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

February 16, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Feb-16 (PDF)

L135 - Tue 16 Feb 2016 / Mar 16 fév 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 16 February 2016 Mardi 16 février 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

John Clement

Oral Questions

Mental health services

First responders

Health care funding

Employment

Transportation infrastructure

Privatization of public assets

Government anti-racism programs

Public transit

Employment

International trade

Domestic violence

Government’s record

Black History Month

Hospital funding / Financement des hôpitaux

Transportation infrastructure

Visitor

Bruno Romano

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Lunar new year

Gasoline prices

Souper Time

Infrastructure program funding

Winter road maintenance

Lunar new year

Earthquake in Taiwan

Kindness Week / Semaine de bonté

Claudette Miller

Annual report, Ombudsman

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Introduction of Bills

Saving the Girl Next Door Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la sauvegarde des jeunes filles

Stephanie Holdings Ltd. Act, 2016

Black History Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois de l’histoire des Noirs

Bill Bedford Professional Corporation Act, 2016

839255 Ontario Inc. Act, 2016

Life Lease Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les baux viagers

Elimination of Ground Current Pollution Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’élimination de l’électropollution du sol

1709542 Ontario Corporation Act, 2016

Base2 eBusiness Solutions Inc. Act, 2016

Motions

Appointment of Chief Medical Officer of Health

Appointment of temporary Ombudsman

Appointment of Ombudsman

Private members’ public business

Order of business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Ministry of Transportation

Petitions

Hydro rates

Air-rail link

Privatization of public assets

Gasoline prices

GO Transit

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Health care funding

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Health care funding

Health care funding

Missing persons

Health care funding

Mental health and addiction services

Orders of the Day

Black History Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois de l’histoire des Noirs

Black History Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois de l’histoire des Noirs

Private members’ public business

Health Information Protection Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Adjournment Debate

Taxation

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Murray moved 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.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Mississauga–Brampton South, who I’m sure will be joining us shortly.

Before I get started, I want to welcome all members back to the House. It’s nice to see our colleagues. I hope you had a lovely Christmas and seasonal holidays, and had some time and rest with the families and loved ones we spend too little time with. So welcome back to all my colleagues, and happy new year.

Mr. Speaker, today I’m pleased to move second reading of the proposed legislation that would support Ontario’s effort to keep valuable resources—in our landfill. Of course, this bill is also intended as part of our climate change strategy, as it makes a very important contribution to that effort from the Ministry of the Environment.

Bill 151, known as the Waste-Free Ontario Act, is part of a bold plan to transform how we manage waste. If passed, the proposed legislation will make producers fully responsible for resource recovery and the reduction of waste associated with their product, which is quite a shift from the way we currently manage it.

Our approach is outcomes-focused rather than prescriptive. The bill would provide producers with the flexibility to manage waste in the most cost-efficient and effective manner. It would encourage innovation, lower recycling costs and allow for greater consumer participation through convenient recycling options.

Shifting the costs associated with recovering end-of-life products and packaging from municipal taxpayers to producers would also save money for municipalities and improve the sustainability of municipal waste systems. If passed, this legislation would help us reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets and achieve goals in our climate change strategy. It would boost the Ontario economy and create jobs, while saving taxpayers money. I think those are three things that all members of this House would agree are good things to be doing.

I’d like to start with the circular economy. I know that the member for Huron–Bruce and the member for Toronto–Danforth joined our delegation to COP21 in Paris, and I think that many of them will remember being in front of the Paris city hall and how often we saw the concept of a circular economy, which is a foundational policy right now in countries like France, Britain and the Netherlands.

The spinoff of a circular economy will cross all sectors of Ontario’s economy. In some ways, this is first and foremost an economic bill, because its biggest impact will shift us from an economy in which we waste resources and add cost, to one in which we recover resources and improve productivity. I’d like to give you two examples, Mr. Speaker, if I can pause for a moment.

Right now, we make aluminum, one of the most carbon-intensive and polluting products that we make. We source bauxite in Jamaica and ship it to Canada; we mine alum, and we transport it. It is one of the most intensive forms of producing materials. In Quebec and Ontario, we have three steel smelters and we have one aluminum smelter. We have enough aluminum in our waste and recycling stream and enough steel to be able to run those plants. As a matter of fact, in Ontario we have three steel plants right now that run entirely—entirely—on recovered steel.

If we ran the Alcan aluminum smelter on recovered aluminum, we would cut the energy—I just want to put this on the record; this gives you an idea of how dramatic the impacts of this legislation would be. We have enough aluminum in Quebec and Ontario to supply our regional aluminum smelter with enough aluminum that we would never have to mine it. It would cut the amount of energy required to make aluminum for the auto sector and our beverage industry by 95%. So when you see major industrial sites being able to reduce their energy costs and their energy use 95%, you get a sense of how dramatic this shift would be.

Beyond the shifting in resources—a less-energy, lower-carbon economy—there are other ways in which this bill will actually help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy, which calls for a resource and waste reduction framework to assist Ontario’s shift to a circular economy, will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Ontario, absolute greenhouse gas emissions from waste increased by 25% between 1990 and 2012. In 2013, the Ontario waste sector was responsible for nine megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, 5% of the provincial total; 93% of those emissions came from waste sent to landfills. Most came from organic waste.

What is more, every year in Canada, about $1 billion worth of recoverable materials are sent to landfills.

Products made from recycled materials, as I said, require less energy, have fewer greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the demand for raw materials. Equally importantly, waste prevention and resource recovery will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfill, and mean that fewer emissions are generated at various stages of production.

There are also some rather remarkable direct economic benefits, because a less wasteful economy is a more productive economy and provides significant benefit to Ontario and to many sectors and industries. This bill would shift the cost of recycling to producers, who would have flexibility and efficient, innovative ways to reduce waste. This bill is likely to save the municipal taxpayers of Ontario $115 million as we shift the financial burden away from municipalities that have no real way to manage the end use of the products that they collect. They often end up in landfills or recycling and they’re dependent on the vagaries of the market.

But by shifting to making the producers who own the plants, who own the manufacturing process—it is much easier for them to reintroduce those materials at the end of the life of the product back into the front end of the manufacturing process. This is a rather remarkable shift, and in the process of doing that, about $115 million comes off the municipal tax base, which will help municipalities. That money can be better invested or saved by municipal governments.

Businesses that collect, process, broker and recover waste materials, as well as companies that manufacture them and distribute products made with recovered materials, stand to benefit from expanding markets. Through procurement policies and other things that we’re doing, we will be looking at opening up more market demand for recovered materials.

Studies across Canada and around the world have shown that Ontario’s existing waste diversion programs can create up to 10 times more jobs than waste disposal. While waste disposal is not a labour-intensive activity, recycling and resource recovery is labour intensive; it requires a lot of people and it creates good-paying jobs.

One study indicates that diversion of organic waste creates 60% more GDP than disposing of those wastes. It is estimated that for every thousand tonnes of waste diverted in Ontario, seven jobs are created via the Blue Box Program and Ontario’s diversion programs.

Members of this House should be very proud. We were the first jurisdiction in the world to introduce the now ubiquitous Blue Box Program. It was done under the leadership of my friend the Honourable James Bradley, the member for St. Catharines. That was in the 1980s. Minister Bradley and I talked about the fact that this is probably the largest, most expansive bill and change to waste-related resource recovery legislation right now—and competing right now.

We’re not the first, because the Netherlands and some other countries have done this, but this is probably the biggest expansion, investment and shift in the way we approach this since the 1980s, when my friend from St. Catharines stood in this ministry.

Recovering just 60% of waste materials could create 13,000 jobs in Ontario and contribute $1.5 billion to Ontario’s GDP. That’s a very, very significant shift, and it’s important that the investments we’re making in public utilities and public services are resulting in rates of return on investment and in greater rates of job creation.

In addition to creating jobs, increasing waste diversion rates and improving resource recovery will help Ontario businesses stay competitive in the global economy because it’s more resource-productive. We have often seen some of the great work done by Sustainable Prosperity in Ottawa showing that we have a problem in Canada, across this country from sea to sea, with productivity, and mostly “natural capital productivity,” which is a big term for how efficiently we use resources in the economy. Our gap with the United States is about 25%.

If we close that productivity gap, to which natural capital productivity is one of the largest contributors, the average Canadian family would have about $7,000 more disposable income.

These things really do deal in very, very specific ways with our competitiveness, with our rates of job creation and with the disposable income of Canadians. Sadly, as Canadians—maybe because of the bounty of our resources—compared to other OECD countries, we have been much less productive in our natural capital. This bill will move us from the back of the pack to the front of the pack, certainly in legislation.

I also want to thank the many, many stakeholders over the years. This is the third time some form or attempt has been made in the last decade to fix and to improve our waste collection. I’d like to thank many people in the corporate community. Unilever Canada is a zero-waste company and a very large employer in Ontario that makes many of the household products that most of us are familiar with and pick up at our local stores.

Their company’s vice-president and general counsel, John Coyne, recognized that Bill 151 focuses more on outcomes than process and is essential to growing Ontario’s recycling programs and encouraging all producers to continue investing in product and packaging innovation.

One of the things that’s been quite remarkable, whether it’s been Unilever or Loblaws, is that a lot of the retail and producer sector has stood with us on this and has worked hand in glove with us over the last year and with the ministry to develop something that will work for consumers and work for our citizens, and really allows them the tools to take responsibility—because Unilever knows it can reduce costs if it has more control over what happens to its project.

Obviously, all of us know that one of the largest areas that fills the waste stream and the recycling stream is the products from the beverages that we all consume and drink. A lot of those are disposable as well. As we move to make more durable products, we know we have some challenges there.

I want to thank the Canadian Beverage Association. They represent more than 60 brands of non-alcoholic beverages. They employ over 20,000 Canadians, and Jim Goetz, president of the association, calls the proposed legislation a positive step in waste reduction. He sees the government’s approach to empower producers with more responsibility and flexibility as allowing the non-alcoholic beverage industry to implement initiatives that increase recycling, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and further develop a circular economy in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank some of the other folks who have worked on this: the Ontario Waste Management Association, which represents more than 300 private sector companies, public sector municipalities, and others involved in the waste management sector. Rob Cook, the association’s CEO, says the proposed legislation is an important step forward for the province. He has also said that it moves “towards a circular economy, which will improve resource efficiency, reduce our environmental footprint, increase productivity, create local jobs and foster economic growth.” I want to thank them for their work.

Environmental organizations such as Environmental Defence and the Toronto Environmental Alliance also welcome Bill 151. These organizations recognize that the government’s strategy marks the beginning of a new approach to waste in Ontario. In particular, they commend Ontario for making the explicit link between waste and climate change and committing to a vision for a circular economy where Ontario produces zero waste.

This proposed legislation would help us divert more waste from landfills, and it would increase accountability for those who produce waste and have the greatest ability to influence the design of packaging.

The origins of the current system we have go back to 2002. As some of you know and as some of you tease me about from time to time, I was mayor of the capital city of the province to our immediate west. When Premier Wynne asked me to take this cabinet post on, she was very clear that she had thought we had tried many things in the last couple of decades around waste and a lot of them hadn’t worked. I’m not taking partisan shots here, but I think it would be safe to say that while they were all well-intentioned initiatives, they left us with a very complicated system of numerous stewardship organizations.

When I actually looked at the array of market management organizations and oversight organizations, I have to say, it seemed pretty excessive. When Premier Wynne took over, she said, “Can you find a way forward that simplifies this?” Having worked in other systems and having done consulting in my life in other municipalities—I’m not sure what the thinking was 10, 15 or 20 years ago when these things were introduced, but it seemed to invite a level of complexity that would defy accountability.

One of the things that was personally very important to me in the last year, because you can imagine that this has consumed a lot of my time as minister in the last 12 months, and that of my political staff—I want to thank Colin O’Meara and my team, and my colleague from Mississauga–Brampton South who’s been a great partner in this—was sorting through this, because when you have a system that’s so complicated, where you have organizations run by industry with very little accountability, you can imagine that changing a system that’s that embedded, that involves municipalities and has complex relationships is hard.

I want to thank the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for their work and their leadership, and those same industries, because this is a dramatic level of change: The IFOs are gone, the multi-layers of organizations are gone, the market is restored, and the lines of accountability to Ontarians publicly, as well as reduced cost, are very clearly drawn in this.

I will be happy—and I hope this bill gets speedy passage because it cleans up what I think has been the better part of a quarter of a century of different types of experiments with complex models of service delivery that, while well intentioned, didn’t deliver the kind of clarity and results and accountability, we think. I want to thank Premier Wynne for her support in allowing this bill to come forward so quickly. You can imagine turning this around in one year is quite the task.

If you compare it to some of the other proposed legislation—Bill 91, bills introduced in previous Legislatures over the years to try and fix this, ones that never passed—you’ll see that this is a much more dramatic shift and a fundamental shift, because I think even the attempts of the last several years were not as stringent or as complete. This is a much more comprehensive, fundamental change in the principles and in the accountability that goes with it.

It should be very clear to everyone—whether you’re a producer, a consumer, a municipality, a provincial minister, my colleagues from the Legislature—who is responsible for what piece of this; who is responsible for managing the money and the transactions; who is responsible for the outcome; who is responsible for ensuring that the most cost-effective delivery system is in place. Our diversion rates, Mr. Speaker, went up in the 1980s, when my colleague from St. Catharines introduced the Blue Box Program, and have really struggled to get improvements beyond that in the last few years.

This will start to see greater ambition. This will put us into a system where we will see a much more significant increase in our diversion rates, moving us ahead.

It’s also interesting that some of the most successful resource companies right now—our three steel mills, the companies that are working on resource recovery and energy recovery—have cut their costs and have increased their productivity, driving more outputs with fewer inputs. When you’re making steel from old cars and old materials, or you’re making aluminum from aluminum cans and not merging that, the input costs are so much lower. It’s less energy; it is less resources. You’ve removed all of the costs associated with landfill—because when an aluminum can goes into a landfill, it sits there.

Right now, when we talk about energy, if you took all of the aluminum cans that do not end up in recycling but just end up in landfills alone, there’s enough embedded energy in those cans to run the Pickering nuclear plant for 59 days. That’s how much energy we lose—never mind the aluminum. That’s just the energy that we’ve lost by turning a perfectly usable material. Aluminum, steel, many of these materials can be reprocessed in perpetuity. The resource is never exhausted. They do not degrade.

This concept of a circular economy starts to link us up with other progressive countries and other progressive jurisdictions that do that.

The other piece that we need to do some more work on—I think it’s just one in my last few minutes I want to address before I turn it over to my colleague, who will have the last half-hour: We’re struggling with climate change right now. You’ve often heard me say in this House, when people ask me when I’m out across Ontario, “What’s your biggest concern about climate change?” I’ve said that it’s really food and water security. You look at the droughts in California, you look at the droughts in Syria; the collapse of food production in the Fertile Crescent, the most important food source in the Middle East.

In California, where 90% of our tomatoes and 74% of our lettuce comes from, they’re projected, according to NASA, after the most severe droughts they’ve ever experienced, to be in a 40-year drought, which is as far as NASA projects. We saw fires in the Prairies that had air quality warnings in Regina and Saskatoon; pine needles impacting on our forestry sector, destroying millions of acres of woodlot; and the droughts that are causing fires that are taking out many of our natural resources—both agricultural land and fires on the Prairies as well as that.

The other piece with climate change is that every one degree Celsius that the temperature changes—Ontario will be more severely hit than other places; the southern part of Ontario over the next 30 years will increase by four degrees Celsius and the northern part, where my friend Minister Gravelle comes from, Thunder Bay, will see an eight-degrees-Celsius change. We didn’t do anything about that. If you can imagine, Thunder Bay eight degrees warmer—having been the mayor of that other colder city down the highway, that may come as good news to some folks.

But the problem is that the devastating impact it will have on the boreal forest and on people’s livelihood, and on many of the industries that people in Thunder Bay live on, makes the downside a lot worse than the upside.

If you appreciate that, according to NOAA, one degree Celsius is a 7% increase in the amount of water that is absorbed into the atmosphere, dramatically changing precipitation regionally, the snow patterns and precipitation patterns in southwestern Ontario, in our food belt, or in the forestry belt in northern Ontario are going to be devastated; just the impact of that much water on trees that are not used to absorbing it, on wetlands, on the ecosystems from which many people get their livelihood—and we all depend on those forestry products and that food. We have winter roads now, Mr. Speaker, that are up for only six days a year.

The reason I was talking about food and those products and waste is because we on this planet, especially in countries like this, throw out 40% of all our food; 40% ends up in the garbage. During climate change, we’ll lose about one third of our food production. That could be offset if we were just better at managing our food resource. We import $4 billion worth of food into Ontario every year that we could grow here.

Farmers are arguably some of the most important people, if not the most important people, going forward in the next few decades as we confront climate change, because they will be farming in more hostile environments than they ever have before, and our food security, because of many of the places we get our food, will be impacted by drought.

When you realize that about nine megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions come from organic waste, that’s a lot—we’re trying to reduce by about 19 megatonnes. If we can keep that material from degrading in landfills and not allow it to emit carbon, this is one of the most significant contributions, outside of the transportation and building areas, that we can make, and at the same time, we are also saving a lot of food. It’s interesting that in Paris, France, they just introduced laws that don’t allow food to be thrown out by retailers, which is an interesting new twist on things.

While we’re not going that far, I think this is a much more positive and voluntary incentive for people to do that.

It really is a lot of us just thinking about how much resources we use, Mr. Speaker—because we use the equivalent of about nine planets. That’s how much resources our generation is using. If we continue to use nine planets’ worth of resources, we won’t be long for this Earth, because we only have one planet. These things are connected: our climate change efforts, our environmental footprint and the amount of resources we consume. Canadians throw out more garbage than any other society in the world: 777 kilograms of garbage a year. If you can imagine a stack of garbage nearly a tonne large, that’s a lot.

We can live within the norms of other modern Western economies. We certainly should be able to get to the average, which means that we would cut our waste stream by about half. If we could all quickly get down to only throwing out 300 or 400 kilograms, that would be it. Our ambitions—even if they are in the middle of the pack in mediocrity—would be an improvement of about 100% if we could just get down to the world norm.

I am very proud to be associated with this bill. I think it’s one of the most important pieces of legislation, both as an economic bill and in the 13,000 jobs it will create directly.

The indirect benefits, as we move to a more efficient economy, making us more competitive globally: removing so much of the material that is out there in landfills, rotting away, emitting greenhouse gases; repurposing our economy to a higher-productivity economy, taking about $110 million or $120 million off the municipal tax bill, improving efficiency; and—really rewarding—breaking up what is a system that was incredibly complicated and defied the kind of accountability that we would like to see. This is a bold new direction that we’re going in. It’s very different than other attempts to reform the system.

Mr. Speaker, I will turn it over to the member of provincial Parliament for Mississauga–Brampton South. In turning it over to my colleague Ms. Amrit Mangat, I want to thank her, because she has one of the tough jobs. She works with all of you to make sure that your voices and fingerprints are on this legislation, and on getting it through the House. I want to thank her personally for the great work she did on the Great Lakes bill. I think many of you had some good conversations about that. I look forward to her leadership and her stewardship here in the Legislature as we move this through.

It’s a great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, again. To my colleagues: Welcome back. Happy new year. I hope you had a lovely time with your families. We often take the folks in our lives for granted until they’re not there. God bless and keep you all safe.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Continuing with debate, I turn it over to the member from Mississauga–Brampton South.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m very pleased to rise today and speak in support of the motion put forward by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for the second reading of the Waste-Free Ontario Act. He is a minister who is very dedicated, very engaged and very passionate about fighting climate change and creating jobs.

Bill 151, if passed, would recover resources, reduce waste, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fight climate change and, as our minister said in his speech, it would also establish a circular economy.

I would like to expand on the overview of Bill 151. If this proposed legislation is passed, it would enact two acts (1) reducing waste, and (2) replacing existing programs operated under the Waste Diversion Act, 2002. And if this proposed legislation is passed, producers will be accountable in full for recovering resources and reducing waste associated with their products and packaging.

This legislation would also create a new oversight body known as the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority to oversee the implementation of the new producer responsibility model. This authority will be equipped with new powers, new compliance and enforcement tools, and with enhanced oversight and accountability.

This proposed act would also enable our government to issue policy statements to support that interest. It would require ministries, municipalities, producers and others to perform in a manner that is consistent with those policies. The second act would ensure that existing waste diversion programs can be smoothly transitioned to a new producer responsibility model.

Now, the question arises: Why is there a need for such legislation? Why is it important? Ontario’s recycling programs have been recognized internationally. Almost all Ontarians—97% of our households—have access to the Blue Box Program. In the residential sector, 47% of household waste is diverted from landfills, but the rate for the rest of the economy is much, much lower. Existing waste diversion programs cover only 15% of Ontario’s waste stream, and over the last decade, our overall waste diversion rate has stalled at 25%.

As a result, more than 12 million tonnes of waste is generated annually in Ontario, and every year, approximately $1 billion worth of recoverable materials is lost to landfills across Canada, so it’s very clear that more needs to be done. That is why Bill 151 is very, very important. It is intended to enable a shift to a circular economy which would increase resource recovery and waste reduction in Ontario.

In this proposed legislation, the new model, as I said earlier, would have a producer responsibility framework. That would make producers environmentally accountable and financially responsible for their products and packaging at end of life. The province would establish requirements that producers must meet to achieve desired outcomes for designated products and packaging. These requirements would apply to responsible producers and create a more level playing field. Requirements would be set out in regulation and producers would be able to decide how best to meet them.

In this proposed legislation, we will have a strategy to implement our broader approach, which is set out in our Draft Strategy for a Waste Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy. That draft strategy would be a road map to help Ontario to leverage planning, policy and economic tools to reduce the amount of waste generated in Ontario, improve resource recovery and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector.

Together, the proposed legislation and strategy would boost recycling in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. They would further foster innovation in product and packaging design, and they would incent companies to look for ways to make their recycling processes more economical and stay competitive. They would allow full producer responsibility for the Blue Box Program and remove the financial burden on municipal property taxpayers. Under the strategy, a plan would be developed to reduce the amount of organic materials going into landfills.

This proposed legislation would have a huge consumer impact also. How it would benefit Ontario households: Under Ontario’s proposed approach, consumers would continue to have convenient access to recycling through the blue box. In fact, we expect the public will be able to recycle more material than they can today because producers would be required to meet collection standards for more materials, and the proposed legislation would make producers responsible for providing customers with clear information about how to manage their end-of-life products, including drop-off sites.

In a more general way, Ontario households would benefit from the proposed legislation because our approach will be good for the environment and the economy.

There will also be huge economic benefits if Bill 151 is passed. It would boost the economy by recovering more resources from more waste materials and create jobs in the waste diversion sector. Our government’s proposed approach would provide a range of tools to ensure valuable resources are recovered, reused and reintegrated into Ontario’s economy, which our minister said in his speech would be known as a circular economy.

In fact, according to the Conference Board of Canada’s recent report, recovering just 60% of waste materials could create 13,000 jobs and contribute $1.5 billion in gross domestic product in Ontario. Recovering resources from waste can create seven jobs for every 1,000 tonnes of waste captured, and it will generate 10 times more jobs than if that waste were sent to landfills.

If passed, this proposed legislation would provide producers with the flexibility to manage waste in the most cost-efficient and cost-effective manner.

Since shifting costs of recovering products and packaging from municipal taxpayers to producers would also help municipalities, and municipalities could save more than $100 million annually, this will further improve the sustainability of municipal services.

There are huge environmental benefits as well. The proposed Waste-Free Ontario Act would help us reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets and achieve the goals in our climate change strategy. Landfills have an environmental as well as an economic cost. When organic waste and other biodegradable materials, such as paper, are disposed of in landfills, they begin to break down. This creates emissions such as methane, which has a global warming potential 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse gas emissions from Ontario’s waste increased by 25% between 1990 and 2012 as the waste in Ontario landfills has increased. In fact, emissions from the waste sector, including the release of methane from landfills, accounted for 5% of total emissions in Ontario in 2013. Ontario currently avoids adding 2.2 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to our air every year through our waste diversion programs. This is equivalent to taking almost half a million cars off the road each year.

Recycling uses less energy and produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than creating products with virgin materials. It also avoids the environmental impact of activities such as the extraction of raw materials.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there will be benefits for the municipalities also. Since the cost is shifting to the producer from municipal taxpayers, it would save money for municipalities and improve the sustainability of municipal services. Municipalities would realize additional savings as more materials are designated for the new producer-responsibility approach; for example, fluorescent bulbs and tubes etc.

Bill 151 would also set a clear process for addressing disputes. The proposed legislation requires dispute resolution provisions to be included in contracts between producers and other parties, such as municipalities, in order to address disputes related to services and compensation.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a transition from the proposed legislation, if it is passed—to replace all the existing programs. The proposed act was developed in response to what we heard from across Ontario. One thing we heard very loud and clear was that we needed to ensure a smooth and orderly transition of the existing programs to ensure no interruption of current services to Ontarians.

The Waste Diversion Transition Act, under Bill 151, would facilitate the smooth transition of existing waste diversion programs to a new producer-responsibility approach. The transition process would be based on four principles:

(1) Government would lead the overall transition process;

(2) Each program would have a customized transition process;

(3) Extensive stakeholder consultations would be conducted; and

(4) Finally, Ontario’s experience with and access to services such as the Blue Box Program will never be negatively impacted.

To ensure a smooth and orderly transition, Bill 151 would allow the existing waste diversion programs to continue until they are transitioned into new ones. Specifically, Bill 151 would set clear rules and responsibilities, and the process for transition. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change would provide clear direction on how the transition would be undertaken.

Working with stakeholders, each industry funding organization would develop and implement a wind-up plan for its own program and itself. The new Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority would approve and oversee the implementation of the windup plans, to ensure that the minister’s direction is followed and to mitigate the risks of any interruption in services.

If Bill 151 is passed, we will be also working extensively with all relevant parties—including the existing industry funding organizations, producers, municipalities, waste management providers and the public—on how to make this transition as seamless and as efficient as possible, without disruption to program services or funding.

The Draft Strategy for a Waste Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy would provide a road map for transitioning to the existing programs. If the proposed legislation is passed, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change anticipates that the transition of the municipal hazardous or special waste program, waste electrical and electronic equipment program, and Used Tires Program could be complete within two to four years. However, the transition of the Blue Box Program may take longer, as government, municipalities and producers would need to discuss the transition process extensively to ensure that residents continue to receive convenient and accessible collection services.

Now I would like to talk about the transition of the Blue Box Program, and its transition under the proposed legislation. As I said earlier, Ontario is recognized internationally for our recycling programs. The blue box system is a key contributor for reducing waste in Ontario while providing households with a convenient way to recycle their printed paper and packaging. A remarkable 97% of households in the province have convenient access to these programs.

This legislation, if passed, would ensure that everyone—whether in southern Ontario, or in northern Ontario, in urban and rural areas—would have the same level of convenient access to the blue box services that they have today. The proposed new oversight body, the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority, would be responsible for enforcing these service standards. I want to assure all members that the government would only transition the Blue Box Program to the new producer responsibility framework when producers are fully ready to deliver blue box services based on standards set by the government.

I would also like to touch on organic waste diversion. As I said earlier, our strategy includes a plan to increase the diversion of organic waste. Organic waste such as food, leaves and yard waste makes up about one third of Ontario’s waste stream. Much of this material still ends up in landfills. Keeping organic waste out of landfills ensures valuable nutrients are recovered, and it will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing organic waste will require coordination among multiple players, including households, waste-service providers, restaurants, food manufacturers, retailers and food distributors.

That is why our draft strategy makes it clear that the development of our organic action plan would be steered by a stakeholder working group to coordinate efforts and identify the best tools to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked about how the proposed legislation and strategy would address the Blue Box Program and organic waste. Now I would like to turn to industrial, commercial and institutional waste.

As I noted earlier, Ontario’s current overall waste diversion rate is about 25%, but for the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, the rate is only 13%. The proposed legislation and draft strategy would provide a number of tools to increase diversion in these sectors. More materials would be designated under the new producer-responsibility approach. We would require more waste generated in industrial facilities, commercial establishments and institutional buildings to be diverted. Our organic action plan and disposal bans would also assist with diverting more waste from those sectors.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize some companies’ extensive effort in increasing diversion. Our draft strategy seeks to develop markets for materials and support behaviours that reduce waste materials before they are generated.

As I was talking about industrial, commercial and institutional waste—last year I had the opportunity to visit a school. Some institutions are doing it on their own. It is an elementary school, and the name of the school is St. John Bosco School. The students collected 730 kilograms of batteries, more than any other school in the province, because they strongly believe that recycling batteries protects our natural environment. I would like to congratulate all the students of St. John Bosco elementary school for doing such great work, who were doing it with the help of an NGO, Earth Rangers.

Mr. Speaker, in preparing the proposed legislation, Ontario looked to other jurisdictions—we didn’t do it in a vacuum—which have started to move toward a circular economy already. They are implementing producer-responsibility approaches and other targeted measures to manage waste. We found that those jurisdictions that measure and invest in the effective use of their resources not only reduce waste but also improve their economic output.

For example, Quebec’s residual materials management policy sets out actions, timelines and targets related to waste diversion in the residential, industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. Their approach includes producer responsibility, landfill bans and a landfill levy to fund waste diversion initiatives and new infrastructure.

British Columbia has implemented producer-responsibility approaches for a number of types of waste, including a program for residential packaging and printed paper. Disposal bans have also been used at the provincial level in British Columbia for beverage containers and at the regional level for a number of additional materials, including organic waste, in metro Vancouver and Nanaimo.

California has set a goal of 75% recycling, composting or reduction by 2020. The state has implemented a range of initiatives to achieve that goal: Producer responsibility—again, the same model, voluntary and government-run programs, as well as retail take-back programs, are in place, supported by source separation requirements and landfill bans.

In Europe, Austria and the Netherlands have achieved or exceeded recycling targets by implementing a range of policy tools to increase resource recovery. These include producer responsibility, which we’re going to adopt if this legislation is passed, disposal bans and voluntary agreements. Germany has achieved a 40% increase in resource productivity since 2000 and reduced its domestic material consumption. Producer responsibility is applied by almost all those jurisdictions to a number of waste materials, such as packaging and household hazardous waste.

Ontario’s proposed legislation and our strategy for a waste-free Ontario build on the experience of these and other jurisdictions. We are looking to what all those jurisdictions have done and how we can adopt those programs.

As I said earlier, Bill 151 will not only be good for our environment; it will also recover resources and reduce waste, while also supporting our climate change strategy and helping us reduce greenhouse gas emissions—as well as creating jobs in that sector.

I don’t see any downside to this bill; it’s a win-win situation. I’m very pleased to support this bill, which is good for the economy, good for everything. It would boost the economy and create conditions to recover more waste materials and create more jobs. I encourage all members of this House to swiftly get this bill passed so that all the players in the industry can benefit from it. I will be very pleased to support this bill.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: That was almost an hour that we heard from the government on the new Bill 151. This kind of replaces Bill 91, if you recall. That was from a previous Parliament. It ended up in the recycling bin because it was such a bad piece of legislation. Thankfully, in this piece of legislation, they have incorporated some of the suggestions that our critic at the time, Michael Harris, made when we debated Bill 91.

I want to talk about the record of the government when it comes to waste diversion. It is a hugely important subject in our economies and in our province today to deal with the waste, because we produce vast amounts of waste, I believe, sometimes, unnecessarily. Nevertheless, we still have to deal with it.

I remember, when this government came to power in 2003—yes, 2003—they promised that they would have a waste diversion rate of 60% by 2008. They brought in

an act in 2004, promising a waste diversion rate of 60% by 2008. It was 25% when they came into power. In 2008, it had not improved. They have a record of failing repeatedly when it comes to the issue of waste diversion.

We’re largely in support of this act. We’re going to be looking for some changes—our environment critic will be speaking to it shortly as well. But this can’t be just another one of these Liberal publicity stunts, where, at the end of the day, they end up bringing in

an act that fails again, like their Bill 91, which never even saw the light of day, because even they themselves realized that it was not going to be successful.

So I hope that they’ve figured this one out and we can act on waste diversion in a way that truly, truly reduces the amount of waste we are turning to our landfills in this province, because it’s something we must do.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I want to welcome everybody back from—I won’t say a break, because it was a recess from the Legislature. I’m sure everybody was busy back in their ridings. I don’t want the public thinking that, during a recess here, we are not working back in our ridings.

It’s my pleasure to join in the conversation about Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act, or—the long-form title—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.

There’s been a lot said about waste management, and I think that we could all do our part to do a better job of waste management as far as recycling and that sort of thing. I’m reading through some of the notes here, and what jumps out at me is that, although it states that the producers of these products would be responsible for the cost of reclaiming the materials they used, such as packaging, municipalities would act as a service provider to producers to help them fulfill their obligation under the act.

The fact that there are no details yet as to how municipalities are supposed to do that, that it’s going to be rolled out throughout the regulations—we don’t have a lot of information on that, and that’s concerning to me, specifically in my riding, where we face a lot of economic challenges. We certainly don’t want any surprise expenses to municipalities while they’re trying to enforce or facilitate producers of these materials in recovering material.

It will be interesting, as the debate progresses, to see how these issues are going to be addressed and how municipalities are actually going to be affected by this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now recognize the member from Kingston and the Islands.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: It’s certainly a great pleasure to speak today on Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2015.

Ontario’s leadership in creating a circular economy is nothing short of inspiring, as is the work of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I would like to thank the minister for noting the international and national implications of climate change and some of the impressive achievements from around the globe.

A circular economy where nothing is wasted is critical to not only Ontario’s future but also Canada’s future. Just the other week, I had the privilege to tour the recycling facilities at the Kingston Area Recycling Centre, led by Derek Ochej and Heather Roberts. Each one of our municipalities keeps track of our recycling rates. For example, 92% of Kingstonians are using their blue and grey bins, but only 50% are using their organic waste bins.

As the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has mentioned, there is an entire economy that is created through recycling. Consider, for example, plastic juice containers, which are purchased from our recycling facilities at between $400 and $700 per tonne, as opposed to cardboard juice containers, which garner around $90 per tonne.

The recycling economy is very relevant to our municipalities across the province, but it also needs to become more relevant to each and every one of us as we make individual purchasing decisions. Considering that waste management contributes $2.1 billion to Ontario’s GDP, and every 1,000 tonnes of diverted waste from landfill generates seven full-time jobs, Ontario is on the right track.

It is my greatest hope that each and every member of this House will support this very important bill.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure for me to speak for just a couple of minutes on Bill 151. As most people have noted, it’s a very substantial act, and I want to thank the ministry for including some of the suggestions that our party and others in the province made on the previous bill, Bill 91.

Any time I talk about this subject, I have to think back to the days when I was involved in municipal politics. Back when I was a local mayor and we started the blue box recycling program in our community in the late 1980s, there was a lot of pride in the fact that we were doing something very positive. Back then, we promoted the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. We did a great job in making sure that people were aware of the benefits of recycling, but I don’t think over those years we did our due diligence with the other two—and our critic the member for Huron–Bruce reminded me about recovery as well.

One of the things that I would like to impart on the debate is the fact that we should, as parties, put a lot of effort into educating the community. There are still a lot of people, especially in some of our rural pockets in the province, who still haven’t understood the importance of participating in these programs. Some of their municipal councils need some guidance and some assistance in how best to attack the importance of what’s involved in this bill.

As well, what I’d like to hear from the government is that they’re willing to listen to some other amendments and some other suggestions. In our party we believe that there should be some clear, legislated timelines to eliminate things like the eco tax. We believe that we should be meeting with the industries and our businesses about fostering innovation.

I think there are a lot of things that we could do together. If we hear from the government that they’re willing to amend this bill further, they might get a little more support as it moves forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I return to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The conversation has been pretty positive, and I hope it continues to be.

I take issue with my friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

It’s interesting, because I was living in a parallel universe at the time when my friend was a mayor. It was interesting in a sense because in Manitoba, at the exact same time, the bill from the previous government was being introduced. I said at the time, “How will this ever work? You’re basically setting up stewardship organizations that break the very idea of a market.” If you look at the systems that were built in Manitoba—and I’m not trying to take shots, because at the time, I think there was some thinking behind it.

I’m hoping we don’t start getting into a pointing-fingers game because, quite frankly, there is some shared opportunity. We’ve tried to incorporate those ideas. I put a lot of private members’ bills from the opposition into the legislation, so you’ll see some of your fingerprints on that.

This is something, in my years at the Canadian Urban Institute and others—I’ve worked in this field for so long, both in the public sector and in the private sector—that this is engineered on a very different set of principles. It’s really creating market mechanisms and restoring the market. I think there is some opportunity, but as the member from Leeds–Grenville said, it’s going to be “How do we want to approach this together?” If people get into mud about who’s responsible for which piece of what’s broken, that’s a very destructive kind of thing. If we want to get into a discussion—people were trying to do different things at different points in time and they didn’t work.

One of the things that concerns me about going to extended responsibility—this bill actually has standards, performance standards and guarantees for remote, northern and rural communities that protect the blue box and the funding. I want to say that that was very important to us, and I know it’s important to members opposite. I’m glad that’s in here, and if there are ways to improve things, the government is very open to ideas on how to improve this.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): First of all, I’d like to thank all members for a great debate this morning and their comments. Since it is now close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I see some people standing, but I’m not sure—the member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Han Dong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to be back. Good morning.

We will be joined by members of the Ontario Association of Certified Home Inspectors: Mr. Len Inkster, Mr. Scott May and Mr. Patrick Auriol. They’ll be here in a few minutes.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As all members will recall, this is the week that we kick off Kindness Week at Queen’s Park, so I urge all members to be kind to each other. You will also remember that the members from Nickel Belt and Dufferin–Caledon and I, after question period, will be giving out kindness cookies. That’s your reward for being kind during question period—because there are cookies waiting for you afterwards.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Mr. Speaker, I love the beard.

I wanted to introduce Aerissa Roy-Dupuis, who is a student from York University in my office, here witnessing the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Would the members please join me in welcoming the family of the late Mr. John Twining Clement, MPP for Niagara Falls during the 29th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: his widow, Carol; daughter Marnie; stepson, Tony Clement, and his wife, Lynne Golding; and grandchildren Alex, Lauren, Jason, Maxim and Elexa. Tony Clement served as MPP for Brampton West–Mississauga during the 36th and 37th Parliaments.

We welcome all of you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And maybe numbers 31 and 32. Is that right? I can’t remember.

Pat Reid has joined us, as well—thank you, Pat—and former Speaker David Warner is here. The chair of the former parliamentarians, Steve Gilchrist, is also joining us today.

John Clement

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would call on the government House leader, on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Good morning, Speaker. Happy new year to you and to all members.

Speaker, I believe that you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to John Twining Clement, former member for Niagara Falls, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

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

The member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure and truly my honour today to rise and commemorate the life and career of Mr. John Clement.

I would like to start by acknowledging the members of his family who are here today as we pay our respects. John’s wife, Carol, his stepson, MP Tony Clement, and Tony’s wife, Lynne, are all here today. I’d also like to acknowledge John’s daughter Marnie and his grandchildren Alex, Lauren, Jason and Max, and thank you all for being here today.

Born and raised in Niagara Falls—anyone who reads through the history of Mr. Clement’s extraordinary life can’t help but be impressed by what this man was able to accomplish in almost everything he participated in. He was a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School, an accomplished pilot, a community man who was involved in various different community groups and, by all accounts, one of the great speakers of his day.

Mr. Clement was first elected to this House on October 21, 1971, representing the great people of my riding, Niagara Falls. Just by looking at his career highlights, it’s easy to see that Mr. Clement was a very capable representative. During his five years here in the Legislature, he would hold the positions of Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Solicitor General, and the post of Attorney General. Throughout his five years, he played an enormous role in the direction of this province.

It is clear that in this Legislature, Mr. Clement was a man who commanded the respect of his peers both in his bench and across the aisle. But I would like to remember Mr. Clement in a more personal way. As the representative for Niagara Falls, I still have the privilege of being able to meet and talk with people whose lives he touched and those he inspired.

Perhaps one of the best examples of those stories comes from Wayne Thomson, a former mayor of Niagara Falls and a current city councillor. After decades of service to our community, there is no one Wayne hasn’t met and worked with in some way or another. When you talk to Wayne about Mr. Clement, he’s very straightforward. He will tell you that Mr. Clement was a great man, a man who had a reputation of doing things his way. In the community, he was a respected lawyer and a man whose heart was dedicated to the people he served.

Wayne told me that one of the things that was most memorable about Mr. Clement was his sense of humour and how involved he was in our community. Imagine that: Mr. Clement was the right-hand man of Premier Davis; he was a brilliant lawyer, one of the most respected lawmakers of his day; and yet he’s most remembered for his caring personality. He is remembered for being a man who had a sense of humour and was willing to spend his time giving back to the community. That is why he’s remembered as a great representative for his constituents. Receiving such high praise from a man like Wayne Thomson does not come easy, but John Clement earned it.

Over the years in this Legislature, he fought tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and certainly made them proud, leaving an incredible legacy. The work he did on behalf of his constituents is still remembered to this day in this Legislature and certainly in Niagara Falls.

Now his political legacy carries on with his stepson, the member of Parliament for Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Though John and I had different political views, I can say I am proud to follow in his footsteps. He was an excellent representative for the people of Niagara Falls. I am proud to know that those who held this position before me still have such respect in their community.

I am honoured to say that Mr. Clement was from Niagara Falls, and I’m proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of this House today and remember his career and his service to his community.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: The eulogy that appears in the local newspaper is always very revealing, and if I can take the opportunity to steal a few words from that eulogy, it really captures the John Clement that people in the Niagara Peninsula, and indeed people who served with him in the Legislature, knew and loved. It says:

“John lived life to the fullest and achieved everything he wanted in life—he became a lawyer, a father, a pilot, a member of the provincial Legislature and, most proudly, a grandfather seven times over. He was known as a loyal and generous friend. He sat on the Niagara Falls school board, was president of the St. Catharines Flying Club and served as a member of provincial Parliament for Niagara Falls from 1971 to 1975. During that time he made lifelong friends from all political parties in the Legislature. A brilliant public speaker, he was a much sought-after master of ceremonies at both political and non-political functions for many years after he left public life.”

It reminds me, when you think of a person of that nature, of a person we know, Andy Brandt, who is always wanted as a master of ceremonies at so many events. John Clement was in that particular ilk, and John Rhodes as well—these are people who served some time ago, before most members of this Legislature.

In the Niagara Peninsula, John Clement was highly respected for not only his work in the community but when he went to Queen’s Park and held some senior positions—obviously an individual upon whom Bill Davis relied, with a good deal of reason, because of the kind of counsel that he gave.

I talked to a former member of the Legislature who would have known John—not that he served with him but knew him as a counsel to committees—and that was Sean Conway. The words that he kept recalling about John Clement were the words that referred to his very, very good sense of humour. He said that to sit down with John Clement on any occasion was to enjoy stories from years gone by—but a very quick wit. He could pull a saying out of the hat so quickly and disarm an audience or others.

He was also a Progressive Conservative, back when there were Progressive Conservatives. I know there are still some around. But he was a genuine Progressive Conservative, and I admired that about him. In fact, I should tell my colleagues, when I came into the Legislature, we were you; in other words, we were the rural people of Ontario and the more small-c conservative people, and this side of the House was more progressive in those days, believe it or not. John Clement was part of that.

Sean recalled a committee for which he was counsel—this was after he was no longer a member of the Legislature. It was on Inco and Falconbridge and the terrible times that they were experiencing at that time. Ron Atkey was the counsel for Inco. Conway was a member of that particular committee and John Clement was a counsel, and John turned to Conway and said, “I think we should make Ron Atkey earn his pay as the counsel for Inco,” and then mischievously, and seriously at the same time, directed many questions to Ron Atkey as the counsel for Inco.

So here was an individual, though a member of the Legislature for only one term, who had a profound effect on politics in the province of Ontario. The fact that Tony Clement is here today and has served both in this Legislature, as a member and as a minister, and in the federal Parliament as a member and minister—no doubt he received a lot of good counsel and advice from John Clement, who was a giant among people in the Legislature.

One of the things you do remember, because it was a day—and it’s more the circumstances than the individuals, I think, the timing we sit and so on. He lived in a time of collegiality in the Legislature, and he was equally popular with members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party as he was with his own colleagues. Of course, his own colleagues would agree more with his policies of the day.

He served in senior capacities—remember, he was an Attorney General of this province, which is a prestigious and important position—as Solicitor General, as Provincial Secretary for Justice, and, at the time, in an interesting Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

We in this province have been very pleased to have John’s family share him with us as a public figure in this province. Without a doubt, Ontario is a better place because John Clement served in this Legislature.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you. It’s an honour to rise in this House today on behalf of leader Patrick Brown and the Ontario PC caucus to pay tribute to and celebrate the parliamentary career of former Progressive Conservative MPP John Twining Clement.

First, let me welcome his family and friends to the Legislature, including John’s wife, Carol; daughter Marnie; stepson and member of Parliament for the great riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka, the Honourable Tony Clement, and his wife, Lynn Golding; and grandkids. I might name some, because they’re on the list I have: Lauren, Jason, Max and Elexa.

I’m also pleased to welcome the former member for Rainy River, Patrick Reid, who I spoke with just the other day. Of course, Steve Gilchrist and former Speaker David Warner are here as well. Welcome.

In his four years in office, from 1971 to 1975, representing the people of Niagara Falls, John Clement amassed an impressive portfolio of positions held in government. This, of course, culminated in serving as the Attorney General in 1975.

Prior to his election, John Clement was a successful lawyer and member of the school board in Niagara Falls.

I was not fortunate enough to know John myself, but in preparation for this tribute, I called former Premier Bill Davis, because, of course, John Clement served in his cabinet from 1972 to 1975. He also served with my father, Frank Miller, who was first elected in the 1971 election with John. Premier Davis reminded me of the connection of the Clement family to Brampton and made me promise to mention Brampton a few times in my remarks. I’m sure that Tony Clement was influenced by and became interested in politics in part because his father was an MPP, and that led him to running and becoming the MPP for Brampton. I know, in my case, my father’s involvement in politics got me interested.

Premier Davis commented that John Clement was a first-class minister. Everybody liked and respected him, including the opposition. He said that John Clement was “intellectually honest,” fun to be with, and that he appeared to be relaxed and comfortable all the time. He also said he had a great sense of humour.

John’s sense of humour came up with everyone I spoke to. The former Liberal member for Rainy River Patrick Reid said that John Clement was one of the all-time best joke-tellers in the Legislature. He also said that John was respected and liked by members from all political parties, and he pointed out that John became the Attorney General, a senior position in the government.

I also spoke with former colleague and cabinet minister Claude Bennett, who said what a “great fella” John was, respected by all sides of the House. He also commented on his great sense of humour.

I received this story from the family. I might point out that I received many other stories, some of which I was running over in the backroom and most of which I’m not allowed to use—

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Aw, come on.

Mr. Norm Miller: —as much as I would love to, because there are some pretty good stories. But this one I received from Carol, so I think it’s safe:

“When John was in first-year law school, one of his senior professors called him for a meeting where he basically told him that he thought it would be advisable for John to look for another profession. He did not think that John was cut out for law. John did not take that advice.

“Turn the page forward to when he was made Attorney General by Bill Davis. That same professor was now a well-respected senior civil servant in the Ministry of the Attorney General. One of the first things that John did was to call him and invite him to his office for a meeting. He could not resist reminding his former professor of the last time they sat down to discuss his career choices. They both laughed and developed a friendship. In latter years, I heard that story from both of them.”

John Clement loved to fly. He loved to spend an afternoon flying aerobatics in the skies over Niagara. He was a long-time president of the St. Catharines Flying Club. One of the highlights of his flying career was the 1971 air race from London, England, to Victoria, BC. I read about it many years ago in a book entitled Don’t Call Me a Legend, about international pilot Charlie Vaughn’s flying exploits, and wondered at that time if John Clement the lawyer was the same John Clement, Ontario MPP and cabinet minister. I have it here; this isn’t a prop, is it?

One

chapter of the book describes the air race. This story demonstrates John’s love of flying, sense of humour and fearless disposition. They flew in a very small aircraft, a twin-engine Piper Aztec. I would like to quote from the book because it gives an insight into the kind of person John Clement was:

“In 1971, John Clement was a lawyer living and laughing in Niagara Falls, Ontario. He was round and quick-witted. He was serious only when absolutely necessary. His measurement of any activity was the potential for having fun. As a pleasure pilot, Clement neither had the qualifications nor the aspirations to compete in a transatlantic race on his own, but the idea of doing it appealed to him.”

So he talked Charlie Vaughn, his former instructor, into doing the race with him. Charlie describes flying to London with John:

“I was happy to fly for hours without saying much, but John told joke after raunchy joke. At one point, I told him that I wasn’t interested in getting in trouble with women if we got a few days in London. He asked why I needed to mention that. I didn’t answer him right away. so he asked what I did want to get into trouble with in London. ‘Nothing,’ I replied. Then I asked, ‘What was the fuel level on the last dip?’ ‘I’m not telling you,’ he said. ‘You’ll know soon enough when they are empty.’”

They dealt with a double engine failure, icing, navigation challenges in the pre-GPS world and a broken heater over the north Atlantic Ocean, as described here:

“As the sun touched the horizon to the north, they still had a couple of hours to go. The temperature in the cockpit continued to drop. Clement looked at the ocean and mused, ‘I don’t know about you, Charlie, but I wouldn’t mind another double engine failure about now. I think that water would be warmer than we are.’”

And there were a few other quotes in here I’d like to use, but you’ll have to read the book, I’m afraid.

John lived life to the fullest and accomplished so much; however, it was his family and especially his seven grandkids who he was most proud of.

To his family: You can be very proud of John Twining Clement. He left his mark here at the Legislature and across the great province of Ontario. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka—that kind of rolled off a lot easier than at the beginning, and I apologize—and I’d like to thank all the members for their very heartfelt and warm feelings.

The family should know that he was loved, and that we will accumulate a DVD and Hansard and send it to the family as a small token and memento of how he was felt here. Thank you very much and God bless.

Although the faces change, the demeanour hasn’t. It’s now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Mental health services

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. At every corner in Whitby–Oshawa, I heard about the government’s cuts to health care. Doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, technologists and patients all told me the same thing: The impacts of this government’s cuts to health care are real.

The Premier says she recognizes the importance of mental health services, but she cut 25 desperately needed staff at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences in Durham late last year. This is on top of the 31 staff cut in 2013. Because of these cuts, some wait-lists are now a year long.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier recognize how cruel it is to encourage those suffering from mental illness to seek treatment and then cut the very services they need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, welcome back, everyone. I want to congratulate Lorne Coe on his by-election win, and all of the candidates who put their names on the ballot. Congratulations.

I know that the leader of the third party has asked a specific question about health care, and I will respond to that first by saying that we have increased health care funding year over year.

All of that is within the context of our plan. We have a plan for growing jobs and growth in Ontario. We have a plan to invest in people and their talent and skills. We are investing in infrastructure, which is creating 110,000 jobs a year right now, and will build well into the future. We are working on providing retirement security for people in this province, and we’re working with businesses to make sure that we continue to be the number one jurisdiction for foreign direct investment. That’s our—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: Not a single nurse or doctor in the province believes that this government isn’t cutting health care.

Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences is a unique facility that offers mental health services to the entire province. Yet Ontario Shores is now preparing for its fifth straight budget freeze. Mr. Speaker, one in three people struggling with mental health issues are not receiving the care they need and deserve in our province. In fact, the PTSD support wait-list is almost a year long at that facility. In any other area of health, that would be unacceptable.

Just last month, many from across the aisle tweeted and texted their support on Bell Let’s Talk Day, so why won’t the government put their money where their mouths are? Why isn’t the Premier supporting Ontario Shores and other mental health facilities in this province to the level that patients deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will just say that the investments that we are making in health, including the $138 million more for mental health that was in our 2015 budget; the increases that we have made across the board in health care, which amount to a 53% increase in health care funding since 2003; and year-over-year increases in health care, which will continue, I will say—all of that is within the context of our initiatives to grow our economy.

We know that there is a national and, in fact, an international concern about the economy. We’re very pleased that Ontario is leading Canada’s economy. We are the leading jurisdiction in terms of growth, and that is because we are making the investments that we know are necessary now and are needed for future prosperity.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: I appreciate the talking points, but I’m going to ask a very specific question about Ontario Shores.

The loss of 25 staff at Ontario Shores is having a devastating impact on the entire region. Their outpatient women’s consultation service providing treatment for critical postpartum depression can only operate one day a week now. The geriatric memory clinic and traumatic stress clinic are facing record waiting lists.

The Premier says she is committed to giving first responders quicker access to treatment of PTSD, but then she cuts funding to important facilities like Ontario Shores.

When will the Premier admit that she’s forcing the mothers, seniors and mental health patients of our province to pay for their scandals and their mismanagement? Because of your scandals, you’re cutting mental health in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The truth is that we actually spend more than $3 billion a year in this province on mental health and addictions.

It’s always more complicated than the Leader of the Opposition would like to portray it. Of those positions—he hasn’t mentioned, in fact, that 33 new positions are being created. He hasn’t mentioned as well that those and other vacancies will be made available to the individuals that he referenced earlier. He hasn’t mentioned that those decisions were made after a substantial and comprehensive review planning process, including best practices, clinical practices and engagement and consultations with the community.

Part of the solution as well, which I would hope the Leader of the Opposition would support, is, where science has demonstrated and the outcomes prove, it’s often better to care for people in the community. Community resources are being provided, we’re doubling the funding—we have doubled the funding in that LHIN for community supports in mental health.

First responders

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The Premier knows I’ve always said there’s no monopoly on a good idea. That’s why I applauded this government’s recent decision to help protect the mental health of Ontario’s first responders. Our first responders play a crucial role in protecting the public’s safety and well-being.

Unfortunately, the government’s announcement does little to help those already facing the serious and debilitating challenges of PTSD. Many of Ontario’s first responders who have been diagnosed with PTSD have had their claims rejected by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. A fix to that problem exists in the member for Parkdale–High Park’s bill, which would extend support for PTSD to first responders.

Mr. Speaker, why won’t this government fast-track Bill 2 and get our first responders the help they deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Labour is going to want to comment on this—but we recognize that PTSD is a significant risk. We understand that it is a huge challenge for people who are living in these dangerous situations in their work every single day, which is why we’re bringing legislation forward, which is why we understand that prevention has to be part of those initiatives. We also understand that we need to work on what the presumptive component of that initiative would be.

We understand both parts of this. The Minister of Labour is working with the first responders and with the community to come up with the right initiatives, but we know there has to be both. There has to be prevention and we have to work on what the presumptive component of the legislation would be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: It has now been 155 days since I asked this government to act on Bill 2. In those 155 days, I have heard from countless firefighters, police officers and paramedics who need this government’s help. That’s 155 days that the government has turned its back on our first responders.

The minister claims there is legislation coming, but Bill 2 has been sitting on the order paper for 244 days. Mr. Speaker, why won’t the Premier do the right thing? What is stopping the Premier from passing Bill 2, other than you simply don’t like it because it’s an NDP bill? It is the right thing to do. Do it.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, because it’s inadequate. It’s an inadequate piece of legislation. It is not sufficient in and of itself. It needs to be broadened. It needs to be a better—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’ll withdraw.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s not that it’s wrong. The core of the issue is there.

We have been working. The Minister of Labour has been very, very clear that we understand. We are building on work that we have been doing with first responders for years. We are the government that has brought in presumptive legislation for cancers. We’ve added diseases to that presumptive legislation.

We know that PTSD is important. We’re bringing in legislation. It will be broader than Bill 2, which was a good start. We need to get it right.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: We cannot afford to wait another 244 days. Police, paramedics and firefighters—our province’s first responders—are twice as likely to suffer from PTSD as anybody else. Just a month and a half into 2016, Canada has already lost 10 first responders to PTSD.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government waiting so long to take action on this important topic?

If there are problems with that bill, amend it. What you’re actually doing is you’re shrinking the scope. You are doing less. You are delaying. You are dithering. Do the right thing, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House and address this question, because it is a very, very important question. I think it’s one that everybody in this House understands—that the people who are on the front lines deserve the best from the government of Ontario. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

The Premier has asked me to bring forward a comprehensive approach that looks at preventing people from getting PTSD in the first place—and for those people who get PTSD, to make sure they get early identification, early intervention and early treatment.

Bill 2 is not good enough for the first responders in this province. It’s a good start. We need to go much further than that. When we do move ahead on this, I believe that Ontario is going to become a leader in this regard. That’s what I want to see.

I will note that in the history of civilization, the PC Party has raised this issue three times. Now, all of a sudden, they’re champions of PTSD.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock. Order, please.

New question.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to start by wishing everybody a happy first day of session. Welcome back to the House.

This is to the Premier. New Democrats are listening to Ontarians and this is what we’re hearing: For most people, life is getting harder, families are struggling, and now the Liberals are making deep cuts to health care.

Ask any nurse or doctor and they’ll tell you exactly how these Liberal cuts are hurting patients. It means longer wait times for seniors, fewer nurses in our hospitals and even more worry for families.

Why is this Premier cutting health care when she knows that these cuts are hurting Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Once again, let me just say that year over year we are increasing health care funding—every single year. We will continue to do that. We will continue to support the health care system as it goes through a transformation. We will increase funding in terms of community supports. We are increasing funding in terms of mental health.

The reality is that we are in the midst of a health care transformation which is part of an economic growth that is incredibly important for the people of this province going forward. If we don’t make the investments in people and in their skills and their talents, in infrastructure, including health care infrastructure—if we don’t make those investments now, we won’t have the prosperity that we know we need going forward. That’s why our plan is working, including increases in health care funding.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier should know what’s happening in Ontario. People are waiting 200 days or more for the home care that they need. Thousands upon thousands of seniors are stuck waiting for a long-term-care bed. And the Liberals’ freeze on hospital budgets has forced hospitals to cut nearly 1,200 registered nursing jobs in just over a year. Patients are suffering because of Liberal cuts but the Premier will not even acknowledge it. She’s more focused on helping her small group of friends profit off the sale of Hydro One.

It begs the question: Why does this Premier think that private profits are more important than patient care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here’s what I think is critical: the $270 million that we put into home and community care in the 2015 budget, the $4.2 million for physiotherapy and the $138 million that we put into mental health care in the 2015 budget. I would ask the leader of the third party, when the budget comes out in the near future, that she look at the increases to health care funding that will be in that budget.

We know how critical health care is to people in this province. We know with an aging population how critical it is that we get that care right, because there are families who are struggling with their elderly loved ones who are looking for the right kind of care. They may be looking for long-term care; they may be looking for home care, and we need to make sure that we make those investments in order to provide that care for people across the province. That’s what we’re doing.

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

Andrea Horwath: I would urge this Premier to listen to Ontarians in their consultation on the budget and stop the further sell-off of Hydro One. That’s what I would urge this Premier to do.

It’s like this Premier doesn’t know what’s happening in Ontario. It’s like she doesn’t know that at the start of January hospitals have cut hundreds of front-line health care workers in Windsor, Hamilton, Waterloo and Sarnia. It’s like she doesn’t think about those patients who have waited months and months for surgery and are forced to watch helplessly as this government cuts the health care system. I try to put myself in their shoes. It must be the most discouraging, frustrating and painful experience.

Will this Premier take just a moment, Speaker—just a moment—to think about those patients who are waiting for care, and tell them why she thinks that they should wait even longer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party asks that we listen to the people of Ontario, which we do.

I know that the leader of the third party understands that even in a narrow way, in terms of the budget—we listen on all sorts of subjects, but in terms of budget consultations, we have talked to thousands of people across the province face to face, online. We have heard those voices. We understand that there are concerns, and those voices will be reflected in the budget that we bring forward.

I think the other reality is that the leader of the third party doesn’t talk about the other part of the equation. She talks about where there are challenges, but she doesn’t talk about, for example, the three hospitals—Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial, Hamilton Health Sciences, and Ottawa Hospital—that are all advertising positions, that are looking for nurses to hire. That’s the other part of the equation.

Employment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. For most Ontarians, life is getting harder, and this government just isn’t helping. People are looking for good jobs that actually pay the bills. Too many Ontarians find it harder than ever to get decent work and good paycheques.

But rather than helping people, we see Liberals facing criminal charges for their conduct, and a Premier who is more focused on helping private investors profit from the sale of Hydro One. Why does this Premier not share the priorities of the people of this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am acutely aware of the concerns that people have about the economy in this country and the economy globally. I know that people are concerned about the future, which is exactly why we are making the investments that we are making. It is exactly why our plan is designed to make sure that we do everything in our power to work with businesses like Chrysler, to make sure that there are more jobs created in Ontario rather than fewer. It’s exactly why we are moving on retirement security so that people can look forward to a retirement that is secure.

It is exactly why we are investing in people’s talent and skills. It is exactly why we’re investing in infrastructure that is creating 110,000 jobs a year right now and economic growth into the future. That’s why our plan is designed the way it is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s what is happening in the Ontario that the Premier doesn’t think about. Fewer than half of all workers in the GTHA are in permanent full-time jobs—fewer than half. Windsor has the highest unemployment rate in the country for five months and counting.

Families feel like there are two different worlds in this province. There’s an Ontario where the Premier protects her friends and insiders, and then there’s one for the rest of us, where families simply cannot keep up. Why is this Premier so far out of touch with the real priorities of Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will say to the leader of the third party, there is no doubt that there are concerns about the national economy. I understand that. I understand that we are in a challenging time as a country.

But the reality is that Ontario is leading growth in this country. The reality is that our unemployment rate is below the national average. There are 600,000 net new jobs that have been created since 2008-09, including more than 40,000 over the last couple of months in Ontario. The fact is that we are doing everything in our power—and it is working—to keep Ontario on that track, to keep Ontario as a leader. It is our responsibility, given our diverse economy, given what’s happening across the country, that we stay as strong and grow as much as we can. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When the Premier boasts of opportunity and growth, most Ontarians have one question and that is, “For whom?”

Who is really getting ahead here in Ontario? It’s not the men and women who are out of work and too young to retire but too old to start over. It’s not the 300,000 families who have lost their good manufacturing jobs in this province, and it’s certainly not young people, who are stuck with an unemployment rate well above the national average. Those folks want to know: Why isn’t this Premier working for them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Given the rhetoric of the leader of the third party, I would think that she’d be very supportive of the initiatives that we have taken that are bearing fruit. She’d be supportive of the $565 million in youth employment funding that we put in place, which has found thousands of young people places.

She’d be supportive of Experience Ontario, where young people across the country are having an opportunity to have a work experience that would lead to post-secondary education. She would be supportive of the partnerships with business that have made us the number one jurisdiction for foreign direct investment.

That’s a statistic, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is, that means jobs. That means jobs created here, across the province. So I would expect that the leader of the third party would support all of those things and, as the leader of the NDP, that she would support the investments in infrastructure that are creating 110,000 jobs every year.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Norm Miller: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Premier.

Premier, the Nipigon bridge is a key asset to the province of Ontario. In December, I was able to drive across it with PC Leader Patrick Brown. Little did we know at the time that the two lanes of the bridge would only be operating for less than a month. When the Nipigon bridge failed on January 11, the only detour available was through the United States. Today, people wishing to cross it still face delays to use the single lane that is safe to travel.

Safe winter roads and reliable infrastructure are absolute necessities to the economy of northern Ontario.

The people of Nipigon have a right to know: Can’t this Liberal government get anything right? How is it possible that, under the watch of this government, such a key piece of brand new infrastructure was allowed to fail?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member opposite for the question.

First, Speaker, let me take just a quick moment to acknowledge the leadership shown by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who also happens to be the local MPP for this community. From the very day this incident took place, that member has shown tremendous local leadership.

I also want to acknowledge that all of the communities in the area—from Nipigon to Marathon to our First Nations partners in the area—whom I’ve had the chance to meet with directly have all been exceptionally patient and understanding. We work closely with them and will continue to do that, Speaker.

What I’ve said and what the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has said is that we anticipate that before the end of February or by the end of February, the second lane of traffic will be reopened on this bridge. It’s important for us to make sure that we do get to the bottom of what took place, that we provide accurate information to the public, and that we get that bridge reopened and operating safely as soon as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier:, the Nipigon bridge is as critical a piece of infrastructure as we have in Ontario. It is the single link that connects the Trans-Canada Highway. It is estimated that over $100 million of goods travels across the Nipigon bridge each day. Uncertainty of travel times is slowing this flow of goods to market, and has a negative impact on the northern economy and, ultimately, the entire province.

The construction of the Nipigon bridge has already been estimated to cost $106 million, and the bridge failure will only add to the cost.

The government has promised that the two lanes of the Nipigon bridge will be reopened by the end of February. So my question, Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier meet this deadline, or is it simply another stretch goal of this government?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’ll reiterate at the beginning of this answer, as I said in my original answer, that we do anticipate that the second lane of traffic will be reopened by the end of February.

But what I can’t help finding curious from that member, and that question specifically, is that he seems to not remember that over the last 12 or 13 years, we are the government that’s invested $1.9 billion to four-lane highways in northern Ontario, and that in my three years in this Legislature, year after year, as we included more money to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for highways in northern Ontario, that member and that party have consistently voted against the budgets that have delivered strong futures for the people of the north, Speaker.

We’re going to get the bridge reopened, and this year you should join with us to support a budget that will build this province up.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is taking a chance.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Climate change is one of the most important and far-reaching issues facing this planet. But by selling Hydro One, this government is making it more difficult for Ontario to take action on climate change. Hydro One is moving into the hands of private owners. They have no interest in conservation, since they make more profit when people use more electricity, not less. Hydro One is now moving into the hands of private owners who have no interest in upgrading the grid and connecting to renewable energy sources unless they’re guaranteed fat profit and zero risks.

Why is the government making climate change action more difficult by selling off Hydro One?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m always amazed at the ability of the NDP to spend money but never tell us where it’s coming from.

You may have noticed that we’re moving forward with a carbon market and pricing program, but we don’t have that revenue yet. We just committed to a major home retrofit program to help people reduce their heating costs and cooling costs and create jobs; a major electric vehicle subsidy program; and an electric charging program. Well, that money didn’t come from pixie dust and fairies, Mr. Speaker. It actually came from trying to manage out of the difficult recession without increasing the tax burden and reducing services.

Broadening ownership of part of a utility, which is terrifyingly, ideologically fraying for that party, is, in the world of most people, a pragmatic solution to finding money to create jobs and build our economy.

I’d be happy, in the supplementary, to elaborate further.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I guess the minister didn’t want to answer that question, so I’ll go to the second part.

Germany privatized much of its transmission grid in the 1990s, and now Germany realizes that they made a huge mistake. They now realize that if they’re to move towards a low-carbon, renewably powered economy, the public needs to own and control the grid.

The government has often looked to Germany for lessons from its renewable energy transition. Will the government learn from Germany’s great mistake and stop the further privatization of Hydro One?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Germany is closing 11 nuclear plants right now, and I don’t think we would do that, given the implications that they’ve got coal coming back online. I don’t think we need to take lessons from Germany.

One of the things this government realizes is that the world is changing at a very fast rate. You can go to Barrie, my friend MPP Hoggarth’s riding—we were out there the other day. People are now buying homes with batteries, inverters, ground-source heat pumps, solar and computers. They’re buying that because they’re net zero, and they’re actually called prosumers. They actually generate more revenue.

One of the challenges for government is going to be managing those old industrial assets that we have to for another 30, 40 years. We have to get more life out of them. We have to look at new and innovative ways to get revenues from assets that, quite frankly, in some cases, there is going to be less demand for and put them into assets like transit and other things that there will be greater demand for. To most Ontarians, I think, that’s a sensible approach. It certainly seems to be to this government.

Government anti-racism programs

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the minister responsible for the Anti-Racism Directorate. Members of this House noted that the Anti-Racism Directorate was eliminated by the Progressive Conservatives in 1995. Over a decade later, I’m proud to be part of a government reinstating the Ontario Anti-Racism Directorate.

Canada and Ontario have long been bastions for principles like acceptance and equality. While these values remain at the core of our cultural identity, the reinstatement of the Anti-Racism Directorate by our government indicates our commitment to remove the social and economic barriers inhibiting true equality.

I would like to ask the minister responsible for the Anti-Racism Directorate to inform this House on why the new directorate was created.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member from Scarborough–Rouge River for the question, and also thank the Premier for entrusting me with this responsibility that I take quite seriously.

As every member of this House is aware, individual, systemic and cultural racism continue to create unfair outcomes for racial minorities in Ontario. The time has come to remove social and economic barriers that prevent our province from achieving true equity.

In order to address racism in all forms, our government is creating a new Anti-Racism Directorate. By creating this new directorate, our government is demonstrating its commitment to building an inclusive province so that everyone, regardless of their race, ethnicity or cultural background, has an equal opportunity to succeed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you to the minister. Under no circumstance should an individual’s social status or economic potential be defined by the colour of their skin, their ethnicity or cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the creation of the Anti-Racism Directorate and the objectives articulated by the minister.

With Canada’s population growth rate below replacement levels and our continued expansion dependent on immigration, achieving true equality is even more important.

As a member of this Legislature and a diverse Canadian, I believe that this Anti-Racism Directorate is an important next step for Ontario. With that in mind, I would like to ask the minister responsible for the Anti-Racism Directorate how the directorate will go about achieving its objectives.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Again, thank you to the member from Scarborough–Rouge River for the follow-up question. I know he’s a strong supporter of equity here in the province of Ontario.

The Anti-Racism Directorate’s aim is to increase public education and awareness of racism, to create a more inclusive province; and to apply an anti-racism lens in developing, implementing and evaluating government policies, programs and services. This newly established directorate will achieve this by working with key partners from education, community-based organizations, different institutions and, of course, the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Speaker, racism continues to create unfair outcomes for racial minorities here in Ontario. By creating this new directorate, our government is building an inclusive province where everyone has the equal opportunity to succeed, do well and build the province that we all aspire to.

Public transit

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. The latest Metrolinx numbers have revealed that the near-empty UP ghost express has become even emptier: 170-seat trains rolling with less than six passengers; 2,200 passengers a day in December, well short of the 5,000 goal. All the while, we foot the bill for a botched fare-setting that was designed to pay for the unnecessary luxury, terminal-to-train boutique excess this government insisted on.

Every day that the trains get emptier, the costs grow larger. Until the fares are lowered, people will take the more economical, accessible Uber option.

Speaker, she has seen the numbers. Will the Premier tell us when she will move past assessment and discussion to actually act?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member opposite for the question. Over the last number of days, myself, the Premier and others at Metrolinx have discussed this very topic. We have all said publicly—in fact, just last week we said publicly—that we are currently analyzing the entire situation. We’re looking at every option.

We understand that the ridership needs to come up. What we’ve seen this past weekend is that there is a great deal of curiosity, interest and support for this particular service as it relates to linking Union and Pearson, but also as it relates to providing more service or transit options for people in the west end of Toronto.

Over the coming days, we’ll continue to conduct this analysis. We’ll complete that work and we will respond accordingly as soon as we are ready.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, when we asked the government to take a look at fare reductions, I didn’t think he’d actually take me up on it and make it for free.

However, it’s not just the UP Express. Last month, we were stunned to learn that this government oversaw plans for a $250-million Union Station train shed renovation and forgot to make sure their promised electric trains actually fit. How can you approve a plan for a quarter-billion-dollar train shed renovation and neglect to ensure that the trains actually fit in the shed?

Speaker, this is a classic Liberal plan—spend first and ask questions later—steamrolling ahead with transit photo ops without concern for cost overruns and logistical challenges. This is a project that’s already 25% over initial cost estimates.

Will the Premier tell us how much more it will cost to actually get her electric trains in the shed?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Of course, the team at Metrolinx, working closely with the Ministry of Transportation, has a plan over the next decade to literally transform the GO network. That member, representing the part of the province that he represents, will be well aware that we made a commitment over the next decade to take the existing GO service, which is extremely popular and wsell-used, and transform that into two-way, all-day GO service, with electrification on core segments and trains running at intervals of up to 15 minutes on those core segments. As part of that plan, we are increasing capacity at Union Station, Speaker.

But as I said to the member from Parry Sound in his earlier question, what I find remarkable is witnessing that member and that caucus repeatedly vote against every undertaking from this government and this Premier to invest in more infrastructure, to deliver more transit. They’ve opposed it, and now they’re complaining that we’re not delivering fast enough, notwithstanding their opposition, Speaker. Maybe they can get their story straight—

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

New question.

Employment

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. After having travelled across the province over the last month for pre-budget consultations, it has become increasingly clear to New Democrats that Ontario is divided. We heard some heartbreaking and painful experiences from the people of this province. On the one hand, there is an Ontario where a small group of powerful insiders who have the ear of the Premier are flourishing; then there’s the rest of Ontarians, who are struggling to keep up. They’re worried about finding good jobs. They’re worried about keeping good jobs and retiring from good jobs.

Premier, what does this government have to say to Ontario’s youth, who are struggling to find work, to people who are working three jobs to make ends meet and to people whose jobs are at risk after a lifetime of service?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I would say to people who are in those situations, who are struggling, is that I understand that this is a challenging time. As I’ve said before, it’s a challenging time in the national economy. Ontario is leading that economy, though. Ontario is leading in this country in terms of job creation, in terms of foreign direct investment that leads to jobs, in terms of investment that is creating jobs.

We are doing everything in our power to increase the growth in the province and to stay as a leader in the country. It is our responsibility as the largest province in the country, the most diverse economy in the country, to be strong, particularly when there are other economies that are struggling.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, our investments in infrastructure, in people’s talent and skills, in their retirement security and in working with business are working. We are creating jobs, working together. We will continue to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Premier, the pre-budget consultations have been a stark reminder that the gap between those who are doing well and those who are falling behind is only getting wider. St. Catharines, Niagara and Sudbury have unemployment rates of 8.6%, two points above the provincial average. Windsor’s unemployment rate is 9.3%, the highest in Canada. Windsor also has the highest youth unemployment rate in the country for the last five months and counting. These are not rates that warrant bragging rights.

Unlike this government, New Democrats are listening to families, to students and to seniors, and they’re saying that good jobs are hard to find and hard to keep. Premier, what does this government have to say to the thousands of Ontarians who are unemployed, underemployed and precariously employed under the Liberal watch?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the member opposite that I’m sure that she has listened with interest, then, as Chrysler announced more jobs in Windsor than expected, and that she has heard the job numbers over the last couple of months—with net new jobs of more than 40,000, and that the vast majority of those are full-time jobs, Mr. Speaker. I know that the member opposite is paying attention to those.

In terms of listening to the people in the province, Mr. Speaker, we did pre-budget consultations across the province: nine weeks of engagement of in-person, online, written and telephone engagement, and 20 in-person consultations in 12 cities. We heard from 700 people. So there are thousands of people from around the province from whom we have heard. We have heard their concerns; their concerns will be reflected in the budget.

The fact is, the plan we’ve put in place, working with the private sector—because government doesn’t create jobs—it’s working—

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

New question.

International trade

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

International markets play a critical role in the growth of Ontario’s economy. Trade missions are the best way for us to connect Ontario businesses with the international market. To boost Ontario’s economy, we must attract new investments, facilitate partnerships and help businesses export globally.

Speaker, the Premier and minister have organized and led a number of international trade missions to do just that. In 2014, the Premier and minister’s mission to China secured $1 billion in investments and 1,400 jobs for Ontarians. Last year, another mission secured an additional $2.5 billion and 1,700 jobs.

Speaker, in January the Premier departed for the first trade mission of 2016 to India. Could the minister please tell us about that mission and what it will mean for Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker, for the question, and I want to thank the honourable member for asking it.

Earlier this month the Premier led a very successful trade mission to India. This trade mission led us to cities like New Delhi, Chandigarh, Hyderabad and Mumbai, and drew on Ontario’s expertise in sustainable development and urban infrastructure. We were able to have valuable meetings with key Indian officials and leaders, including the Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Modi, which will help strengthen our economic ties with states and businesses.

We signed 65 new agreements between businesses and institutions from Ontario and India, valued at over $240 million, creating more than 150 jobs in Ontario.

Premier Wynne also signed MOUs with five Indian—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. It is so good to see our government and our business and institutional stakeholders taking our Going Global challenge so seriously. Our natural links to India and the goodwill built up in this mission will improve the trade and investment relationship between India and Ontario in the future.

A number of the MOUs appear to involve investments and opportunities for global growth for Ontario businesses and jobs here in Ontario.

With 700,000 Indo-Canadians residing in Ontario, we should be building stronger ties with India’s business community. India may now be the fastest-growing economy in the world and it’s time for us to invest and reach out to that emerging economic power.

Minister, can you tell this Legislature how this mission will build a stronger business relationship between Ontario and India?

Hon. Michael Chan: The Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Minister of International Trade outlined some of the successful outcomes achieved on this trip in terms of MOUs and investments landed. That’s all extremely important.

Also important are the opportunities to build stronger relationships with Indian businesses that will result in even more future investments and jobs. We met with numerous influential Indian companies, including Essel, Tata, Tech Mahindra, Mitra, Birla, Hero MotoCorp, High Tech Industries, ICICI Bank, and Paytm, among many others. We identified many opportunities for future collaboration, investment and partnerships.

And we went to bat, Mr. Speaker, for Ontario companies and communities, from Novo Plastics in Markham, Ontario, to Datawind in Mississauga. They landed significant opportunities, demonstrating how successful Ontario companies can be when they go global.

This mission was very successful, and I look forward to following up on the many leads that we identified.

Domestic violence

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. After the events this past week, of two violent domestic assaults resulting in the death of four people and severe injuries to a fifth, in Odessa and Almonte, and the three murders of women last fall in Renfrew county, the public is acutely aware that there are grave shortcomings and a failure by police, our correctional institutions and our courts to protect women and their families from domestic violence.

However, the many and numerous recommendations by my colleagues from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke have fallen on the deaf ears and the idle hands of this government.

The government is failing to protect women and their families from domestic violence. What the public wants to know, what my caucus wants to know and what I want to know is: Why?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The minister responsible for women.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I thank the member for raising this very important question.

Violence against women is indeed a very serious problem. It should never be tolerated in Ontario or elsewhere. This is a huge priority for me, as the minister responsible for women’s issues. That’s why our government continues to take concrete action to make the province safer for women.

I am aware of the cases that the member has raised. I’m working very closely with my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. There are a number of investments being made, not just in our two ministries, but also with the Attorney General and other ministries, to take a coordinated approach to our response.

Our annual funding to combat gender-based violence is approximately $456 million a year. That includes many initiatives, not the least of which is our sexual violence and harassment action plan, which was launched last year with the leadership of our Premier. We’re acting on legislative and program support initiatives associated with that, and we’re taking it very seriously.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, back to the Minister of Correctional Services: Many of those guilty of domestic violence are sentenced with a recommendation to serve their sentence in specialized treatment facilities for mental health and addictions in order to rehabilitate their violent behaviour. However, there are often no vacancies in these facilities, and the offenders are placed in general population, not getting the treatment they need, nor what the courts have ordered. While the court is expecting rehabilitation, in reality this seldom happens.

Our courts and our jails are failing each other and failing the people of Ontario. When will both our recommendations and those of the courts not be viewed with contempt and no longer fall on deaf ears and idle hands, but be heeded by this government?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I appreciate again the member raising the important issue, specifically around domestic violence.

Our Ontario Women’s Directorate has implemented many initiatives to raise awareness and provide supports for victims. This has been going on since 2004. We have many programs and policies in response to that. We have training of front-line professionals. We have public education campaigns. We have the employment training for abused and at-risk women. We have a language interpreter program.

But as my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has raised before, we are working very closely with our partners in policing and the Attorney General to look at domestic violence, to look at what happens when someone is released from offence and what that means to the community. I’ll be happy to follow up with the member directly—

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

New question.

Government’s record

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier.

Top Liberal insiders are presently before the courts facing various criminal charges for their roles in both the gas plants scandal and the Sudbury by-election. That’s now multiple police investigations into the Liberals’ wrongdoing connected to your office, the Office of the Premier.

My question is: Is this a record that you’re proud of?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the government House leader is going to want to say something on this front, but I will just say that the circumstances around the investigation concerned events that took place before I was the Premier. I think the member knows