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

May 17, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-May-17 (PDF)

L175 - Tue 17 May 2016 / Mar 17 mai 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 May 2016 Mardi 17 mai 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Hospital funding

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Access to justice / Accès à la justice

Autism treatment

Fundraising

Rabies

Autism treatment

Mental health services

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Answers to written questions

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Report, Integrity Commissioner

Report, Integrity Commissioner

Members’ Statements

Hepatitis Awareness Month

Lyme disease

Eglinton Crosstown LRT

International Museum Day

Hamilton Celebrity Softball Classic

Ajax Home Week

Kevin McKay

Children’s Mental Health Week / Semaine de la santé mentale des enfants

Vesak

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Students Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 protégeant les élèves

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

Standing Up Against Anti-Semitism in Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la lutte contre l’antisémitisme en Ontario

Free My Rye Act (Liquor Statute Law Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la vente libre de whisky (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les boissons alcooliques)

Motions

Consideration of Bill 201

Crimean Tatar flag

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Police Week / Semaine de la police

Petitions

Curriculum

Autism treatment

Elder abuse

Automotive dealers

Alzheimer’s disease

Lung health

Special-needs students

Animal protection

Water fluoridation

Hydro rates

Autism treatment

Opposition Day

Autism treatment

Private members’ public business

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I believe we don’t have a quorum, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Quorum?

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is not present.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call on the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a quorum.

Orders of the Day

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

Mrs. Mangat, on behalf of Mr. Murray, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mrs. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be sharing my time with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

I’m pleased to move third reading of Bill 151, the proposed Waste-Free Ontario Act. I would like to remind members of some of the key elements of the bill. If passed, this bill would enact two acts related to reducing waste, increasing resource recovery and replacing existing programs operated under the Waste Diversion Act, 2002. The Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act would make producers accountable in full for recovering resources and reducing waste associated with their products and packaging.

This act would overhaul Waste Diversion Ontario into the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority to oversee the implementation of a new producer responsibility framework. The authority would be equipped with new powers, new compliance and enforcement tools, and enhanced oversight and accountability.

Further, the proposed act would establish an overarching provincial interest in resource recovery and waste reduction, and enable the government to issue policy statements to support the interest. It would require ministries, municipalities, producers and others to perform waste reduction and resource recovery activities in a manner that is consistent with those policies.

The second act in the bill, the Waste Diversion Transition Act, would ensure that existing waste diversion programs can be smoothly transitioned to a new producer responsibility approach. This would allow Ontarians’ access to existing recycling services—including the Blue Box Program—to be continued. Once the transition is complete, the existing industry funding organizations operating those programs would be wound up and the transition act would be repealed.

At public hearings of the Standing Committee on Social Policy in April, we heard broad support from a range of stakeholders, including producers, municipalities, service providers and environmental organizations. They support our commitment to a circular economy and our vision for zero waste and zero greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector. They also support our move to make producers responsible for the products and packaging they put into the marketplace. Stakeholders told us in committee that they would like to see the bill passed so we can move forward with improving resource recovery and waste reduction in the province.

We have heard support for many aspects of the legislative framework, including the provincial interest and policy statements as a means of providing government direction on key matters of resource recovery and waste reduction. Stakeholders also expressed their support for the use of a non-crown body that would oversee the producer responsibility approach. They supported outcome-based resource recovery and waste reduction requirements for producers.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Natalija Fisher from Environmental Defence told the committee that the organization supports the move to encourage producers to take full responsibility for their products and packaging. We also heard from John Coyne from Unilever Canada. Unilever has more than 400 wide-ranging brands. He said that the Waste-Free Ontario Act aligns with their vision of environmental responsibility. He recognized that producers need to play both an operational and a financial role in ensuring the recovery of materials they place into the marketplace.

There is also broad support for the draft waste-free Ontario strategy, which outlines a road map for the implementation of the bill and shifting Ontario toward a circular economy and a more innovative, zero-waste future. Mr. Speaker, Environmental Defence called the proposed framework “a positive step towards the future of zero waste.” And Richard Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association said, “Bill 151 should be passed and implemented as soon as possible.”

Mr. Speaker, the government has made changes to the proposed legislation in response to what we have heard from stakeholders. Amendments to the bill made at committee will enhance the overarching direction of the legislation, increase accountability and transparency, and enhance the government’s accountability with respect to winding up industry funding organizations. They would also add some time commitments to the bill’s implementation and address some concerns we heard from municipal representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I said that the bill would establish an overarching provincial interest in resource recovery and waste reduction. In response to comments we received in hearings, we have added two aims to the provincial interest: to protect the natural environment and human health, and to foster the continued growth and development of the circular economy.

The bill, as amended in committee, will enhance fairness during the implementation of policy statements by providing an opportunity for those subject to a director’s review of non-compliance to express their opinions before a determination is made. So if a director believes a producer is not consistent with a policy statement based on an initial review, then the producer has an opportunity to provide feedback prior to the director making a final determination.

Amendments to the bill in committee have also defined key terms related to the overarching direction of the legislation, such as “circular economy,” “resource recovery” and “waste reduction.”

This bill, if passed, would increase accountability and transparency. As I mentioned, the bill creates a Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority to oversee the implementation of a new producer responsibility framework. The government was pleased to make amendments to the bill at committee related to the new authority. First, we have enhanced the minister’s ability to require public consultations related to the authority’s objects. Second, we will now require that the authority publish a description on its registry of how it considered public comments in determining fees or charges.

This bill, if passed, would also help the smooth transition of the industry funding organizations. When I say that, it means that once the transition of the existing programs is done, there will be a smooth windup of the industry funding organizations. Under the proposed Waste Diversion Transition Act, the new authority would be responsible for ensuring a timely transition of existing mandatory industry funding organizations to a full producer responsibility model and would oversee the windup of industry funding organizations.

The bill, as amended at committee, now sets a 90-day timeline for the minister to provide direction to those industry funding organizations to wind up waste diversion programs. The exception will be the Blue Box Program.

Another amendment to the bill at committee will require the authority’s annual report to be laid before the Legislative Assembly, including information regarding the progress on winding up industry funding organizations and programs. And yet another amendment will enhance enforcement tools by making it an offence for an industry funding organization to use its money or assets in ways that are inconsistent with the purposes of the proposed act. This amendment will also allow the new authority to appoint an administrator to take over an industry funding organization if those kinds of things occur.

Mr. Speaker, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario made a presentation to committee about this bill. The committee also heard from three individual municipalities: the regional municipality of Durham, the town of Ingersoll and the city of Toronto. We appreciate municipalities’ interest in the proposed legislation, and we have addressed two key municipal concerns through amendments at committee.

The bill, as amended at committee, now requires mandatory consultations with municipalities at a number of points: for example, in the development of a policy statement; a change to a waste diversion program; a program windup plan; and the operation of waste diversion programs. Amendments made to the bill in committee also provide the minister with the power to change the Blue Box Program for addressing blue box funding issues. This would help resolve an ongoing dispute between municipalities and industry stewards with respect to Blue Box Program payments.

The bill, as amended at committee, adds time commitments relating to implementation of the bill. The bill would now require the Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy to be developed and published within 90 days of the proclamation of the bill, and it would require the minister to begin developing and consulting on the first policy statement within a year of proclamation.

Mr. Speaker, the province needs this legislation. Ontario’s recycling programs, as we all know, have been recognized internationally. Almost all Ontarians—about 95% of our households—have access to the Blue Box Program. In the residential sector, 47% of household waste is diverted from landfill. But the diversion rate for the rest of the economy is 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, only three million of the more than 12 million tonnes of waste generated annually in Ontario is recovered. And every year, approximately $1 billion worth of recoverable materials is lost to landfills across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the 401 West passes through my great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. Every day, I see waste trucks wheeling down Highway 401 to London, to Green Lane landfill, to dispose of those materials. The question is, how long are those landfills are going to last? Not very long. So we need this Bill 151, which would enable a shift to a circular economy, which would increase resource recovery and waste reduction in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation would benefit Ontario households enormously. Under our proposed approach, consumers would continue to have convenient access to recycling such as through the blue box. In fact, we expect the public would be able to recycle more materials than they can today, because producers will be required to meet collection standards for more materials, such as batteries, fluorescent tubes, bulky materials, furniture, mattresses—all that kind of stuff would be recycled.

Bill 151 would make producers responsible for providing customers with clear information about how to manage their end-of-life products and packaging, including drop-off sites. Right now, all of that is done by the municipalities, but if the bill is passed, the responsibility would be shifted to the producer to give clear information, provide education and raise awareness.

Two weeks ago, I received mail at my home about how to dispose of organic materials. All those kinds of things will be done by the producer. This would save municipalities a lot of money. 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.

With respect to environmental benefits, the proposed Waste-Free Ontario Act would help Ontario 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. What happens then? This creates emissions such as methane, which has a global warming potential 25% more than carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse gas emissions from Ontario’s waste increased by 25% between 1990 and 2012, as the amount of waste in Ontario landfills 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 like taking almost half a million cars off the road each year. With Bill 151 passing, we would be able to further reduce our emissions from waste.

Our Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is very passionate about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change.

Producers would be responsible for recovering the resources and reducing the waste associated with their products and packaging. This approach would increase accountability for those who have the greatest ability to design long-lasting reusable and easily recyclable products. 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.

Bill 151 would benefit taxpayers and our economy. It would shift the cost of recycling to producers, who have the flexibility to find efficient and innovative ways to reduce waste. Once the legislation and the strategy are fully implemented, this would save municipal taxpayers approximately $150 million a year. At the same time, the bill would boost the economy by creating the conditions to recover more waste materials. That, in turn, would create jobs.

Businesses that collect those materials or process those materials and broker recovered waste materials, as well as the companies that manufacture and distribute products made with recovered materials: They stand to benefit from expanding markets.

Studies have shown that Ontario’s existing waste diversion programs can create up to 10 times more jobs than waste disposal. One study indicates that diversion of organic waste creates 60% more in GDP than disposal. It is estimated that for every 1,000 tonnes of waste diverted in Ontario, seven jobs are created via the blue box and other diversion programs. Recovering just 60% of waste materials could create almost 13,000 jobs and contribute $1.5 billion to Ontario’s GDP. In addition to creating jobs, increasing waste diversion rates and improving resource recovery will help Ontario businesses stay competitive in the global economy.

Bill 151, as amended at committee, deserves the support of all members in the Legislature. This proposed legislation would help us to divert more materials from landfills. It would increase accountability for those who produce the waste and who have the greatest ability to influence the design of products and packaging. It would also help us reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets and achieve the goals in our climate change strategy.

As I said earlier, our Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is working very hard, day in, day out, and is very passionate about it.

It would boost the economy by creating the conditions to recover more resources, which would in turn create more jobs.

I would like to close by saying that the proposed legislation is good for the environment; it’s good for the economy; it’s good for the people of Ontario; and it will be good for our children and grandchildren. We will be leaving a healthy planet for our future generations. So I’m looking forward to the speedy passage of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I turn it back now over to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to start off by thanking my parliamentary assistant and all of the MPPs who worked so hard in all parties at committee to see this legislation through.

I think the committee process on this bill was rather remarkably constructive and positive. I think you see that because many members of this House will see their fingerprints on some of the amendments on the bill. There was extraordinary consultation across industry, with AMO, with the different industry associations, even with other provinces and with environmental groups.

So it’s a very robust piece of legislation. I think it brings a lot of the best thinking in Ontario to what is, predominantly, really more of an economic bill than an environment bill because most of what we’re doing on the environment isn’t hugging trees or petting small animals; it’s not loving nature more, as much as we should. The impacts on nature are really coming from how we manage our waste, how we use energy and how we move. Those are the things that are consequential. The toxins, the pollutions, how we manage our food: These are all the things that we need to look at to solve the problem.

We throw out more garbage than just about any society in the world. Each of us throws out 777 kilograms of garbage every year. There are many modern industrial countries where people throw out less than a half, less than a third, of waste.

Our Blue Box Program—one of the hard things about being the Minister of the Environment is following the member from St. Catharines, who I think was the longest-serving Minister of the Environment. In the 1980s, Minister Bradley introduced blue box programs for the very first time in the world. We sometimes don’t realize it.

I think the two things we don’t realize Canadians invented are basketball, which with the Raptors I think we recognize more. There’s something great about seeing the Toronto Raptors, Canada’s basketball team, out there doing so well in the finals because that was a Canadian sport. It was invented by a Canadian. The Americans seem to own it. We only have one professional team in their league, but we’re doing darn well.

The other thing, the other basket that Canadians invented was the blue box. Right here in Ontario and right here in this Legislature, the very visionary dean of our Legislature, the Honourable Jim Bradley, did that. It’s an example of what we can do, both on climate change and the circular economy.

Ontario is leading globally right now. I was reading the criticisms of the early 1980s, which was the last time the environment took hold in Ontario and Ontario stepped up as a global leader in introducing recycling at scale—a province-wide, economy-wide recycling program. The opposition to it at the time was that it would ruin the economy. We couldn’t do it. It was too much change too fast. People would never adapt. How would people ever sort their garbage? It was viewed as impossible.

It was the same time I was reading critiques about the information technology age. People thought people who were suggesting you could have a computer the size of a file folder were insane. Computers back then were the size of this room. We all went to university; it took up a whole floor of the university. “How could you ever manage a computer?” they said. “Computers need engineers.” You know how many technical support people a university has to hire to manage computers today? It was huge numbers of engineers and computer scientists to manage these complex, huge machines, these computers.

Well, 10 years later, we were all sitting with laptops the size of file folders, and none of us needed an engineer to manage them in our living room with us. As a matter of fact, we have computers that are more complex than some of the things that would fill half this room. They’re the size of a wallet, like our BlackBerries and our iPhones. That all happened in a decade.

I’ve said this often: The big challenge we have now is coming out of the information technology age where, 10 years ago, if you bought a car, it was a car. Today, if you buy a car, it’s a computer. Probably the biggest computer most of us own is our automobiles. We have telematics. We now have computers that can talk to traffic lights that won’t even need us to drive them. Within 10 years, UPS and FedEx will be managing their products in autonomous vehicles and those brown vans will probably disappear. When we, on a little app, have a car pick us up, take us to where we want to go and drop us off at our electrified 15-minute GO service, it will also manage all parts of our lives.

We are going through a period where my friend John Polanyi, whom I worked with at U of T, that great Canadian Nobel laureate, was asked—when I was at U of T, he and I were on a panel together. Dr. Polanyi was asked a question by graduate students. They said, “Dr. Polanyi, if you could sum up the age we live in in one word, what would that word be?” He said, “We live in the age of acceleration.”

In fact, it is the speed of change that is the greatest challenge for legislators, for policy-makers, for academics, for business leaders, for labourers and for mother nature. As he said, the problem isn’t that the climate is changing. The climate has been changing through the whole history of our planet. The problem today is that the speed at which the climate is changing, the hydrological cycle, is changing too fast for nature to adapt to it. What used to take a million years or 10,000 years to happen is happening in five years or 10 years. Species aren’t coping, and we’re losing a lot of the biodiversity on which we as human beings depend.

That’s hard for us because we’re using market mechanisms, whether it’s cap-and-trade or, in the case of this bill, extended producer responsibility. We’re not regulating in the way we used to. I don’t think this is new news. The member for Huron–Bruce, whom I have a lot of respect for, I think understands that. She comes from an agricultural community.

I was out on a few farms in the last few months. You go onto a combine now and they have a computer. You don’t even drive it. We talk in the city like we discovered autonomous vehicles. Farmers have had autonomous vehicles for a long time. They don’t just pick you up and drop you off at work. They plant. They put the pesticides, the nutrients, down. They completely manage—acres of farms that used to take 100 people to manage are now one person with a combine that’s entirely automated. They have a computer on it that’s smarter than anything you’d find in a Tesla, that actually tells you the whole history of how they’re managing their farm.

As a matter of fact, I would say that agriculture, more than any other industry in Ontario, has seized the opportunity of the high-tech, electronic, computerized economy. If every industry in Ontario could do what agriculture has done in the last 20 years in precision farming and automation, we would have one of the highest-productivity economies in the world.

Many of us who live in cities don’t fully appreciate how much work goes on on a farm. My family had a dairy farm in eastern Ontario, in Alexandria. I remember that my dad got involved in it with one of his best friends. We moved onto the farm and set the kids up. We were hand-milking cows. I was great as a city kid because I was shooting groundhogs because they broke the cow’s legs and I learned how to milk. One of the reasons my dad got involved—he took an equity position in the farm with great friends of ours to this day, and they bought all the milking equipment that automated that.

I’ve been back to that farm since. The cows go into the stall and the whole machinery comes up. I thought my sound system and my flat-screen TV were advanced technologies; look at how they milk a cow today, Mr. Speaker.

I actually think, as we face food security issues and with the changing climate and the disruption of spring, where strawberries come out in BC in January, which they shouldn’t, and die—and we had five metres of snow on the streets of Halifax last June. That’s not the kind of spring or weather we’ve ever known, and those anomalies are going to become more frequent.

We only have to look to Ontarians about how we manage all of this huge change. Whether it’s the laptops or whether it’s precision farming, we know how to do these things. But it’s time to step up on climate change and manage the disruptive risk.

The way we heat our homes is going to be totally different in 10 years. Our homes right now are becoming more waste-free because—the two pieces of legislation before this House right now, Bills 172 and 151, are linked. While we each throw out 777 kilograms of waste, we also emit 12 tonnes of greenhouse gases each, and those two things are linked. It’s estimated that we’d need about nine planet earths for people if everyone lived in the world the way that Canadians and Americans live—nine planets. There’s a direct relationship between these two bills. We have to become a more efficient economy.

We have to learn what farmers already know, which is that you manage your resources with less inputs for more outputs. That’s how we’re going to solve the problem of greenhouse gases and that’s how we’re going to become a waste-free economy.

Mr. Speaker, historically—and we are in a historic time—these two bills, Bills 151 and 172, which are linked—someone is going to write a history book 10 or 20 years from now and they’re going to look at all 107 of us. We’re setting Ontario on a course to be carbon-neutral by the middle of the century. We will actually have a low-carbon economy in which we don’t emit carbon-polluting gases. We’re playing a leadership role in that. Linked to that, we’ll be a waste-free economy. We’ll have a circular economy. This is good for the economy.

What do we mean by a circular economy? China is looking at a circular economy. Britain is looking at a circular economy, and France. They all have bills that are called “circular economy.” In a sense, what we’re trying to change is what was often described as the “take, make, use and throw away” approach, or what’s called the linear economy, where you make something and you design it for the dump. We’re trying to change, right at the front end, that we no longer design things for the dump. We design them to be carbon-neutral; we design them to be durable.

If you take a glass of water, Mr. Speaker, from a tap in your home, from a very good municipal water system, it uses very little energy. If you take that same amount of water from a plastic bottle, 40% of the content of that plastic bottle, in oil, is how much energy it took to put water and to extract it and to distribute it. In other words, 500 millilitres of water out of a plastic bottle takes 2,000 times as much energy as taking that same water from a glass out of your tap. Most of us don’t stop to think about how much energy, how much material, we waste simply in that choice.

When you talk to your parents and your grandparents, for generations, all of us got our water out of a tap. My friend, my parliamentary assistant, Mrs. Mangat—it’s rather remarkable—we talked about how all of our families came from countries where you can’t drink the water. You go back to most of our parents who immigrated from countries, and the vast majority of them came from countries where you can’t drink the water.

Here, we have a perfectly good system which is very efficient on energy. There’s no waste product. You don’t have to throw a plastic water bottle out. You don’t have any recycling. You don’t have any waste. There’s a lot of these simple things that everyone else did and that we used to do. We use eight times as much energy as our great-grandparents, four times as much as our grandparents and twice as much as our parents. We can’t keep on doubling that large amount of energy. That is consequential to the waste that we have, and it’s consequential to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

We sometimes don’t realize that most of the things that we’re going to do as people to make our lives better and healthier are the same.

So what does this do, Mr. Speaker? Well, we know we’re facing a growing demand for goods across the planet. Every generation is consuming more things, and there are more of us. Global competition is intensifying. China is making a range of products that they never made before. Prior to the Second World War, China was about 5% of the world’s GDP; now it’s 25% of the world’s GDP. They’re making electric vehicles. They’re moving now to a waste-free society as well.

We know, as I said, that we’re using nine planets right now. We have got to get back to using one. That’s unsustainable. We also know that we need to save valuable and scarce resources. We need to cut GHG emissions and we need to make the economy more efficient, more productive, more sustainable and more competitive.

We know that a resource recovery economy, a recycling economy, employs thousands more people than an economy that wastes money. We know from what many economists have said—Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman school, recently retired from there and now working internationally in the business community, points out that we’ve always had, for a couple of decades now, since probably the 1970s, a 25% productivity gap with the United States. That means that the US economy makes 25% more goods with the same amount of resources, energy and labour than we do.

We also know that if we could close that gap, you and I and the average Ontarian would have $7,000 more disposable income, if we had the same level of productivity as the US economy. Kevin Lynch has written extensively on this in the National Post and the Globe and Mail, about the need to close the productivity gap. John Manley and the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers have taken this challenge of productivity.

One of the big areas in which we need to look at productivity is in natural resources. Our natural resource capital is being wasted. We excessively drain resources. We throw too much stuff out. We don’t recover enough of our materials. One of the best examples: Rio Tinto has a major smelter, an aluminum smelter, in Canada. Our aluminum cans are ubiquitous around this place. You see them everywhere. Who hasn’t had a Diet Coke or Coke Zero or a Pepsi or something like that?

That aluminum is rather remarkable material. It can be used forever. It can be used in perpetuity. It never breaks down. You can refine it, reprocess it or keep it. All of those aluminum cans are quite a remarkable material.

To mine aluminum is difficult. You need alum and you need bauxite; bauxite usually comes from Jamaica. You have to extract all these resources from around the world, assemble them, ship them, refine them, distribute them, and then most of them in Ontario, even though it’s our most high-value recyclable, recoverable material—we still have too much of that material ending up in the waste stream.

But we now have enough aluminum in Canada that we could run our smelters here entirely on the aluminum in our waste and recycling stream. So we would never actually ever have to extract alum or bauxite again. We sort of have—

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: From Jamaica. When I was with the Canadian Urban Institute we had a team who worked in Jamaica in the area where bauxite was being mined. There’s a lot of work recovering the environment down there once the bauxite was removed.

It’s a big, challenging, messy kind of thing. But if we could switch, which I’m hoping this bill will do, and if by working with Quebec, who are also doing some work, we could just recover that aluminum that is currently in our waste stream and our recycling stream and assemble it and put it as an input into the aluminum smelter, that aluminum smelter in Quebec, for example—or steel mills here, three of which already work on 100% recovered materials—would be able to make aluminum from recovered resources with 5% of the amount of energy that it takes to make an aluminum can out of virgin resources.

Let’s just keep that in our head for a second: An aluminum can made from virgin resources, extracted resources, is energy intensive. We’ve already extracted more than enough alumina and bauxite to not have to extract it. In perpetuity, we could have all of the aluminum cans that we use being made out of recovered resources, and we would only use 5% of the energy.

Some people say, if you want to understand the tie-in between Bill 172 and Bill 151, the climate change and cap-and-trade bill and the waste-free Ontario bill—the two mechanisms, a carbon market and auction and extended producer responsibility, where the people who make things are responsible for the end-life of their products—you find it in the aluminum can. These two bills, working together, will incent businesses not to use as much energy and not to pollute.

By recovering aluminum, it means that we could have our aluminum, as much as we need for as long as we want, but we make it with having to extract absolutely no new resources, and we process it using only 5% of the energy that we’re using now.

When I go back to that gap with the United States—if you want to understand the productivity gap, what this 25% is all about—it’s basically that we’re going to be making aluminum with so little energy, so few resources and no virgin resources that we’re going to be making the same number of aluminum cans with a small fraction of the amount of resources, energy and labour time than we used to, so it’s much more efficient. It’s a high-productivity plant when you have an aluminum plant that works only on recovered material. That is how you close the productivity gap; it’s not by asking Ontarians to work harder.

I’m very proud of our steel industry here in Ontario. I talked about farmers having understood productivity and minimum waste, because most farms internalize that. I was at the Whale’s farm in southwestern Ontario; I saw their biodigester. They have a 100% recovery kind of thing. Deb Whale is a rather remarkable woman. Her son Tyler heads up the agricultural technology group. We’re doing work with them right now on zero-waste, low-carbon technologies. They understand the synergies of this. But the other sector in Ontario that really gets the waste minimization is our steel industry.

Do you realize that we have three steel mills here that are already working on 100% recovered steel? Three steel mills in Ontario do not extract a gram of ore to make their steel product. Why? Because they recover used cars; they work with the car scrappage and recovery institutes—that’s a sector that’s doing amazing work. So we’re already getting in Ontario to some sort of, what I would call, economic environmental equilibrium in resources, where you recognize that you’ve got enough material—whether it’s steel, iron or aluminum—already in your economy that you could just work on recovering and harvesting it.

These countries that have circular economies—cradle to cradle, as it’s often called—means that you don’t put something into the economy that you’re not prepared to take back out, repurpose and reuse, and to recover at least the energy and, wherever you can, the materials. If these two bills, which will have to have some sort of reciprocity in the way that we implement them over the next 30 years, because this is a 30-year exercise—we’ll see more recovery. We’ll see biogas coming from methane helping to heat our homes and driving our large vehicles. That’s recovering a gas from a waste stream.

There’s a few people that I want to give a shout-out to. Unilever was mentioned before by my parliamentary assistant. Paul Polman is—if you want to understand a company that totally gets the ultra-low-carbon economy as well as the circular economy, Unilever is a waste-free company. You may remember them; they were last discussed in the House when my friend from Ottawa–Orléans introduced a private member’s bill on plastic microbeads. She was saying to me that it’s kind of exciting to see corporate leadership out ahead of government. She pointed out that Unilever had already removed, last year, all of the plastic microbeads from that, so they’re not going into the lake.

They’re already on zero waste. Unilever is actually a zero-waste company globally, one of the largest multinational companies—zero waste. I sit with Paul Polman on the World Bank’s Carbon Pricing Leadership group. They’re working to be one of the first companies that will be carbon-neutral. It’s a remarkable company.

We’re very blessed to have people like John Coyne, who works on the minister’s advisory working group on climate change and has also been a key person on waste. He was one of the people who presented to the committee. One of the members opposite asked why we’re talking about Bills 151 and 172 together. He actually said that to the committee.

He said, “You’ve got to understand that when you link these things, for our company and all the consumer products we make, if we make it with zero waste, it’s pretty hard for us not to have zero carbon emissions.” It’s very hard to have a zero-waste plant that isn’t a zero-carbon-dioxide plant. He said, “As Unilever is now moving to zero carbon, one of the best strengths we have is found in Bill 151. Because we’re a zero-waste company, we’re finding it very easy to be a zero-carbon company.”

I think this is kind of a historic moment. I always said that in the last century, one of the most important things that happened—and to give credit to the party opposite, Bill Davis was education minister. When I became Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, I had the chance to have supper with him and seek out his advice. He’s a really brilliant man. He told me—maybe it was one of my staff who found it later, but I think the headline in one of the largest daily papers in Canada after he announced the college system was “Universities for Dumb People.” That’s what they called his idea for colleges.

As my friend David Crombie says—people always talk about Bill Davis and David Crombie from the 1970s as if they were gods, like they did nothing wrong. They’re two of my favourite political leaders, Mr. Speaker. They both reminded me that when Bill Davis put the height restrictions on the St. Lawrence market area, the development community was up in arms, saying that the world was going to end and that kind of thing, but he persevered. One of the reasons we love Toronto so much is because of the development patterns that were so controversial at the time.

David Crombie wasn’t very popular when he did them, nor was John Sewell, but we ended up with a city that’s so much more livable because we didn’t have the Spadina Expressway and we had to-scale human development.

One of the reasons we had such a successful economy in the last 50 years was because the Conservative government introduced, in 1967, Centennial College. That was a visionary legacy of that time in Ontario. Had Bill Davis and Premier Frost and Premier Robarts not introduced colleges at the time, we would not have the high-skill workforce.

Everyone who looks back at the success of the Ontario manufacturing economy will tell you that, starting with Centennial College in 1967, the government of the day of John Robarts and Minister Bill Davis introduced the biggest changes to the education system to skill us for this highly challenging new workforce and the rapid change that was about to come to our manufacturing sector.

Ontario thrived, based on the strength of its workforce, the same way we have seen the massive investments that we’re making in public school systems: increasing graduation rates in high schools, up from 68% to 83%; and free tuition in our budget. This is an amazing legacy. But if we didn’t have the colleges or the great university system that we inherited from governments of the last century, we wouldn’t be able to build this opportunity for Ontarians today.

In the end, Mr. Speaker, we respect those people even though they were controversial in their day. No one can even remember who the critics were, the people who said that our colleges were universities for dumb people. They’re not; they turned out to be one of the most inspired and brilliant policy moves that we ever did. We just remember that. Those people will tell you how controversial it was; how personal, sometimes, the attacks were; how raucous it was in this House. Sometimes my party was in opposition. I wish we had been kinder and gentler. I’m sure even the opposition party sometimes, in hindsight, has attacked good ideas on this side.

I remember Greg Sorbara saying to me when he left, “One thing I wish I had done differently in my time here is I wish I had been a little less partisan and a little kinder and gentler sometimes.” That’s the kind of grace and generosity that Greg Sorbara has. He’s such a gentleman, such a great public policy mind and such a great leader. We owe him, on our side of the House, a great legacy for his time in finance here, getting us back to balance and stuff.

These are important bills. I could go on about the details in them, but they’re trying to move us into a direction where our children and our grandchildren will be living in an Ontario with a healthy boreal forest, with strong, robust farming practices, with beautiful cities. That will happen because by 2050 or thereabouts, we will be a carbon-neutral economy. We will not be emitting polluting greenhouse gas emissions because of Bill 172 and because of this bill we’re debating today. Understanding the linkages between these two pieces of legislation, we will be a waste-free society.

We will be down to net zero kilograms of garbage. When you’re at 777, the most in the world, that’s a big challenge over 30 years, for us to live without creating waste. There are so many societies in the world that are already closer to that.

When people say, “Is this going to be hard in the next five or 10 years?”, it’s not going to be easy, but when you’re already throwing out more garbage than just about everyone else in the world—we’ve got to have more low-hanging fruit in that area than just about anyone else. It should be easier for us to knock off the first 10, 20 or 30 kilograms per person. It should be easy because that will help us. This is going to be a major part of also reducing greenhouse gases.

It’s going to make us more productive. Whether it’s the steel industry or the auto sector—General Motors now is a zero-waste economy. We sometimes don’t think about some of the other things as being part of a circular and zero-waste economy. Mr. Speaker, you drive a car. I ride my bike. I use an auto-share service when I need one. Having been a parent, I know how important it is to have a vehicle. When I had kids at home I was rushing around, living in a neighbourhood that didn’t lend itself to transit, didn’t have the kinds of transit services. It was hard being a parent, and I needed a car.

But now, my partner and I don’t need a car. We thought, “Well, those of us who don’t need to drive, who can walk and cycle, ought not to drive so that that carbon budget can be used by families that actually need it.”

The Minister of Transportation, the member from Vaughan, is providing visionary leadership on transportation. He talks about autonomous vehicles. We talked about productivity. That’s going to help reduce our waste and reduce our emissions. Vehicles are going to become durable goods that you’ll buy as a service. You can own your own car if you want, but you won’t have to, the same way many of us use an auto-share program. That car will not be stored 20 hours a day to be driven for two. That car is going to be more productive. It’s not very productive to own an expensive vehicle when you only use it for two hours a day.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: But it feels good.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It does feel good. I used to have a little Miata sports car for five years. I bought it when I turned 50. It was my mid-life crisis. It was a two-seater. As the driver said to me when he sold it to me, it’s more efficient than a Toyota Prius on fuel and it has lower emissions. It was my guilty pleasure for three years. That little leased Miata MX-5 was my mid-life crisis.

I have a total love for automobiles. There are days when I walk by my parking spot and see the ghost of my little sports car there, and look at my bicycle and realize that at 58 years old, I’m never going to get the speed on my two-wheel bike that I got on my little four-wheel Miata.

Hon. Michael Chan: Your bike is better.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: But my bike is better. I’m finally losing that weight I put on at the end of last year, thanks to my bicycle.

This idea of what the Minister of Transportation is talking about is really a productivity gain in a lower-waste economy. It’s interesting: General Motors now has taken the Chevy Bolt in California and made it into an autonomous car, so it’s an electric, autonomous car. They’ve got a deal with Lyft, which is Uber in California. It’s a really cool program. These cars run all day. They run non-stop. They don’t emit any carbon. It’s 100% productivity.

The vehicle is working all the time, delivering parcels, picking up people. It runs off apps. That already exists in California, and it was our great General Motors working with a great company called Lyft to do that. That’s a lot more productive use. All that metal, all the resources that were extracted, rather than just being used two hours a day, 365 days a year, is now used 24 hours a day or 22 hours a day. It’s very productive use. It’s more productive use of our roads, with less resources. The car is more efficiently used. If the car is working all that time, it means fewer people have to own cars, if there’s a car that’s shared.

That car is designed as modular, so it doesn’t end up in the dump. Those autonomous vehicles are designed to last forever. They’ve changed it from a consumer product that you buy into a service that you use, so they design it to switch out parts. It’s a little different when the car company owns the car and sells you the service: They want that vehicle to last as long as possible and be easy to update.

Most of us buy consumer products. What is it, iPhone 6 or 7 or 8 now? There’s a new iPhone every year. Why? The style changes so that you’ll get rid of your old iPhone and buy a new one.

One of the things this bill is doing is it’s moving us towards designing for durability from designing for the dump. We want to have cars that last forever. If we lease the car from a service, the person who owns it wants it to last forever.

This is a bold, big new vision. This is the transformation of our economy to a more competitive economy, to a more productive economy and to a better use of resources and a livable planet.

Mr. Speaker, using resource efficiency is important to our kids. It’s important to our sense of well-being.

Our boreal forests will, no matter what, be four to eight degrees Celsius warmer over the next 30 years. If you look at the work of Dr. Griffith from NASA or our own Dr. Dennis Murray from Trent University, we know it’s going to be very hard for that forest to maintain its health and not become a carbon source, and we have to maintain that as a carbon sink.

These bills today are about preserving our natural resources, using them more efficiently and keeping our planet healthy and livable.

I want to conclude by saying, with some generosity—I want to thank the member for Huron–Bruce and her party, and the member for Toronto–Danforth and his party. They contributed significantly to this bill. It’s a better bill because of the opposition. While we all tend to be partisan in here, I want to thank both of the opposition parties because I think they raised this above partisan politics. Bill 151 is a good bill not only because of the Liberals but because of the Conservatives and New Democrats in this House. I want to thank them very much for their thoughtfulness and for the generosity of their ideas. Kudos to them.

Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to dedicate this bill to my grandson, little Michael, who lives in Calgary, who is six years old. My son, as you know, struggled with fetal alcohol syndrome. He taught me everything I know. A lot of us have raised children that are extremely disadvantaged. My son, if you’ve seen some of the films about him, is a brilliant, transformational young man who grew up with incredibly difficult circumstances and struggles. When I think about Bill 151 and Bill 171, I think about my grandson. When he’s my age, or 40, I want him to live on a planet that’s beautiful and healthy.

If we don’t pass these kinds of bills and implement them with passion, we won’t leave him a stronger economy and a healthy planet. So to my little grandson, Michael, I’d like to dedicate this bill.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to add my voice to the debate this morning.

It’s touching when you dedicate something to people who matter to you, and I very much appreciate that.

We did have an interesting committee process in working through Bill 152—151, pardon me. I have Bill 152 on my mind—a great bill that will be spoken about later by the member from Leeds–Grenville. But in the spirit of Bill 151, I have to thank the stakeholders and the committee members for working through and making Bill 151 stronger. I appreciate all the efforts from the member from Mississauga–Brampton South. I enjoy working with her. I think we did a really good job, I must say. To the minister: You should be proud of your parliamentary assistant.

I do think this is a good bill for Ontario. Bill 151, we’ve all agreed, is a great improvement over Bill 91, because it embraced a lot of the constructive feedback that we brought forward after Bill 91 died on the floor.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to reflect on a couple of things that the minister said during his part of the debate. He talked about how agriculture has embraced technology and how precision farming is what reflects 2016 farming practices. Something really stuck with me: Farmers are now using much less inputs for greater outputs. I just wish the minister would have realized that before he put a ban on neonics, because that’s a technology that is very much a reduction of a particular input that results in greater output.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: In response to the speech by the minister, I just want to put the following comment on the record: Of course we support the legislation, and it is definitely a step forward in the right direction; no question about that. But I find there’s this underlying tone from the government benches when it comes to talking about initiatives such as this, as if nothing ever happened in the world, nothing ever happened in Ontario, nothing ever happened in Canada prior to them taking over the government benches on any of these issues.

It’s almost as if they see themselves as the only ones who have ever done anything on the environment, ever done anything positive when it comes to the economy, and it’s just like: If it wasn’t for them, my God, the world would just fall apart.

Well, I can spend the next hour talking about the initiatives the government has put together that, quite frankly, have been a disaster, such as their energy policy.

I think a little bit more humility on the government benches and a recognition for the work that was done up to now on the part of other governments before—Liberal, Conservative and New Democrat—who have had to face issues when they were in power and have brought forward initiatives that dealt with a number of issues at the time that needed to be dealt with. Certainly, we can improve on those, because at the time they were done, technologies were different, people’s attitudes were different, and the understanding of the issue itself overall was different. But in the end, those governments did take action.

I somewhat resent the tone that comes, as if, “If it wasn’t for us, none of this would happen and the world is going to be a better place tomorrow.” Well, I’m sorry. Yes, that might be true when it comes to some initiatives that we’re working on today that are certainly moving the yardsticks forward, but we need to take into account and we need to respect the members that were here before, on all sides of the House, who have worked on a number of these issues and have brought forward very good initiatives that are still in place today, and that we certainly work to improve on.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to thank the parliamentary assistant, the member from Mississauga–Brampton South, and also the minister of global warming and the environment.

Mr. Steve Clark: The minister of global warming?

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes, member of global warming.

Anyway, I just want to say that I know there has been a lot of good reference to all these wonderful elected officials, Bill Davis and company, but we sometimes forget the contributions ordinary Ontarians make to sustainable living; that is, the ordinary working people who, in many cases, don’t even use a blue box because, believe it or not, they don’t buy anything in cans. They don’t buy pizza in a box. They have nothing in the blue box because they buy fresh all the time. They plant their own gardens. They use the same bottles over and over again to make their wine. And they actually don’t buy a new car every year. They drive Ford Rangers for 10, 20 or 30 years.

These are the people who are environmental leaders out there. They’re in all our communities, but they’re never consulted in terms of: How do you live without buying pizza in a box? How do you live without buying food in a can or big boxes of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes? How can you live without those big boxes of Lucky Charms? But they do. Somehow they survive. Those are the people who are forgotten when we talk about shaping the future. Let’s consult with them. Nobody usually does because we consult with all the gurus, and we’ve got to talk to the gurus or else we’re in deep trouble.

But we have to consult with the ordinary folks who, believe it or not, don’t even use a blue box. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I looked up in the Speaker’s gallery and saw my friend, former MPP Peter Shurman. I want to welcome the Shurmanator to Queen’s Park today.

I just want to reiterate some of the things that my colleague from Huron–Bruce said about Bill 151. I think we can be proud, as legislators, that we had a bill, Bill 91, that the member for Kitchener–Conestoga did a bit of a filibuster on because he was very concerned about that bill.

Let’s think about some of the complaints we have as MPPs about the way the government time-allocates a bill or programs a bill or invokes closure on a bill. We can look at Bill 151 as a great opportunity for all parties to work together in a collaborative way. I want to say to the minister that it’s very touching that you mention your grandson when you talk about this bill. I think there’s tremendous buy-in—and I said this at second reading—with our young people about this bill and about this concept of having a waste-free Ontario.

As the member has said many times, we’re both former mayors. I remember in the 1980s when we had this move towards a Blue Box Program: There was tremendous buy-in. I think what we can do, after this bill passes, is that all parties should pledge—and I say this many times: that we should work on the education side. We’ve now done the legislative side; now we need to do the education side. We really need to work with all the partners, both in industry and our municipalities, to get this right.

We’ve had some great opportunities. The member told me there was great co-operation at committee. We need to build upon that co-operation with this bill. I think we can really have some success with Bill 151. I’m glad our party is now supporting it. We weren’t supportive of some of the other incarnations of the bill, but let’s move forward after third reading and proclamation to make this bill work in our local communities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Minister of the Environment for a final comment.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank my colleagues: the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, the member for Timmins–James Bay, the member for Leeds–Grenville and my critic, the member for Huron–Bruce. Did I miss anybody? I don’t think so.

Mr. Steve Clark: Give a shout-out to Pottsie, too.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Oh, and a shout-out to the member for Beaches–East York because he’s just fabulous.

I want to say something—I apologize to the member for Timmins-James Bay. I thought I spent considerable time talking about some of the great moments of parties opposite. I actually had breakfast this morning with the former leader of his party. We were working together and seeking out his advice on a number of issues with the indigenous community and some of the things there. Certainly that party, in power, did a lot.

I pride myself on two things. I’ve rolled up an extraordinary number of private members’ bills into legislation from members opposite and given them credit for it. I think I’ve recognized the contributions of opposition parties today.

I always take my House time on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, as you know, because it’s the least partisan thing. We have enough real things to debate without it being personal or attacking each other. We are not taking natural gas out of people’s homes; that is just disturbing to people. We will be offering geothermal programs. There are all kinds of things that are just not true, and we’re all guilty of it. We all exaggerate the positions of others because, quite frankly, most people’s ideas in this House are quite practical and reasonable, and we have to distort them for partisan reasons.

The member for Huron–Bruce: I want to thank her. She was very generous in her comments. Thank you very much.

When we go back to a day when this place was less partisan, we get more done. We create more hope and less fear and less anxiety. The more we respect each other and focus on ideas, the more people will respect us.

I thank the opposition parties, my colleagues, the many Ontarians who worked so hard to make this bill a better bill because I think this was an example of us, as legislators, at our best. Thank you very much, and God bless.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to introduce to you and, through you, to members of the Legislative Assembly a constituent from my riding of Leeds–Grenville, Carol-Anne Brandow, who’s here for the debate today and for our opposition day motion. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to welcome Linda Walsh and Terry Storr, who are the aunt and uncle of today’s page captain, Leah Walsh.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Brayden Darroch from Doon Public School in Kitchener to the chamber today. Welcome to your first day at Queen’s Park.

Ms. Soo Wong: I would like to bring greetings and to welcome, on behalf of my colleague the Associate Minister of Finance—the page captain today is Marthangi Vicknarajah. His mother and father are both here. I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to welcome today to the gallery Kristen Ellison from Cobourg, the mother of an autistic child who is joining us for the debate and the oppo day motion today.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Carly Pettinger from my riding and office—first time at Queen’s Park. Welcome, Carly.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome Robin Etherington, who is the executive director of the Bytown Museum in my community of Ottawa Centre; and also Diana Carter, who is the executive director of the Ottawa Museum Network. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome a couple of boys from the Bruce to the House today: Todd Thompson and Karl Heinisch are here from Ripley.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I would like to welcome a good friend of mine, Brian Dunlevy. He’s in the members’ east gallery today.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce Megan Barkey, a grade 10 student who lives in Cannington in my riding. She is here doing job shadowing for career day. She is also a former page in the Legislature.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased today to welcome, once again, some families who are here for autism. We have Bruce McIntosh, Laura McIntosh, Nancy Marchese, Kristen Ellison, Sharon Gabison, Nancy Warren and Shiri Bartman. Welcome again to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Museum Association president, Clark Bernat, and the executive director, Marie Lalonde. The OMA is here today meeting with MPPs for museum day here at Queen’s Park. They’ll have a reception here at Queen’s Park right after question period in rooms 228 and 230. All members are welcome.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome Mukund Purohit, who I had the pleasure of meeting on our trip to India, and his family, who are here in the members’ west gallery. He’s the head of the Gujarati Business Association. I would like to welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to give a big welcome to the students from York Memorial Collegiate from the great riding of York South–Weston. They are here today accompanied by their teacher, Christina Ostermann.

I’d also like to mention that our Minister of Labour, Kevin Flynn, is a graduate of York Memorial.

Welcome.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Our page Samantha McPherson is doing a great job here representing Wellington–Halton Hills. Her grandparents Joanne and Bill Whittaker are here in the public gallery with us this morning. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I am happy to welcome three members from the Ontario Museum Association who I met with this morning: Braden Murray from Kenora, who works at the Lake of the Woods Museum; Heather Anderson from Toronto, who works at the Ontario Historical Society; and Mike Delfre from Sault Ste. Marie, who is with the Canadian Bushplane Heritage Centre. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce the class from St. Matthew school in Oakville. The grade 5 class is here today to visit us at Queen’s Park. Please give them a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’d like to welcome Laura Kirby-McIntosh, one of my constituents, who is here today to tell everybody that autism does not end at five.

Also, just to show you, Mr. Speaker, that I do learn—it takes me time, but I do eventually learn—I’m not going to say the name of my predecessor who is up in the Speaker’s gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Half marks for that one.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to welcome, from Portia Learning Centre, providing IBI therapy, Robyn Golding, Mandy Noel and Brittney Pike here to the Legislature, and also to welcome my friend Chris Steele and his friend Angelina Palmisano.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It is my pleasure to welcome and introduce a number of families. Stephanie Ridley, Stan Byma, Ross Maclean, Gary Burbridge, Dallis Nimmo, Richelle Parker, Kristen Ellison, Steven Sherwood, Kelly McDowell, Diana Rojas, Ailen and Jose Salazar, Samantha Billings, and Bruce and Laura McIntosh. Thank you for joining us today.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Also here for our autism opposition day are Jenn Masanovich, Dennis Madge, Rachelle Mackay Parker, Rebecca Haight and also Kristen Ellison.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery today, we have a former member: Peter Shurman, the MPP for Thornhill in the 39th and 40th Parliaments.

Accompanying Peter are two guests of mine. Visiting from Brantford are Ron Gee and Tom Lepera from Slacan. Thank you for being here.

Finally, we welcome the friends of my oldest brother—my brother Pat and his wife Ida, and his friends Fred and Heike Sphor. Welcome.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think I heard members say, “Was he younger?” Boy, that’s not a good way to start.

Interjection: Go right to warnings.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I might go right to warnings.

It’s now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier.

I met with some amazing nurses and staff when I toured the Brampton Civic Hospital on the weekend. I got to see some of the amazing work they do as I toured the hospital.

But as I walked the halls, something stood out to me, and it was no fault of the incredible staff at the hospital: I was shocked when I counted 33 beds in the hallways of the hospital. I don’t recall anything in the government’s radio ads—self-congratulatory vanity ads—about keeping patients in the hallway.

Mr. Speaker, how can this government let the most vulnerable and sick wait on stretchers in the hallways of our hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that he actually voted against a budget that added $1 billion to health care, including—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Carry on, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: He voted against a budget that added $1 billion to health care spending, including a $385-million—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham, come to order. You can sit and try to hide somewhere else; I am still going to get you.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, not only did they vote against a billion more dollars going into health care, they ran on a platform to fire 100,000 people, many of whom would be people working in health care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Acting Premier: No one is buying the government’s spin that they’re not cutting health care. Visit any hospital in Ontario and you see nurses fired. You see doctors irate with the government. You can’t find a health care worker in the province of Ontario who supports this government.

Let me share with you some stats. The Brampton Civic Hospital sees over 140,000 ER visits per year but was built for a capacity of 90,000 ER visits per year. Beds in hospital hallways should never be the norm in Ontario but is the norm under this Liberal government. The patients of Brampton and Peel region deserve more from their government.

Will this government commit that the Brampton Civic Hospital will have the resources they need to not be permanently over 100% capacity?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d be interested to know whether the Leader of the Opposition mentioned when he was at Brampton Civic Hospital that he voted against the $8.2 million in new funding to that hospital this year. Did you talk about why you voted against a $1-billion input? Did he mention why he voted against a $1-billion addition to health care?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re inches away from warnings. We’re going to start right away, so let’s not get there, please.

Finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There has been a 97% increase in funding to that hospital—that’s almost double—since we were elected in 2003. We have come a long way but there is still work to do. But I don’t think this member can teach us any lessons about how to spend health care dollars.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I can’t believe this government can keep a straight face while saying that they’re actually putting money into health care, because they’re not. Visit any hospital in Ontario. Talk to any nurse. Talk to any physician and they all say the same thing. This is a government that’s cutting, cutting, cutting and hurting patients in the province of Ontario.

Let’s speak about some more facts about the government’s cuts to health care in Brampton. Because of this government’s cut to physicians, there was a multi-specialty clinic in Brampton that just laid off five staff, affecting 2,000 patients. There were two family doctors who just announced in Brampton that they have to cut 14 hours of their clinic because of this government’s cuts. That affected another 2,000 patients.

How many more patients in Brampton are going to have to suffer because of this government’s heartless cuts to health care?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When we took office in 2003, we had the worst wait times in the country. We now have the shortest wait times in the country. Our investments in health care are paying off for patients. We have 94% of people now with a family doctor. We have 26,000 more nurses working in Ontario than we did when you were in charge of the system. You compared nurses to hula hoop workers.

Let’s just remind ourselves that we’re approaching the two-year anniversary of the announcement in Barrie that the Conservative Party would cut 100,000 workers. Who was there standing with the Leader of the Opposition? None other than the federal MP at the time, the MP who stood by Stephen Harper—

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, since I can’t get an answer on the health cuts and the cuts to patients, let’s talk about something else. I want to ask the Acting Premier about the autism cuts.

I want to share the story of four-year-old Mason, who lives in Burlington. He has been waiting for IBI therapy and has moderate to severe autism. He is non-verbal and has trouble socially. He only eats five foods, and none of them have much nutritional value. His family recently received a letter saying he will no longer qualify for IBI from the same group that just weeks ago said he desperately needs that very same treatment.

This is what the mum had to say: “We already spend thousands [of dollars] a year on” social programs and camps. She said they “will have to sell their home in Burlington to provide a fraction of the IBI” treatment “that Mason needs.”

My question is: How can this government do this? How can this government abandon Mason?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say, Speaker, that it is kids like Mason who have driven us to make important changes to our autism program. We are adding 16,000 spaces so that 16,000 kids like Mason will have access to the care they need more quickly. We will cut wait times in half. We are making a historic investment in new funding so more kids like Mason can get what they need when they need it.

We acknowledge that we’re in a transition period. We know that it’s difficult for families, and that’s why we urge families to talk to their service providers about what this means for their individual kids. But 16,000 more kids getting the treatment they need for autism is, I think, something that should be applauded by all in this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: I’m not sure what alternate universe this government lives in, but to say they’re doing it for Mason when they kicked him off the IBI wait-list is unbelievable.

Let me give you another example, Mr. Speaker. Let me share with you the story of Lila. Her family lives in Etobicoke. Lila was getting close to the top of the list for IBI treatment. Her parents have been dreaming about what this will mean for Lila and how it will change Lila’s life. Now they feel like they have waited for nothing, as she was just kicked off the wait-list. Her family struggles to understand how this Liberal government can turn their backs on children.

Mr. Speaker, Lila and her family were promised IBI treatment. She deserves IBI treatment. Why is this government kicking Lila off the treatment?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We think Lila should not be on a waiting list. She should be getting service, and that’s what this does. Lila should never have had to languish on the wait-list. We will not defend the status quo. We will not support kids like Lila staying on that wait-list. She should have—

Interjections.

Interjection: Sit down.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll take care of that part.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m done.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: Since you aren’t listening to Lila’s story and you kicked her off the wait-list for IBI treatment, let me share another story, the story of five-year-old Daniel from Richmond Hill. He has severe autism. He can’t speak. He can’t feed himself. He can’t dress himself. Just months ago, after three years of waiting on the IBI wait-list with Kinark, his family received a letter saying Daniel would soon be getting IBI treatment. In fact, he was on the top of the wait-list; the paperwork was about to be completed for this summer.

Then Daniel was informed that because he’s over five, this government took him off the list for the treatment he desperately needed.

Mr. Speaker, Daniel’s family can’t get an answer from this government, despite their pleading. They asked me to pose a question to the government, so I will ask the family’s question of this government. Daniel’s family wants to know: “What are we supposed to do now? What will happen to our son, who can’t even get his basic needs met?”

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: On this side of the House, we believe that the status quo when it comes to services for kids with autism is unacceptable. It is not okay that kids spend years on the waiting list. We are investing an additional $333 million so that 16,000 more kids can get the treatment that they so need.

We will not sit back as the opposition party wants to defend the status quo. They like the old system. We’re moving ahead because we don’t think it’s okay that kids like Daniel, like Lila or like Mason sit on the wait-list. They need to be as good as they can possibly be, and that means they need treatment and they need it earlier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. It’s much better when you address the Chair. The second thing is, I don’t want conversations going on while the member is trying to answer. So the member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order and the member from Dufferin–Caledon will come to order.

You have a wrap-up sentence?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we’re doing this for the 16,000 more kids. That’s why we’re spending $333 million more on services—

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

Interjection.

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Dr. Ian Dawe, who chaired the government’s expert panel on autism, said, “What government has funded was not what we recommended.”

Can the Deputy Premier explain to parents why the Liberal government bothered with an expert panel when it is clear they aren’t interested in listening to the experts?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me quote from Margaret Spoelstra, who is the executive director of Autism Ontario. She said, “Families raising children with autism have been waiting a long time for this announcement. Providing early, evidence-based intervention, when it matters most, will set children with autism on the best path forward. This investment will set the stage for continuous learning for years to come.”

Autism Speaks Canada says, “We applaud the Ontario government for consulting with an expert committee, as well as other stakeholders, and families for their guidance, and for basing this action plan on research and evidence-informed decisions.”

Dr. Peter Szatmari, the chief of the child and youth mental health collaboration between CAMH, SickKids and U of T, says—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not just the head of the government’s own expert panel. The Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth called the government’s plan “a mug’s game” and said, “Don’t pretend this is about the child and ... what they need. It isn’t.” The advocate said children have told him, “We don’t ... want you fighting over us; we just want you to provide us what we need.”

What these children need, Speaker, is the IBI therapy that could change their lives. Will this government give the children what they’re asking for?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very pleased to share with the House, in response to the question about Dr. Dawe—who issued a statement yesterday because he was concerned that certain remarks were taken out of context. What Dr. Dawe said yesterday—he issued a statement saying he stands “firmly behind the recommendations made in the report by Ontario’s clinical expert committee on autism, which laid out a comprehensive strategy for what” an autism system “should look like.” That is what Dr. Dawe is saying.

He was the chair of the clinical expert committee. We have based this program on advice from that committee, along with other work that has been under way for some time. That report is available online.

I’ve met with the youth advocate on autism. I’m pleased to respond in the supplementary.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberal government is cutting children off the autism therapy they need and that experts say will help. The experts say that the government decision is wrong. The Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth said it’s wrong. Parents say it’s wrong. Educators say it’s wrong.

There isn’t a single child with autism who will be better off if the government cuts them off IBI therapy when they turn five. Will the Deputy Premier admit that autism does not end at five and give these children the therapies that they so desperately need?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to acknowledge the families who are here and the action groups who are here—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the Chair, please.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Sorry, Speaker.

I appreciate them being here. I’ve met with a number of them. May I say too, Speaker, that in recent meetings they have been extremely helpful in their advice? They’ve been extremely concrete on how we develop this new program going forward. They know there’s an implementation committee being struck. A number of them asked to be on it. That is being considered currently.

It’s very important that I hear those stories directly from families. It’s informing my thinking. It is informing the program going forward.

The current system is unacceptable. I think we can all agree on that. We want to make sure that every child who has autism gets the services when they need them and for the right duration. That’s my commitment to these families here today and to all families and children facing autism.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Deputy Premier about hospitals that are overcrowded, and why this Liberal government has no policies or standards for hospital occupancy. But yesterday the Deputy Premier, the former health minister, denied it was a problem and insisted it’s just a “system in transition.” Then she insisted it was irresponsible to build hospital capacity. Then she said, “We are building new hospitals.”

Will the Deputy Premier actually get her story straight, cut the spin and admit that Liberal cuts have left Ontario hospitals in a dangerously overcrowded situation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we are investing $12 billion over the next 10 years to expand and rebuild hospitals, and 35 major hospital projects are under way or are being planned. Our commitment is to continue to rebuild and to build new hospital infrastructure.

At the same time, we do recognize that many people in hospital would be better served outside of the hospital. That’s why we’re expanding our commitment to community-based care, home care, palliative care and long-term care.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, second time.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The hospitals are a vital part of our health care system, but when somebody is ready to leave the hospital and receive their care outside the hospital, we need to work to make sure that that care outside the hospital is available.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: According to the OECD, the safe level of occupancy for countries like the UK is 85%, but hospitals across Ontario are operating at nearly 120% capacity for months on end.

Dr. Samir Sinha, who led Ontario’s Seniors Strategy, has said that when hospitals operate at or above 100% capacity, “Everyone agrees that’s not a safe level to run.”

But hospitals across the north, in Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Blind River, have been over 100% for months on end. The Sault Area Hospital has been above 100% capacity for two whole years.

Will the Deputy Premier stop the cuts to Ontario’s hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, if the leader of the third party actually had read Dr. Samir Sinha’s report, Living Longer, Living Well, she would know that his advice to us was to do exactly what we’re doing, which is to build capacity outside hospitals.

The solution is not to build more hospital beds in every community in the province. The solution is to provide the support that is right for patients. It’s a patient-centred approach that we’re taking. We’re getting people the care they need, whether it’s in hospital or whether it’s at home or in the community or an alternate setting.

Speaker, to focus simply on hospitals and to say the solution to overcrowding in hospitals is to build more hospital beds does not reflect the root problems within the health care system.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, you can’t cherry-pick the advice. If hospitals shouldn’t be operating over 100%, they shouldn’t be operating over 100%, period, end of story.

It is not just hospitals in the north. Our hospitals in Toronto, Ottawa, Scarborough and Hamilton are all overcrowded. Hospitals in mid-sized communities like Belleville, Brantford, Burlington, Dunnville and Peterborough more often than not don’t have any available beds. This is not a system in transition; this is a system in total crisis, and this Liberal government put it there.

My question once again is: Will this Liberal government stop cutting our hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I hate to do this, but I feel I have to remind the leader of the third party what she and her party voted against in the last budget. They voted against a $1-billion increase in health care spending that included a $345-million increase for hospitals. They voted against—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: They voted against an additional $270 million for home care and—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: They voted against $75 million more for hospice care, for palliative care in the community. They voted against $85 million for community health centres.

We are moving forward. We are increasing funding to the health care system, because patients deserve that.

Autism treatment

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Deputy Premier. During today’s oppo day debate, we will be calling on your government to restore funding for IBI therapy for children over the age of five. Thousands of Ontario families, Autism Ontario, the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, the Ontario Association for Behaviour Analysis, the chair of your own expert committee, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, CUPE, OPSEU and now municipalities are all opposing your decision.

Minister, how many more experts have to come forward before you understand that removing IBI therapy for kids over five will impact children’s ability to communicate with their family, succeed in school and thrive in our communities?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It is beyond me why anyone in this Legislature would defend the status quo when it comes to services for kids with autism. We are adding 16,000 spaces. We’re increasing funding by $333 million, an historic investment in improving services for kids with autism, getting them off the wait-list and into service.

Let’s hear what Dr. Peter Szatmari, a world-renowned expert in autism, said. He said, “It is important to personalize intervention services for children with ASD. This funding opportunity is a significant step in that direction. Early intervention for all, but different intervention at different times is an essential step in the right direction.”

Suzanne Jacobson, the founder of QuickStart: Early Intervention for Autism, said, “Parents spoke and they were heard. The right service at the right time: individualized, expanded and timely services will be life-changing. We applaud”—

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

Supplementary: the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Deputy Premier. Last Friday, I met in Georgetown with families from our riding who have children with autism spectrum disorder. Linda and David Galvao’s sons, Toby and Luke, both have ASD. David and Linda are planning to be here later on today.

Their older son, Toby, began IBI therapy at age six, and within 30 days, he went from being non-verbal to speaking and even reciting the alphabet. Their younger son, Luke, has been on the IBI wait-list for three years and he’s now six. Under the government’s plan to ration IBI therapy, Luke would be denied the chance to reach his full potential, the same chance that IBI therapy gave to his older brother Toby at age six.

How can this government be so heartless as to say to the Galvao family that their older son has a future but their younger son is on his own?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me read one more quote, and then I know that the minister will want to speak.

Dr. Wendy Roberts, the vice-chair of the ASD Clinical Expert Committee and, again, a world-renowned expert, says, “This announcement is very good news for the ASD community. Based on scientific evidence, the new plan strongly supports the continuum of care for all children with ASD, expanding intervention services to earlier in a child’s development, which is critical for improved outcomes. I am proud and excited to support the new program based on the advice of the expert panel.”

That’s Dr. Wendy Roberts.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. For the third time, hundreds of parents of children with autism are coming to Queen’s Park. They’re here to tell you, the government, to stop taking away life-changing therapy from children that have been waiting for years. Parents just want their children to be able to tell them what’s wrong when they’re in pain. Parents are saying, “It’s pay now or pay later.” Yes, IBI may be expensive, but not being proactive will cost this government much, much more.

Will the minister acknowledge that her plan will fail a generation of kids on the spectrum?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We agree with parents and we agree with advocates that autism does not end at age five. There is no age cut-off for services in this new program. In fact, in the new program, all children with a diagnosis, including those over five, will receive better services, and they’ll receive them sooner. They are customized to meet individual needs, including those who require intensive therapies and interventions.

There are 40,000 children with autism in this province. I recognize that there’s a subset of that, approximately 2,200 families across the province, that will feel some changes during this transition period. That is exactly why we’re paying close attention to those individual families to make sure that they get the information they need, to make sure they get the support they need and the children have reached their full—

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

Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: The experts were clear that for IBI to be effective, it needs to be for a minimum of a year, but $8,000 will cover less than two months of IBI. Parents will now get to see the potential of their children being ripped away from them. That’s cruel and it’s unfair. This government is actually silencing the voices of children by not giving them the therapy that they need to communicate.

Yesterday, the city of Pickering, in the minister’s own riding, passed a resolution calling on her to reinstate funding for IBI regardless of age. The minister’s own riding, her own hometown, the people who elected her and sent her here, are calling on her to do the right thing and to make sure that they reinstate the kids for IBI.

Will the minister admit that she’s hurting families and reverse her decision to place an age cap on IBI therapy?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Resolutions from municipalities come from councillors, not from residents. I think that’s important to note—

Miss Monique Taylor: Who do you think elects them?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Secondly, the member opposite—I would like to quote the member opposite—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. I think it’s important to know that the member asking the question said, late last year, “Study after study has shown that [treatments] are greatly more effective when they are delivered to children before the age of seven.” That was a quote from the member late last year.

The bigger point is that all autistic children deserve to get the right services, at the right intensity, at the right time, and that was my commitment. It’s an historic investment of $333 million—

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

New question.

Access to justice / Accès à la justice

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is for the Attorney General. I know that our government is excited to ensure access to justice for all Ontarians. In fact, I know the minister herself is very committed bringing together various partners within the legal community to identify barriers and work together to address them. Reforms to our justice system that ensure simple, fast and affordable access to justice sector services is one of the ways our government is committed to improving the system. I was happy to learn of the Attorney General’s Justice Roundtable, which engages with vital partners in the justice sector.

Minister, could you please speak to this House on the work you are doing at the Justice Roundtable?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais remercier le député d’Etobicoke-Centre pour cette question.

My ministry and I are committed to making the justice system simpler, faster and more accessible for all Ontarians. Our Justice Roundtable brings together key justice and community partners to discuss the issues they face and how we can work in new and different ways to resolve them together. The Justice Roundtable serves as a very important forum to promote communication and collaboration among the ministry and justice system stakeholders.

I had the pleasure of hosting our latest round table last week, and I look forward to discussing the details in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M. Yvan Baker: Je souhaiterais remercier la ministre pour sa réponse.

Je suis ravi d’entendre que la procureure générale a réuni des partenaires et des membres de la justice pour discuter d’importants enjeux.

J’ai été également très fier d’apprendre que le ministère du Procureur général a créé deux tables d’experts sur le droit criminel et le droit de la famille qui examinent et aident à identifier des solutions potentielles dans des domaines clés. En favorisant la communication et la collaboration dans ce secteur, le système de justice bénéficie de l’expérience de ces experts.

Est-ce que la ministre peut nous en dire plus sur le travail de ces deux tables d’experts?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: En effet, je veux encore remercier le député d’Etobicoke-Centre.

Tel qu’il le mentionne, la table ronde sur la justice s’est concentrée cette année sur deux sujets principaux. Le ministère a identifié des domaines clés à l’intérieur du système du droit de la famille et du droit criminel, et a également reçu des commentaires de la part de nos partenaires du droit de la famille et du droit criminel.

La table ronde sur le droit de la famille a pour but de rendre la Cour de la famille plus accessible et plus efficace. La table ronde sur le droit criminel a pour but d’améliorer l’accès à la justice pour les accusés atteints de santé mentale.

Enfin, en travaillant de concert, nous pouvons être des leaders dans ce domaine en apportant des changements qui amélioreront l’accès à la justice, et ce, à travers tout l’Ontario.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci.

Autism treatment

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Aidan Timmins is a five-year-old boy with autism in my riding. Aidan is non-verbal, and he was on the IBI waiting list for 17 months. His dad, Sean, tells me his dream is to hear Aidan say, “I love you, Dad.”

One morning last month, Sean found his wife, Sonia, in tears. In her hand was a letter stating that because Aidan had just turned five, he was suddenly no longer eligible for IBI. The day Sean and Sonia learned that “the light at the end of our tunnel” was snuffed out was April 2, world autism day. That’s shameful, Speaker.

So my question is simple: Will the minister do the right thing and give Aidan the therapy he needs to find his voice?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: As both the Premier and I have said in this House on a number of occasions, our government is committed to improving the lives of children with autism and the lives of their families. That is exactly why we are addressing this very unsustainable situation we find ourselves in. That is exactly why we don’t want children to be stranded on wait-lists.

Children who have been on the IBI wait-lists are going into immediate service, and they will be supported during that time, through the $8,000 payment for services, as well as post that.

All children who have autism, no matter where they are on the spectrum, deserve the right kind of intensity, the right kind of support. That is what the new autism program is all about. We are getting down to the family level, to make sure they are all well supported by their service provider. If that’s not happening, I want to hear more from families about that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister: I’ve known you for a long time, and I don’t believe this is you. I don’t believe you would countenance a policy that would pit kids under five and their parents against kids who are older than five and their parents. I think you know in your heart, too, that parents don’t like that. They don’t like the notion of having to crawl over some other parents and their kids to get service.

The member next to you from Mississauga–Streetsville has a constituent in his riding named Adam—Adam is one of those kids—and his mom. Initially, Adam’s treatment was supposed to be in August 2017. It would be after he turned five. They looked into the wait-list to find out with your new policy, and the answer received was August 2017. It had not changed. He would be cut off.

Minister, I know in your heart that the policy you believe in should be judging by the needs of the child, not the age or the calendar. Can you make sure Adam gets the service he requires?

Interjections.

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

Before I go to the minister, just a reminder: please, through the Chair. It’s designed that way.

Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from the opposition for what I believe are very sincere words towards me. But, Speaker, I need to be very clear. I am committed to making positive change for children with autism. I am committed to making sure that this investment of $333 million happens, notwithstanding that the opposition party voted against it and notwithstanding that the third party voted against this investment.

We’re going to keep going, because these children deserve to get the support they need, whether they’re currently in therapy or whether they are on a wait-list and will now be taken off that wait-list and into immediate service. I am committed to this program, Speaker. My government is committed to this. I’m committed to families here and all families in Ontario, to make it better for these children with autism. They have my unwavering commitment.

Fundraising

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. Can the Deputy Premier tell Ontarians how many experts they consulted before democratic reform and how many public meetings were held before introducing today’s reform legislation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m very proud that this afternoon we will be tabling a piece of legislation that will introduce some very major reforms to election financing rules in the province of Ontario.

This proposal is very much inspired by what we are hearing from the public at large where they want transparency and accountability. As a result, the proposal that will be tabled today will put a ban on corporate and union donations. It will introduce strict limitations on third party advertising. It’s going to ensure that there are hard caps on limits for fundraising and many other important features.

I expect, and the Premier expects, that the opposition parties, especially the NDP, will participate in the process to make sure that Ontarians get an opportunity to bring their points of view forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Back to the Acting Premier: After a decade of scandals, today’s legislation does not address the cynicism or the trust issues that Ontarians have with this government. This bill limits non-partisan groups from speaking out about issues like autism, climate change or fair pay, but it does give free rein for partisan government advertising that, in the words of the AG, allows self-congratulatory and self-promotional advertising that will be of little practical use to the citizens paying for it. This bill is about helping the Liberal Party.

Will the Deputy Premier commit to fixing the bill they’ve introduced, or will the government be using its legislative majority to ensure that this bill helps the Ontario Liberal Party once again?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I find it rich coming from the NDP, who have done nothing but drag their feet on this process. They have done nothing but offer one—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): For some members, it really doesn’t matter where you sit; I can tell who you are.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The NDP has failed to offer one substantive thought or idea on this very important issue. When we have asked them to come to meetings so we can discuss the substantive aspects, they have boycotted.

I want to give credit to the official opposition for coming to the meeting and engaging in a healthy discussion. I want to give credit to the Green Party, who came to a meeting and give substantive ideas. The NDP? Nowhere to be seen. So before the NDP gets on their holy place, they should engage in this process.

Let’s make sure that we get this matter to the committee so that we can hear from Ontarians across—

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

New question.

Rabies

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. There has been a lot of mention in the news about rabies in the Hamilton area lately. My understanding is that these animals have been infected with a particular strain of rabies that hasn’t been seen in Ontario since 2005. I know that Ontarians might have questions about how the re-emergence of this disease happened and what steps Ontario is taking to mitigate it.

Can the minister share how his ministry and its partners are working to control this outbreak and ensure public awareness of raccoon rabies?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for the question.

Speaker, while we can’t say for sure how we have ended up in this situation, with an outbreak of rabies in Ontario, we expect that an animal probably came in on a vehicle, like a railcar or something.

We’ve had a great record in the province for eight or 10 years, since we have had a situation where the ministry has had to deal with a rabies outbreak. That is owed, in large part, to a great program, a made-in-Ontario solution that has been in place for a number of years, where the baits—some 220,000, last fall, to deal with this outbreak—are distributed around the border communities in the United States to try to prevent areas that don’t have a program—from those animals finding their way into Ontario and creating a problem for us. We distributed about 220,000 baits last year.

The animals basically go into hibernation. The baits are less effective over the winter months, so we stop the program in the winter.

I’ve got more to add to that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thanks to the minister for his answer. It’s good to know that his ministry is responding to this outbreak.

The last time there was an outbreak of this nature, I know that our tools were very limited, leading to the culling of many raccoons as a preventive measure. It is reassuring that we now have tools like this vaccine that can be more broadly and more humanely used to control the spread of this disease.

Can the minister elaborate on his ministry’s plans to further address this problem?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the opportunity to elaborate.

Speaker, as I mentioned in the opening response, this is a made-in-Ontario solution—220,000 baits last year. We resumed the baiting again on April 1—an additional 500,000 baits, with more to come. By the time the program is completed, we will have distributed somewhere in the order of 1.1 million baits around the province of Ontario, hoping to be as effective as we can.

We’re doing everything that we can. We want this question today to bring some sort of public awareness around this campaign so that if people see animals—skunks, raccoons, foxes—that are acting in an odd manner, to make sure they contact their animal services agencies and their municipalities and let them know.

We believe that the program will probably take at least a couple of years before we can really see if we have had an ability to be effective and eliminate the rabies problem in Ontario once more.

I want to thank the people on the ground for a made-in-Ontario solution that has been very effective over the last—

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Kristen from Cobourg has a son, Carter, who has autism and is turning six in August. He’s smart and capable of learning, but he’s unable to feed himself with a spoon or a fork, unable to dress or bathe himself, and unable to tell his mom if he’s in pain or how he feels.

Carter started IBI therapy in April, and the results were amazing. He mastered two new skills with just 20 hours of IBI. But the therapy will only run for six months, not the years that he was promised.

Carter is proof that IBI is critical, even for children five and older. But it needs to be consistent.

Kristen is scared about what will happen without this treatment. I’m standing up for her because her own MPP cancelled her meetings three times and told her that he wouldn’t read anything that she wanted to leave behind.

Mr. Speaker, will the government give families like Kristen and Carter hope for a better future and restore IBI therapy for children over five?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the question. It’s an important one. Her question is about children currently getting IBI therapy. It’s important to clarify that those children will continue to get IBI therapy. Yes, they will have a clinical assessment at six months, and the course of action will be determined by that clinical assessment. If they need continuous intensive support, that’s what they will get. They are not being automatically removed from intensive therapy. That is a misconception out there. It’s important that the opposition get the facts straight.

It speaks to the need to make sure that we’re supporting children, wherever they are on the spectrum, that they get the support they need based on the clinical advice and that they’re well supported going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Minister of Children and Youth Services: Laura Martin of Conestoga has a seven-year-old son, Cole, who, after three years of waiting, finally started receiving IBI treatments in January. Laura has already begun seeing significant improvements in Cole’s self-control in dealing with his aggressiveness. Now this Premier is pulling the rug out. Battling families of children with autism to prevent them the hope for treatment they’ve waited so long for, in the words of his mom, Ms. Martin, is “ludicrous.”

Will the minister do the right thing for Laura Martin, Cole and the families across Ontario? Will she restore families’ hope and restore the IBI treatment that her government has ripped away from Cole?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: When I meet with families, it’s stories like this that motivate me. They inspire me—to hear about the progress that these children are making. That is what we all want. We want to see children with autism spectrum disorder make progress. I welcome those stories. It motivates me and inspires our government in terms of the work we do. It just reinforces our commitment to make sure all of these children, all 40,000, are well supported in this program, which will provide more service, more money and more individual support to families.

I welcome these stories from the families here today, from the opposition. I encourage the opposition to share those stories with me because it’s very, very important that the voices of families and children continue to be heard.

Mental health services

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Deputy Premier. On Saturday, we learned that the London and District Distress Centre will close by the end of the year, with its crisis response line transferred to the provincial agency ConnexOntario. That same day, NDP leader Andrea Horwath joined me and the member from London–Fanshawe in London as we listened to patients and health care providers share horror stories about the failure of our health care system and the crisis in mental health.

Telephone crisis support provides a key entry point into a mental health system that is already stretched to the limit. Too many Londoners in crisis have been turned away from ER or forced to wait days to access emergency mental health services. The new 24/7 mental health crisis centre is already at capacity.

What will the Deputy Premier do to ensure that the community mental health services Londoners need are in place after they call the crisis line?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for London West for this very important question. I know that she genuinely does care about having the right supports there for people who are struggling with mental health issues.

I can assure you that this is a high priority for our government. We have invested substantially in mental health services, including, as she mentioned, the new 24/7 crisis centre that is a made-in-London innovation, which I do hope will spread to communities across the province. It was the result of everyone in the community coming together and designing a solution that fit the needs of London.

She mentioned that it’s at capacity. That tells us that we were on the right track when we funded it. But there’s more to do, obviously, and having a place where people can call when they are in distress is an important part of the continuum of services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary: the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: London’s new 24/7 mental health crisis centre was full almost from the day it opened. About 70% of those walking in the door are first-time users of mental health supports, and 60% of the people are under the age of 35. Clearly, the demands for mental health services in London are increasing and will continue to grow. What concrete action will the Acting Premier take to expand access to community-based mental health services in London?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the other member from London for this question.

Again, I think we’re all on the same page when we say we want the best possible services for people struggling. That’s why, Speaker, we’ve invested substantially in mental health. In fact, we have almost doubled the funding for mental health and addiction services since we were elected. We have developed a comprehensive strategy that we are implementing. There is no question that people facing mental health challenges need and deserve to get the support they need in a timely way, and we’re making important investments to achieve that goal.

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker, the member from Ottawa Centre and I recently attended the start of the Heroes are Human Capital-to-Capital ride in Ottawa. This 15-day bike ride event covers 1,538 kilometres, from the capital of Canada to the capital of the United States. The minister was also there, and we had a wonderful time working to increase awareness about PTSD and other injuries faced by first responders.

I know that this government passed Bill 163 in order to help address PSTD in first responders. Could the minister please provide the House with an update on the government’s PTSD awareness initiatives?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to thank the member for that very important question and also for her support and the support of all members of this House on Bill 163.

I’m happy to tell the House today that our PTSD posters are now being distributed all over the province and they’re starting to work, Speaker. They’re going to firefighters, police officers, paramedics—those people in the field who can see this and can come forward and start talking about PTSD. We’ve shared them at the paramedic chiefs’ conference, the Partners in Prevention conference, and I know that members from all parties in this House are sharing them with their own first responders.

We did attend the Heroes are Human Capital-to-Capital ride, an excellent event, a bike ride from Ottawa to Washington. It’s going to help raise awareness about post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his answer. As I mentioned, we met numerous first responders at the start of the bike ride who were excited that our government passed legislation to help first responders when they need our help the most. Mental health issues demand the attention of us all. I’m happy that we’re working to end the stigma, as the minister explained.

Mr. Speaker, I know that our government has also launched a website and other resources to assist with prevention and awareness of PTSD. Can the minister please provide this House with an update?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that supplementary question.

Members of the House will remember when we supported this. Part of the PTSD strategy was a tool kit so that employers of first responders would have a guide as to how they could deal with prevention plans. That tool kit is available at www.firstrespondersfirst.ca. I’d urge people to go to the site. We continue to update the tool kits on a regular basis. The feedback has been incredibly positive.

The other part we did was that we required employers of first responders to submit their prevention plans to me. I’m going to publish those plans publicly so that we can learn from each other.

The building blocks for an excellent strategy to combat PTSD are under way in the province of Ontario. We’re going to be asking for their prevention plans to be in by April of 2017.

Speaker, we promised Ontario would be a leader. We are a leader now in PTSD—

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The minister says that kids aren’t getting kicked off IBI, but that’s not the reality for the parents in my riding. Six-year-old Lawson should have had his IBI assessment six months after treatment started. Instead, the government announced their new policy. He had his assessment two and a half months early.

Just two weeks later, his mother received the letter about him being transitioned off IBI. She has been fighting to keep him on ever since. Lawson’s mother waited six years for her son to be able to call her “Mom.” Now that Lawson is finally getting the treatment he needs, his mother is living with fear that he will lose it, and anger at this government that they are taking it away. That is the real result of the minister’s policy and the reality for autistic kids.

Will the minister reverse her policy for kids like Lawson on the services they need and are entitled to?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the question.

I think we should all agree, may I suggest, that we are not clinicians. We are not the clinical judge of what is appropriate for a child’s treatment. I leave that expertise to the clinicians. Children who are in IBI will continue to get IBI and then they’ll have a clinical assessment; then it goes from there. What’s really important to note, Speaker, is that all children with a diagnosis, including those five and over, will get better services sooner that are customized to meet individual needs.

I’m very open, as I have said and as the Premier has said, about how the new program looks in terms of the service delivery to the parents. I think they’ve provided some excellent advice. We’re taking that under consideration in the context of implementation and we’ll keep listening to parents and advocates.

Autism treatment

Mr. Lorne Coe: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services: Angelo is a nine-year-old who lives in Ajax–Pickering. In a letter typed by his mother, Angelo talked to the Premier about his six-year-old brother Matteo, who waited four years to receive IBI therapy. Angelo spoke about his love for his brother and the fact that IBI therapy has made him really happy to go to school.

Angelo said, “Now he’s in IBI, he is mastering a lot of stuff. He understands when I talk to him, he plays with me, he dresses himself, he answers to his name and looks at me.

“I want my brother to have a good life, to be happy like he is now, to talk more, and not run away so we can go out more and be happy together....”

In his letter, he pleaded with the Premier to change her mind on IBI funding.

Will the minister cancel the cuts to funding for IBI therapy for those