in a different manner, please.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I believe that our Premier said it best: It’s better late than never. So our government has taken significant action to fight climate change and is presenting a credible path forward with our cap-and-trade program. All proceeds from the cap-and-trade program must be reinvested in green projects that reduce or support the reduction of greenhouse gas. Can the minister please inform all three parties on the strict rules and regulations that we have put forward about reinvesting our proceeds?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As I’ve said in the House before, we have some of the highest standards. We have an action plan. We can only spend this on GHG reductions. It’s separately accounted for. It’s reviewed. The greenhouse gas reduction account manages it. We can only spend it on investments post-2014 that add net new greenhouse gas emission reductions.

We’re very clear, and I’m very proud to be part of a government that is providing global leadership right now on climate change. All of our members support our policy. None of our members on this side are running rogue websites attacking their own party policies, and we believe it has to be revenue-positive for people who are reducing their emissions, for the same reason that the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke raised in the House.

Every building has to be retrofitted. Every northerner has to have access to a low-carbon vehicle. Every farmer has to have offsets in their fields to get money and to put greenhouse gas emissions—

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

New question.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Over the last two years, I’ve asked the minister about outrageous expenses at the Housing Services Corp. He says the problem is solved, because he hired Weiler and Co. to do an independent review, but the review appears to be a long way from independent.

Could the minister tell us whether Dennis Weiler, who made multiple donations to the Liberal Party, is the same Dennis Weiler of Weiler and Co. that did the review, and if Daniel Waterston, who was a senior partner of Weiler and Co., is the same Daniel Waterston who donated thousands to the Liberal Party, was the Minister of Education’s CFO in two elections and is married to someone who works in the minister’s office?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, with all due respect, that’s probably the strangest question I’ve ever received in the Legislative Assembly. I’ll admit quite openly that I don’t know any of the people that he mentioned. I don’t know what their giving pattern is, and frankly I don’t care, as long as they do what they do within the rules. That’s their democratic right as an Ontario citizen.

As for the Housing Services Corp. itself, the honourable member has asked me on, I think, 35 different occasions for a substantive answer, and on all those occasions I have, so I don’t have anything more to say.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Weiler and Co. did a review of expenses and didn’t even notice the fact that people were using their corporate credit cards to pay for personal expenses, something that has cost many other people in government their jobs. They failed to find the problematic spending that we’ve raised right here in the Legislature, and they didn’t talk to a single housing provider.

How can people have any confidence that the waste and mismanagement of the housing money that has been going on at Housing Services Corp. is solved, Minister, if the Liberal-friendly firm that did the review failed to find even the problems that we knew about already? Is this just another Liberal cover-up?

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Before I go to the minister, I’m a little concerned of a pattern that seems to be being created, and that is that you know you’re going to be asked to withdraw, but you say it anyway. Get in front of it. Don’t say it. It’s not acceptable.

Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I spent a good portion of my time as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing trying to put out the fires that the honourable member’s party started when they created the Housing Services Corp.

By the way, you had some good ideas when you set it up, and we want to hold onto those good ideas. The concept of the needs of everyone superseding the needs of the one—that’s the principle that this was based on. It’s a good principle. It was solid then, and it’s solid now. We’ll continue to walk through whatever little rubble is still there to pick up the pieces and make sure it works even better.

Steel industry

Mr. Michael Mantha: Good morning to you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier.

Ontario’s steel communities are in crisis, Premier. We know this. These communities are seeing massive financial losses, job losses and mill closures as foreign countries flood the markets. People in Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton are being faced with layoffs and uncertainty. Workers and their families need an economic development plan that works for them.

It seems as though the member from Sault Ste. Marie would rather deflect any demands to his federal cousins in order to address the issue.

Are the Premier and her minister prepared to come to Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton to meet with municipal leaders, steel unions and creditors and work together to determine what measures this government—not the federal one, but this government—should be taking to assist these communities, and put pressure on the federal government to impose tariffs?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: The issue that the member talks about is a very, very important issue. It takes the NDP to take an important issue like the challenge facing our steel industry in Ontario and across North America and try to turn it into a partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: There is not a member in this House who has gone to bat for the steel industry any harder than the member behind me, the member for Sault Ste. Marie. He talks about it every single day. He talks to me every day about this issue. He knows it’s important for the Soo, and he is working with us and our government to encourage the federal government to put in place the measures they need to be able to respond to these dumping challenges in a more effective way. I thank him for his leadership.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Maybe I was in high school, but I remember an NDP government that rolled up their sleeves and got involved with Sault Ste. Marie when it needed help in the past.

By the end of August, the money will run out. Workers’ pensions are not secured, and they have already had parts of their benefits cut. Steel communities’ cries for help have been falling on the deaf ears of this government. We need action now. We need to work with all stakeholders to ensure that steel communities are not completely devastated.

Will the Premier and her minister stop grandstanding and deflecting to the feds and take action immediately for the people in the steel industry?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member obviously isn’t aware, but there’s a federal act in this country called the Special Import Measures Act. That’s the act under which parties can make applications to the federal government when there are dumping issues happening.

There is no question that there is dumping going on—whether it be from China, India, Russia or other countries—that is severely hurting our steel industry here in Ontario and across North America.

The federal government is aware that there are challenges with the current act. The previous government was—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’ll try again.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The previous government was aware of this, planned to take action and were too slow to do so. So we’re counting on the new government in Ottawa to take the action they need to take in order to respond effectively to these dumping issues.

Education

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is for the Minister of Education. One of our top priorities is to support our children with the best possible start in life through our publicly funded education and early-years systems such as full-day kindergarten, which is of great benefit to my daughter and to tens of thousands of other young students.

Our government has made significant gains in all four publicly funded education systems, to provide a strong foundation for our students. This year’s budget will focus on getting Ontario on track to a balanced budget in 2017-18.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: This year’s 2016 budget includes key components for education. Can the minister share what things she’s doing to continue to improve education for our children?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m so glad his daughter enjoyed FDK.

We believe that every child in Ontario deserves access to a world-class education and has the right to a supportive learning environment.

This year, in the 2016 budget, we’re addressing the recommendations put forward by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We believe that all students, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, are enriched by learning about the histories, cultures and perspectives of First Nation, Métis and Inuit people. As part of the 2016 budget, we’re investing $15 million over three years to develop additional teaching resources, build capacity and provide professional learning for our educators so that they can teach every student about residential schools, treaties and the role of indigenous people in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Mr. Speaker, through you, I want to thank the minister for the answer.

We’re very proud of the accomplishments and investments we’ve made in education. In my own riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I was pleased to find out about the funding to expand Norseman Junior Middle School.

I’m also looking forward to hearing about the Grants for Student Needs, which is going to be released at the end of March. This is going to better support students in the classroom.

I was also pleased to hear our government’s commitment to ensure that school boards have the support required to successfully integrate Syrian newcomers into Ontario’s education system and to make their transition as seamless as possible.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please share with us what is being done to support our Syrian newcomers?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As part of our 2016 budget, we are also updating our enrolment forecast to expand the enrolment, to allow for the children who will be coming from Syria—approximately 4,000 Syrian newcomer children, we think. We’re committed to ensuring that school boards have the resources required to support our Syrian newcomers as they enter our education system. We’ve begun by providing support for detailed initial assessments, to determine our new students’ needs. Some of them have come from very challenging situations. We’re supporting language and mental health services, to make sure that their transition to our education system is as seamless as possible.

We continue to invest in the well-being of all our students, so that they can all become actively engaged and well-educated citizens.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. In a few minutes, we’re going to be voting on the government’s budget bill. It will make life in Ontario far more expensive and unaffordable. Tax credits that help children, families and seniors are being eliminated. In fact, 92% of seniors will now pay almost double for their prescription drugs. The price of gasoline; home heating fuel; fees for drivers and vehicles; camping in provincial parks; fishing and hunting licences; event permits—all going up.

But job forecasts are going down. Last year, the government projected that 93,000 jobs would be created this year. Now they’re cutting their forecast by 15,000 jobs.

Does the Premier realize that all of the added costs in this budget will reduce disposable income, depress spending and cut jobs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we are going to be doing a vote on the budget bill—a budget that is the most progressive we’ve had in so many years, that invests in our economy, an economy that is now outpacing and growing and leading Canada, an economy that’s creating more jobs than ever before. We have lower unemployment than the national average.

This is a budget that invests in infrastructure, that invests and participates with business to maintain a very dynamic and competitive climate, that invests in our young people. We’re providing a tuition that’s going to enable more young people to access post-secondary for free, Mr. Speaker. This is a budget that provides social security, retirement security—

Mr. Paul Miller: Thirteen million people.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek can hide his voice, but I still hear it.

Please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: This is a budget that enables Ontarians to be more competitive, and it’s a long-term vision. The people opposite—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: The Liberals have made Ontario the most indebted subnational government on the planet. It took 137 years for this province to reach a debt of $139 billion when this government took office, but it only took them a dozen years to double that debt and now send it to $308 billion this year. That means we will be paying almost $1 billion every month just in interest.

Their waste, mismanagement and scandals are behind every decision they made. It was never what’s good for the people; it’s always what’s good for the Liberal Party. That’s why they cut programs for children and seniors, why they doubled the price of drugs and why they’re raising the cost of everything.

Speaker, my question is, when is the Premier going to put the people ahead of herself?

Hon. Charles Sousa: As I was saying, the members opposite are not being progressive at all. What they are showing right now by their very actions is short-term thinking, and they want to go back in time when we had worse conditions and less competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, our net-debt-to-GDP ratio, which is an important measure of our ability to service debt, is actually lower than anticipated—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Before the MaRS scandal, before the Ornge scandal, before the gas plants scandal—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark, come to order.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, our accumulated deficit to GDP is the same today as it was 12 years ago. Our interest on debt today, which the member opposite just made reference to, is at just about 8.9%. When they were in power, it was 15%. It was much higher than it is today.

We are managing our debt. We’re investing in infrastructure. We’re investing in our communities to make us more competitive, and our economy is growing.

Animal protection

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Speaker, as we know, in October, 31 dogs were rescued from a horrible dogfighting ring in Tilbury, where they had been subjected to years of cruel and barbaric treatment. Since their rescue, the OSPCA has filed a court application to have 21 of these dogs euthanized, even though organizations have been lining up with offers to rehabilitate them, in or outside the province.

These dogs have suffered at the hands of humans, yet this government feels the only humane decision is to put them to death. You can stop this. All dogs deserve to be protected.

Will the government grant a special designation and commit to protecting these dogs, instead of condemning them to die?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I will remind the member again, as I did yesterday, that she’s asking about a court process which is underway right now involving the OSPCA. We do understand that this is a challenging issue, and many individuals and organizations are concerned across the province.

But as the member knows, there is currently an application to the court by the OSPCA for permission to euthanize 21 of the 31 pit bull dogs seized from an alleged dogfighting operation, citing risks to public safety. However, the remaining dogs are being rehabilitated for relocation outside the process.

OSPCA, Speaker, as you are well aware and the members are aware, is the organization that is responsible for animal welfare. They have significant expertise in matters relating to animals and their welfare and rehabilitation. They’re pursuing a court process. We should respect that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: These dogs can be rehabilitated. There are experienced and caring organizations lining up for the opportunity, and loving homes to adopt them. Your instinct is that killing these dogs is a better option. At no point should killing these dogs even be an option.

We’ve had this conversation before. This is the same government that nearly allowed 99 animals to be put down after a ringworm outbreak. Minister, this is the wrong decision again. As long as this government continues to support breed-specific legislation, these dogs will always be at risk.

Will the government do the right thing and work with organizations that actually want to rescue these animals, or is putting them to death your final answer?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Our government takes the care and protection of animals in Ontario very, very seriously. We are proud to have some of the highest standards for animal welfare in Canada. The OSPCA is an independent charitable organization that provides a number of services, such as animal shelters, veterinary and spay/neuter clinics, and public education about animal welfare.

Additionally, the OSPCA act, which is legislation of this House, authorizes OSPCA inspectors and agents to enforce any law pertaining to the welfare of animals. Police may also enforce those laws.

Contrary to the public reports—I want to repeat this again—the government of Ontario does not currently have legislative authority or regulatory authority to direct the OSPCA to take or not to take any particular action. This matter is before the courts. A judge will make a determination. The OSPCA is seeking that approval. We should let the court proceed, based on the law.

Energy policies

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Energy. As a proud representative of Northumberland–Quinte West, I know very well that we are blessed with many advantages, living in beautiful rural Ontario. However, there are also some additional challenges.

In rural areas, residents face fewer options when it comes to their energy supply and costs, specifically with heating their homes. Many rural areas do not have access to natural gas and must use alternative methods to heat during cold periods. Many rural residents ask for better alternative options for heating, including extending access to natural gas for rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, I know this government is listening to rural Ontarians and building a plan to help make life easier. Through you to the minister, what action is being taken to benefit rural Ontarians and their energy needs?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for the question. Our government is taking major steps towards providing less expensive home heating for rural communities.

Last year, I wrote to the Ontario Energy Board, asking them to explore opportunities to facilitate access to natural gas. Now the OEB is holding public hearings on how best to recover the costs associated with providing gas to communities that currently do not have access. In fact, Union Gas has already applied for approval to extend natural gas into five rural communities, and they are working with a large number of others.

Also, as mentioned in the 2016 budget, which we’re voting on today, our government is developing a $200-million natural gas access loan program and a $30-million Natural Gas Economic Development Grant to help communities accelerate their access to natural gas. We’re listening to the rural communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Minister. This government’s commitment to expanding access to natural gas in rural communities is incredibly important to rural energy customers.

However, this government is very aware of the current pressures of living in rural communities, and has a number of programs to assist rural customers with the cost of electricity, including the rural and remote electricity rate protection program.

When you look at the proposals in the 2016 budget, the priority to build a smarter, more sustainable and efficient energy system is very clear. Last month, this government introduced investments in measures that will help rural Ontarians save money on their energy bills if they heat through natural gas, oil or propane. The efficiency savings that can come from new technologies and equipment are surprising.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what initiatives are designed to help rural customers afford their daily energy costs?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Last month, we announced an additional investment of $100 million through the Green Investment Fund, to help homeowners reduce their energy bills and cut greenhouse gas emissions. We’re working with Enbridge and Union Gas to offer the program outside of their service territories and to homeowners who heat their homes with natural gas, oil and propane. This will help about 37,000 more homeowners conduct audits to identify energy-saving opportunities and then take actions, such as replacing furnaces or water heaters and upgrading insulation.

Secondly, Hydro One has launched a heat pump pilot program to help customers with electric space heating and water heating. If you heat your home by electricity, Hydro One will pay 50% of the cost for an industry-leading air source heat pump, reducing space heating costs by 50%, with savings of $750 to $1,500 per year. Hydro One will also pay up to $800 for a water-heating air source heat pump, reducing water heating costs—

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

New question.

Wind turbines

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Minister of Energy: The Independent Electricity System Operator just approved a massive wind project in North Stormont, an unwilling host township where the population came together to oppose the wind farm. You just said a few minutes ago that you’re listening to rural communities, so why do you allow your agencies to ignore municipal decisions?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The successes today with respect to these announcements is that five wind contracts with an average price of 8.59 cents per kilowatt hour significantly lessen the average price of 2009 for a large feed-in tari