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

November 5, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Nov-05 (PDF)

L082 - Tue 5 Nov 2013 / Mar 5 nov 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 November 2013 Mardi 5 novembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

JOB CREATION

CANCER TREATMENT

CANCER TREATMENT

SKILLS TRAINING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

BIODIVERSITY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ROAD SAFETY

DRIVE CLEAN

WORKPLACE SAFETY

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR

LES ALIMENTS LOCAUX

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FRANK STRONACH

CLIMATE CHANGE

VETERANS

ROAD SAFETY

STEEL INDUSTRY

EMERGING LEADERS NETWORK

TOBACCO CONTROL

PAN AM GAMES

CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LUNG CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

SMALL BUSINESS

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WASTE REDUCTION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

WASTE REDUCTION

TIRE DISPOSAL

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ONTARIO RANGER PROGRAM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGISTERED HUMAN RESOURCES

PROFESSIONALS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES PROFESSIONNELS

EN RESSOURCES HUMAINES INSCRITS

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU DROIT À LA PARTICIPATION

AUX AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 4, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

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

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure to rise today in response to Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act. It’s a pleasure to be here so early in the morning, and all the members here with us as well—a great morning.

To speak about the bill right off the get-go, the Waste Reduction Act, a number of wags have referred to it as a Liberal shell game that shifts eco taxes from consumer receipts to price tags on the store shelves. This bill not only fails to meet the Ontario PC’s demand to scrap eco taxes; it also fails to eliminate the Liberals’ own recycling cartels and the government’s unaccountable oversight agency Waste Diversion Ontario.

The government’s plan is to give this agency enforcement powers and the authority to set and collect from businesses fees which would then be passed on to consumers as part of the eco tax disclosed on the price tag. The Liberal government is turning over these powers to this agency even though for five long years they’ve authorized Liberal recycling cartels to impose exorbitant eco taxes on Ontarians, including, recently, the 2,000% tire tax hikes in April and $40 levies on big-screen TVs in May of this year.

Waste Diversion Ontario has broken the trust of Ontarians time and time again and should not be rewarded with more power and a bigger multi-million-dollar budget funded through eco taxes.

The Waste Diversion Act is nothing but sleight of hand. The government claims they’re taking steps to meet the Ontario PC caucus’s demands to scrap eco taxes. All they’ve really done is attempt to force businesses to bury these expensive levies in the cost of their products or to display them on price tags instead of receipts in the store.

What the Liberal government doesn’t want you to know is that Bill 91 continues each and every eco tax program. This means that Ontario consumers will still have to pay eco taxes on tires, electronics and household hazardous materials like paint cans and batteries. The only difference will be a higher tax, or an eco tax, displayed on the price tag on the store shelf instead of on the receipt at the cash register. Mr. Speaker, this isn’t change. It’s a shell game to ensure all of the Liberal eco taxes and revenue will continue to be funnelled into their recycling bureaucracy, which costs Ontario consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Without telling the public, the Liberals raised this eco tax on big-screen TVs earlier this year by more than 40%, bringing the total levy on big-screen TVs to $40. The government also targeted Ontario’s hard-working farmers with a massive tire tax hike earlier this year. In fact, the environment minister raised the eco tax on John Deere combine tires, for example, to $823 each, up from $92—a massive increase.

Interjection: Who can afford that?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, who in the farm community can afford that? Who in any community can afford that?

Still without a real plan for the economy, the Liberal government has spent more than a month claiming that continuing eco taxes and doubling the cost of the blue box program and creating new taxes for Ontario consumers will lead to more jobs. We doubt that, Mr. Speaker.

It’s truly sad to see that the best job strategy that the Liberal government could come up with is taking half a billion dollars out of the Ontario manufacturing sector every year in order to subsidize a few green jobs. This is the same risky economic theory that the government used for the Green Energy Act, which cost the province thousands of manufacturing jobs, and we know how that turned out. Still, for some reason, this government actually thinks that to create jobs in the recycling industry, they need to revert back to the same risky economic theory and kill even more jobs in Ontario’s manufacturing sector.

What’s worse is that their cohorts to the left, the NDP, support the Liberal reckless plan to saddle Ontario’s manufacturing sector—

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a coalition.

Mr. Robert Bailey: My colleague from Durham, the learned member from Durham says. “coalition,” coalition of the billing—with another half a billion dollars in costs, even at the price of killing good jobs at factories in cities like Hamilton, London and Kitchener—Sarnia as well, I might add. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. Governments shouldn’t sacrifice jobs in one sector to create them in another; it should create the right conditions for economic growth in all sectors. Regulate the marketplace and let the private sector take care of job growth.

The reason the Liberals want to force half a billion dollars of new costs on Ontario consumers is to grow the size and power of the government’s unaccountable recycling agency, Waste Diversion Ontario, the WDO—that’s quite an acronym, the WDO. Bill 91 gives this agency the power to impose new taxes on Ontario’s manufacturing sector and to dictate how much each business will have to pay for their recycling programs. Mr. Speaker, we feel this is wrong. Real job creation is not the result of new costs and bureaucracy; it’s the result of setting the right conditions and getting the right economic growth because of those conditions.

We put forward a bold plan last November, in one of our white papers, to create jobs in the recycling industry without sacrificing Ontario’s manufacturing sector. In our paper, and in the discussions that we had with the industry and consumers across the province, we would suggest that we start by scrapping the Liberal eco tax programs entirely and eliminating the government’s useless recycling bureaucracy.

We believe that businesses should do their part to recover and recycle materials into new products, but rather than create complicated bureaucracy and massive new costs for consumers, we would simply create the right conditions for economic growth and hope to see those implemented. We would do this by having the environment minister set measurable and achievable recycling targets for certain materials, establish environmental standards, measure outcomes and enforce the rules—that’s it.

Having the Ministry of the Environment regulate the recycling industry would establish a direct line of accountability between the government and the business community. Unfortunately, the third party, the NDP, supports the Liberals’ efforts to outsource the ministry’s regulatory authority to an unaccountable organization called the Waste Reduction Authority, the WRA, hereinafter referred to as the WRA as opposed to the WDO. I don’t know if there are any more acronyms here or not, as we go further. Some of the facts, Madam Speaker, on this—

Mr. John O’Toole: Strike a panel on it.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, maybe they’ll strike a panel on the WRO, the WDO, and it’ll be called the PPO, the panel opposing—anyway, you’ll come up with one, the member for Durham, for me, while I’m—

Interjection: Work on that.

Mr. Robert Bailey: —working on that one. I’m ragging the puck here.

Madam Speaker, Bill 91 is nothing more than the Liberal McGuinty government’s and Wynne government’s desperate attempt to change the channel on their failure to increase waste diversion. In 2008, the Liberals promised to achieve a 60% waste diversion rate. Five years later, that rate is still stalled at just 23%. The reason is that the Liberals have ignored Ontario’s largest source of waste. As a result, they’ve actually allowed recycling to drop at factories, shopping malls and government buildings.

The industrial, commercial and institutional sector, otherwise known as ICI, accounts for 60% of Ontario’s waste, yet the Liberals allowed recycling to decrease in this sector from 19% to 12%. Instead of showing leadership in this area, as the member for Caledon did with her bill on recycling cement and aggregates, which went a long way to—it’s the kind of example that we should have in this House.

Instead of showing leadership on waste diversion, the Liberals have spent all of their time running massive eco tax schemes for tires, electronics and household hazardous materials, which together only make up 3% of the province’s waste. After focusing on just a fraction of the waste stream for five years, it’s no wonder that this act has been such an abject failure.

Some of the things that we’ve called for, Madam Speaker—I see I’m coming to the end of my time. We should have much more time to speak on this.

Mr. John O’Toole: Seek unanimous consent.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, I’ll ask for unanimous consent to continue.

Anyway, the PC Party plan would be—the Waste Reduction Act fails to meet our two biggest demands: to scrap eco taxes and to eliminate useless bureaucracy. That’s why we can’t support it.

In November of last year, the Ontario PC Party presented a better way forward: lower costs for businesses and to treat recyclable materials not as waste but as valuable resources that we should recover and recycle into new products. The Ontario PC Party, led by Tim Hudak, would scrap eco taxes, get rid of the Liberal recycling cartels and return all oversight authority back to the Ministry of the Environment, where it truly belongs. Under our plan, the government would set measurable and achievable recycling targets, establish environmental standards and measure outcomes.

That’s simply it, Madam Speaker. I might seek unanimous consent for me to continue.

Hon. Liz Sandals: No.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m happy to stand this morning and speak as the party’s environment critic and respond to Bill 91 and the comments made by the member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Speaker, we’ve heard clearly from Conservatives for a long time about eco fees or eco taxes. I couldn’t agree more that we shouldn’t be passing on a failed waste diversion plan. We shouldn’t be passing on those costs to the people of this province. That’s a big part of why we need a strengthened act here and a new framework going forward. Obviously, the other important

part is that we’re actually failing, absolutely failing this generation and future generations when it comes to waste diversion. We remain a laggard in this country.

But the role that the Conservatives are playing in this debate I find is counterproductive. This is complicated legislation; it’s a complicated issue; it deserves serious thought and serious debate. You know, there are a lot of different players involved here, and we all in this House need to roll up our sleeves and make sure that we get this right. But to say that the existing system is not just—that things remaining the way they are is not going to continue to pass costs on to consumers is wrong.

If the people of this party want to stop eco fees and eco taxes, then they need to stop the system that’s in place right now that allows industry-driven monopolies, basically, to set prices and pass those prices on to consumers. Speaker, that is not working. It is not meeting our environmental obligations and expectations, and it is not driving the kind of innovation in the sector that’s necessary to create better products, and it is not creating the incentive or the necessity not to pass those fees on to consumers. So I wish the Conservatives would roll up their sleeves and be part of this debate.

Let’s get it right. Let’s work to deliver this for the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think we really do need to get on with voting on this bill. Bill 91 has now been debated for over 12 and a half hours; 45 individual members have expressed what they have to say about this. In fact, I think it’s well defined what the position of each of the three parties is now. What we need is a vote on this bill so it can get to committee, where it can be fine-tuned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. John O’Toole: It was a pleasure this morning to listen to the very eloquent member from Sarnia–Lambton. I like the way he organized his critique of the bill. He did make extensive use of the notes provided to him by our critic and his staff, Michael Harris as well as Shane. His staff did a great job of deconstructing the bill.

He outlined it. Our plan is pretty simple. We want to set measurable, achievable targets based on scientific research, and then we want to monitor it—independent monitoring would be our first objective—and then strict and often severe enforcement. By that, I mean that government should stay out of the business itself, but they’ve got to set the standards and then monitor and provide consequences for non-conformance.

I thought the member from Sarnia–Lambton summarized the bill succinctly, but I think he did focus on the hidden eco taxes. In his remarks, he made it clear that they haven’t cut or reduced them; in fact, they have increased almost all the eco taxes.

Now, here’s the larger issue he pointed out: They’re focusing on the smaller component of the waste stream. When you think of it, and in his remarks—I might be wrong, but I listened carefully, and we have the same notes, basically. The ICI sector, the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, represents 60% of the waste stream. Really, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, so what have they done? In the last 10 years, they’ve taken the ICI waste stream from, once upon a time, doing 19% recovery down to a measly 12%.

So they’ve gone from first to last, just about the same way with the economy itself. So there’s a predictor of future behaviour. This bill does not get us where we need to go.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: I would like to comment on the eloquent 10 minutes in which my friend from Sarnia–Lambton discussed the Waste Reduction Act. He clearly indicated off the top that this is just a Liberal shell game. There’s no one who’s denying that over on this side, and I don’t think probably very many over on the government side would deny that as well. All they’re doing is taking the eco fees, which were clearly marked on the shelves, and then embedding the eco fees, which they’ve received a lot of criticism about over the last two or three years, into the price that’s going to be on the item at the cash register.

I was just down south of the border—I was recalling this story a couple of weeks ago—for my daughter’s hockey game on Sunday. One of the dads on the hockey team, despite the fact I said he shouldn’t do it because he’s hurting the Ontario economy, had all four tires on his vehicle changed down there, and it saved him hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

I don’t recommend this for people, but this is the kind of situation that this government has created in this province, where people are driving south of the border and are planning a trip to have all four tires changed on their vehicle just to save a couple of hundred dollars. The retail sector is saying this is a huge problem, not just for tires but for television sets.

Because of these eco taxes that this government has slapped onto all of these electronic devices, people are doing their shopping in other jurisdictions—not just south of the border, but you hear about people heading across the border into Quebec as well to do their shopping because they can save a few dollars because we are the most overtaxed jurisdiction in all of North America.

I would like to say to my friend from Sarnia–Lambton, Bob Bailey: You hit the nail on the head this morning, Bob. People need to wake up to these hidden eco taxes.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Madam Speaker. First off—

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Come on down to Sarnia. We’ll sell you some good tires down at International Tire.

Right off the go, I’d like to thank the member for Davenport, the Minister of Education, the member for Durham and also the member from Prince Edward–Hastings for their comments today.

Just in my referral here in my notes, I was looking at an

article from August. This is from the Toronto Star by Robert Benzie, Queen’s Park bureau chief, Wednesday, August 4, 2010. It says here:

“Premier Dalton McGuinty personally pushed for the recycling program that led to” the eco fee disaster “on consumer products despite objections from at least five”—five, count them—“of his cabinet ministers”—some of them might be in the room today, who told him that this would be a disaster and he shouldn’t do it, but he went ahead anyway.

“Government insiders”—you know, those ones who slip the brown envelopes under the door—“said at the February 2008 cabinet meeting, where the doomed scheme was approved, ministers loudly railed against it, fearing political damage to the Liberals.

“The senior minister who led the charge warned the Premier” of the day that “the policy could spark a backlash if eco fees were slapped directly on products.”

The Premier said, “‘We can’t do this fast enough’ ... who had been re-elected with a ... massive majority government just four months earlier.”

Anyway, what we’re here today to talk about is—well, one thing the member from Prince Edward–Hastings talked about was the individual who saved $400 on his tires. Well, I think he would have to do that because then he could apply that $400 savings to his electricity bill which has gone through the roof. That’s real recycling, I guess, if you want to look at it that way; that’s recycling your money to wherever you can use it for the most good.

To sum up, our bottom line is that we want to scrap the eco taxes and eliminate useless bureaucracy. We want to lower costs for business and individuals, treat recyclable materials not as waste but as actual viable resources, and we should recover and recycle these products.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for—

Mr. John Vanthof: Timiskaming–Cochrane.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Timiskaming–Cochrane; sorry.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you, Speaker. Once again, it’s an honour to be able to stand in this House and today speak about Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act, 2013.

I’m going to do a more personal take on this. I first got involved in the waste reduction business when I was a member of the public liaison committee for the city of Toronto on the Adams Mine landfill proposal. I was the president of the Temiskaming Federation of Agriculture at that time. I was put on this committee, and I got a crash course in waste management. I remember very clearly—and this was 1995-96—that the focus of this landfill proposal was going to be recycling, because recycling then was the panacea. That’s where we had to go, and that was great.

I remember an evening on that committee, and the way they were going to ship the waste from Toronto to the Adams Mine was that they were going to compress it in rail cars. I believe it was 1,500 PSI. They were going to compress it and send it north, and at that point, we would have the chance to recycle. Being a farmer with a mechanical mind and mechanical questions, I stuck up my hand and I asked, “So after it has been compressed to 1,500 PSI, how do you propose that we search through it and recycle?” To which the answer was, “That’s why we’re giving you money for research, so you can look into that.” Basically, the plan wasn’t recycling.

There is a point to this, but just as another little point: When they did send the prototype car to northern Ontario—and they were smart. They did send it at the right time of year; it was 40 below when they sent the prototype. We didn’t have to worry about recycling because it couldn’t even unload. At 40 below, hydraulics just don’t work that well in northern Ontario. There was no recycling to be done from that car because nothing was coming out of that car.

But they really focused on the recycling part; that was the whole sales pitch. The funny thing about that is, not much has changed. I was recently asked to speak at a meeting regarding another big proposed landfill in this province. So as I went and looked and did my research, 20 years later, they’re still doing the same thing: talking about the opportunities in recycling. It’s practical proof that we really haven’t gotten that far in 20 years. It’s a real problem. It’s a real, identifiable problem. I looked at the website 20 years ago—it wasn’t websites back then; I’m really dating myself.

I still have the material, and basically it was the same stuff. So we really haven’t gotten that far on the landfill side in 20 years. But if you look at our numbers, we haven’t gotten that far either.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: So do you like the bill?

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m getting to that. This bill, Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act, has some positives and some negatives. The one thing I think—and I’m going to go back to the eco fees. I’m a farmer. Farmers really didn’t like it, especially—I’ve told this before on one of my hits. The first time I really had experience with eco fees, I went to buy oil filters for my tractors and there was an extra $100 tacked on. I told the dealer, “That’s great. That means I can bring the filters back and you will recycle them for me.” No. You still have to bring them to the dump. And that’s the problem.

With the tires and the rise in the tire price, that’s a problem, but there are things that Stewardship Ontario did. I’m going to stick up for them on one point: At least with the tires—we had a couple of big tire piles in my riding, and you could call up Stewardship Ontario, and because of the money they collected they came and they cleaned up the tires. So you know what? The rise in prices all of a sudden is a huge problem, but the fact is that you could actually see some value for the money, because in my riding we got action and we cleaned up a couple of big piles of tires.

It shouldn’t be that difficult an issue. My colleague from Nickel Belt—I was in the House and she was talking about mining. Nowadays, if you want to start a new mine, you have to have as part of your plan, and it has to be in your financials, how you are going to remediate it, how you’re going to clean it up when that mine closes. So it’s complicated, but that’s good legislation. And that should be here too, but I’m not sure if that is here.

One of the problems that we continue to have, and I really continue to, have is the concept of the Waste Reduction Authority. You know, it sounds good. It sounds like it could be a mediation tool. But it also could be, and it’s not really well defined here, another government agency or semi-government agency—I don’t know what the proper term is—which we have no real control over. We can name a few of those other agencies which we had no real control over. That in itself is a problem. It’s a big problem, because if it’s created without authority, these agencies have a tendency to run away with themselves, and I think that’s a big problem.

Another problem with this that we have to look into is that specifically in places like where I’m from, northern Ontario, we don’t have access to a lot of the same services as more urban parts of the province. Also, our municipalities might not have the same capability, or even want that responsibility, for the recycling portion itself, or with the waste diversion. I think we have to put more thought in how—with a lot of issues in northern Ontario, the distances are bigger and the populations are smaller. We have to look at how we can actually make that work.

For those municipalities that have a blue box system, they’re also concerned because where this bill comes back down to, and where almost everything comes back down to, is money.

Getting back to the landfill issue, one of the problems we face with recycling, with diversion, in this province is that our neighbour to the south is willing to accept landfill materials at a very cheap price. That’s a big problem because, at the end of the day, if it’s cheaper to landfill something—unless you put regulations to stop that—it’s going to go to landfill. That’s a big problem. If you put those regulations in then, yes, the prices of some of your products are going to rise. That’s something that we have to be cognizant of and something we’re going to have to deal with. It’s a big problem.

We’re hoping that this act finds the fine balance between hurting the retail side and doing what’s right environmentally. That’s a big issue, because you don’t want to drive jobs away, but also you don’t want to look the other way and just throw things in a hole and leave it for the next generation.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: So what do you want to do?

Mr. John Vanthof: We want to bring this to committee, and we would like to make—specifically, we need accountability in this, especially in the Waste Reduction Authority. We don’t see the accountability in there that needs to be. This is another one of these acts that’s overarching and you can do lots of good things, but you can also do lots of bad things. What we have to do is bring this forward to committee, take our time, listen to everybody involved and actually try and do the right thing, not the political thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I was here for all the remarks for my colleague the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, who added, I thought, a great deal to the discussion this morning. I’ll be very quick.

We look forward to having this move on and get to committee, and then we’ll have a real discussion when it gets to committee, when all parties will have the opportunity to provide input on a very important piece of legislation brought forward by my colleague the Minister of the Environment.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: Once again, I do appreciate the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane. He’s always very fair-minded in his comments, and he raised some questions, as we have, on this bill. I think our position is pretty much the same, as we want to see it get to committee and basically deconstruct it and improve it. We’ll have to see if the government is willing to listen to our well-thought-through suggestions.

I look at where we’ve been in Ontario, and I think one of the programs that affects my constituents is the Drive Clean program. Even the Auditor General of Ontario—this is the Ministry of the Environment’s role, to make these programs work to clean up the environment, much like Bill 91. There’s a program there that—everyone with any insight at all realizes that the old method of doing the test at the tailpipe was really potentially avoiding pollutants going into the environment—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: That’s why they changed it.

Mr. John O’Toole: Oh no, but they’ve stopped that; they’ve cancelled that. Now it’s the onboard diagnostics, the computer system. If the computer system in an older car has a little electrical malfunction within the system, then people have to spend $400 or $500, maybe twice, before they get a provisional pass. This is another example of a tax grab.

That’s why this one section, number III—I think it’s III, where they’re actually hiding the tax—yes, it’s in

part IV; it says “Integrated pricing.” What a fancy term for hiding the eco fee inside the price. When you used to buy a battery, you could see that it cost you $2 for an eco fee right on the receipt. Now the consumer is completely in the dark and it’s a deliberate attempt to cover up, actually, if that’s in the proper term, in the price—“Integrated pricing”: This is one more example of a government that would do anything to take your money.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Good morning, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand up and to talk a little bit more about the proposed Waste Reduction Act, which will be replacing the Waste Diversion Act. I’m actually quite thankful that we’re still debating this. I understand the Liberal government is expressing some frustration that it’s still here, but it was exactly the situation not that long ago that the Minister of Rural Affairs stood up at the request of the Speaker and said, “We’re looking to extend this debate,” and here we are. So you can’t keep complaining about it, because you extended the debate. So here we are.

You know what? I think the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane actually raises the debate to a whole new level of integrity, because it’s the real experience of a former leader in this regard. It must be something for the young people in the audience to hear that 20 years ago we were still trying to figure out this recycling issue when really there’s so much more that we need to take leadership on. The politics of Bill 91 are—you cannot fight it.

The reality is, if we don’t support this piece of legislation, with all of its flaws, quite honestly, and get it to committee and strengthen it and bring the real lived experiences of people who know this file better than anybody else in this House, we risk waiting another 10 years for this government to do the right thing. The reality is that waste-related issues are very difficult to get on the political radar.

It’s amazing, because the PCs—one of their members just said they’re supporting it, that they’re going to try to make it better, and they’re looking forward to it. Yet for two years, they hardly read anything, and they hardly did anything. So here we are.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to join the debate. Like many other industries, the recycling industry has a job creation ratio. In auto, for example, for every job on the assembly line, you get about 10 in the community. With this issue as well: The recycling industry creates about 10 times as many jobs as just throwing the stuff away into landfill. Those jobs are out there.

The opposition members all have a right to speak. I don’t deny them that. They have the right to speak on every bill in the House if they want to. They’ve chosen to speak on this one. I think that’s great. I think the interest in the environment from the opposition parties is fantastic, and I hope it continues on into the next term.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane has two minutes to reply.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to thank the Minister of Rural Affairs, the member for Durham, my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo and the member for Oakville for their comments.

I always enjoy listening to the member of Durham.

Ms. Catherine Fife: You do?

Mr. John Vanthof: I do. He always brings an interesting perspective. He always brings perspective from his past experiences.

Interjection.

Mr. John Vanthof: He does; he has lots of practice in the House.

I was a bit surprised because his colleagues have been very, very negative on this bill, extremely negative, but he said he would like to get it to committee. I would like to thank him for that, because I think we all want to get it to committee. But we all want to make sure we get this right. Right? It hasn’t been right for a long time. Anything that we can bring forward in this debate and any time we can get individuals to actually work things out behind the scenes to get this bill right makes a big difference.

I’ll give you one that no one has come up with the answer to yet, an agriculture one: agricultural wrap, the white plastic wrap. We use a pile of it. I’m sure farmers—at least I would: If I knew, when I buy a roll of it, that I have to pay an extra 10 bucks, and I knew I could recycle it, I would gladly do it. Where I am, I can’t get rid of it. My dump won’t take it. I can’t get rid of it. So there’s an issue that we should work out. If we could work that one out, I think a lot of the farmers across the province would be much more supportive.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s a pleasure to rise this morning to speak on the Waste Reduction Act. I want to cover a few issues, but I’m going to continue on the plastic wrap that the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane referenced. There is an excellent recycler who basically provides bins to the greenhouse industry and the agricultural industry. You call them when your bin is full. The plastic wrap: They take it away, they replace it, and they’re recycling that product. It’s an excellent program. It has a value. We have an innovative producer in Ontario who has found a use for that product.

So there are opportunities there if government gets out of the way and doesn’t impose all of these additional programs and mandates.

We actually do have some pretty innovative producers across Ontario doing innovative things. In my own community we have a bottled water company that has figured out an opportunity on the recycling of spent water bottles. I think their concern and my concern is that Bill 91 will impede their ability to access that raw product.

What is happening with Bill 91 is, you’re going to have to have producers who are negotiating with 444 municipalities to get the product out of the blue box. There are a couple of problems with that, not the least of which is: There are 444 municipalities in Ontario. So it’s very challenging.

The second problem is, Bill 91 is talking about these intermediaries, which are basically going to become a de facto monopoly. You’re not going to be able to negotiate with the municipalities that want to recycle, that want to find end uses for the products that are in the blue box—a great concern to me.

In Bill 91, one of the things that they make reference to in

part II is this Waste Reduction Authority. The authority can set and collect fees and is required to appoint a registrar and inspectors. Speaker, we’re not getting away from eco fees with Bill 91; in fact, we’re entrenching it in legislation. We’re actually enabling the Minister of the Environment to force companies to bury the taxes in the cost of their product.

I don’t see how Bill 91 does anything to actually solve the problem that, four years ago, I raised in this House during question period when I was made aware of a tire tax that was being imposed on agricultural tires, obviously a much smaller market than the car tire market—larger tires, for obvious reasons. In October of 2009, I questioned the then Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs about a new $250 fee. That’s not the cost of the tire; that’s the fee that they added on after you purchased a single tire.

It was being levied on tractor tires when, at the same time, as a point of comparison, a new car tire fee was a small $5.84. At the time, the minister had what I considered a very disturbing response. It was basically that those fees are now the cost of doing business in Ontario under the Liberal government and that they should treat them as a business expense and “deal with it.”

Today, we see that same out-of-touch approach with Bill 91. This government doesn’t seem to understand that government doesn’t need to be in every single business. You can actually have innovation. You can encourage innovation without imposing all kinds of additional registrars and inspectors and enforcement agencies. You really just need to get out of the way sometimes.

What I would like to see, if we’re talking about improvements to Bill 91: In our blue box—we all represent different parts of Ontario. We all have many municipalities that we try to represent and collect their views so that we can talk about their issues here in this chamber. Let’s talk about the blue box, specifically. Again, back to the 444 municipalities across Ontario: Every single one of them has a different list of items that is included in their blue boxes. Why aren’t we looking at actually making that consistent province-wide?

We all know that the average Ontario resident moves every seven years, so we have—I’m dealing with it all the time in my own municipalities. We have people moving from Caledon to Orangeville, and their blue box items aren’t consistent, don’t stay the same. Why can’t we get into some consistency in what is actually being put in the blue boxes? It would involve a couple of improvements to the system. For one thing, you’d actually have enough product so that there is a need to recycle.

If one municipality is collecting—let’s use cloth as an example—there isn’t enough of the raw material to look at how you can recycle that. If you had every municipality across Ontario accepting the same items, then you start getting into a critical mass where there is an ability for creative thinking, for innovators in our manufacturing sector to actually say, “Okay, I’ve got enough raw product now.

I can make something and I can build something with this new item that is available across the spectrum of Ontario residents.” I personally think that would go a long way to ensure that the current recyclers that are working and are manufacturing and are creating jobs in Ontario would actually see some improvements to a system that we all acknowledge can be better.

There’s no shame in admitting that the program could be improved. My honourable colleague from Sarnia–Lambton made reference to the ICI sector—industrial, commercial and institutional. Again, I’m speaking often to manufacturers in my communities who say, “Why do we do a pretty good job of the blue box program, why do we provide that service, which most of us would acknowledge has done very well over the last 25 years, and yet with the ICI sector we’re doing a terrible job?” Why can’t we tap in to some of those existing programs and encourage the involvement of the ICI sector?

Again, it would ensure that we have a critical mass of product for the manufacturers to think of some innovative uses of stuff like the agricultural plastic wrap and actually use it in a way that is going to improve our economy. There are ways that we can actually do innovative legislation here that would encourage our economy to grow. Bill 91, unfortunately, is not one of them.

We’ve talked about a number of companies who have raised their concerns about what Bill 91 will ultimately do to their business model in Ontario. You think of the obvious: Canadian Tire, Walmart, Loblaws. When they’re talking about how Bill 91 is going to impact their business and how they approach business in Ontario, we have a problem, because you can’t be an anomaly. With those multinational companies you have to ensure that there is consistency across the provincial boundaries—quite frankly, across international boundaries.

We have to make sure that Bill 91 is going to actually improve the situation in Ontario. What I’m hearing from my recycling companies—companies who are actually in the business today, right now, recycling product and doing an excellent job of it—is that Bill 91 is going to put up barriers. These intermediaries—who’s going to pay for that? That’s obviously going to end up being incorporated into the fees. I see no decrease in the eco fees under Bill 91. In fact, I see an escalating increase, similar to the College of Trades.

If you have enforcement, if you have these intermediaries, if you have a registrar, there’s going to be a cost to that. It’s the classic: Liberals come up with an idea. It’s the Liberal way. Someone else has to pay. That’s what I see in Bill 91 and it disturbs me greatly. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s good to stand here today and continue on with this debate, because we’ve heard many members from the Liberal side explain that there has been 12 hours of debate and it’s time to move on. But, as we know, the Liberals extended the debate, and that’s a good thing, because there are a lot of speakers here that, as we can see, still want to contribute to this bill.

I enjoyed listening to the member from Dufferin–Caledon. She mentioned the Blue Box Program and the fact that there needs to be consistency in the kind of things you put in the blue box, so that everyone has an understanding of what they’re recycling. If you’re moving from one town to the other, it can get confusing. I know that when we started the Blue Box Program sometimes your blue box wouldn’t be picked up if you didn’t have the right material in there to recycle, which gets frustrating. We want to make sure that we have education for the public and make it convenient for them to recycle.

When you’re in committee and you do the work with the committee, part of that could be looking at a system to deliver information to consumers about what to put in the recycling box, and keep it consistent all over. I did like that suggestion.

There are concerns about the bill, of course. The Waste Reduction Authority is one concern that has come up. The Canadian Environmental Law Association has concerns about taking away that power of oversight from the ministry; if there are issues with waste reduction and the Waste Diversion Act; if it’s going to be fair if the Waste Reduction Authority deals with that, because right now we have a system in place where there’s accountability. The ministry has their lawyers that would deal with those infractions, and then, in turn, the Attorney General looks after that.

So those systems are in place, and moving that to the Waste Reduction Authority, we have to make sure that there is the right oversight in order to do that before we look at changing authority.

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: I believe there has been more than 13 hours of debate on this bill, and I think it’s probably time to send it to committee.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure to stand and comment on what I’ve been hearing with regard to Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act.

Really and truly, when we take a look at what the government has done, all they’ve done is table a bill with the stated purpose of, in fact, revoking the Waste Diversion Act, which was passed by the former PC government as a way of extending the life of Ontario’s landfills, create jobs in the recycling sector, as well as assist our municipal partners by creating a more stable Blue Box Program.

I listened to the debate on both sides and, really and truly, what this boils down to is the fact that the Waste Reduction Act is a Liberal shell game that really, in fact, shifts the eco taxes from consumer receipts to price tags on store shelves. I look at it this way: Before they had eco taxes—you were buying a product; now they add the eco fees, which is a form of tax.

Now they’re going to put that on, and then they’re also going to charge an additional 13% on top of those eco fees, so they’re getting more tax money, more revenues, to probably pay for a lot of the scandalous things that this government has been involved in over the last 10 years. It’s just another way of getting more revenue as well.

The bill also not only fails to meet the Ontario PCs’ demand to scrap eco taxes, but it also fails to eliminate the Liberals’ recycling cartels and the government’s unaccountable oversight—Waste Diversion Ontario. As you can see, Speaker, this particular bill isn’t doing anything other than crippling the economy, crippling—

Interjections.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s nice to hear that I’ve actually hit a sore spot.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. We have one person speaking: the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much, Speaker. I’ll wrap it up very quickly—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): That’s it.

The member for Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s been interesting to actually participate in this debate on Bill 91. It is a very important environmental issue.

I come from a riding where we have a landfill, and right now there’s an environmental assessment being done to try to increase the height of that landfill by about six metres. Certainly, it’s not—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member for Oakville to come to order. I can’t hear the speaker.

Please return to your comments.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I can hear myself, Speaker, so, hopefully, the viewing audience can hear it.

I was talking about a landfill in my own riding of Welland. It’s only one of two landfills that are left in the whole Niagara Peninsula. The one in Grimsby, in the Leader of the Opposition’s riding, cut themselves a deal, way back when, where they would only take the waste from four surrounding municipalities. My municipality wasn’t as “on” at the time; they didn’t put that into their agreement. So we’re getting waste from eight of the municipalities across the region, because all the other landfill sites had reached their capacity, and they have subsequently closed.

Certainly, people who have to live in residential neighbourhoods around landfill sites aren’t happy about it, just like people aren’t necessarily happy about gasification or other methods of dealing with waste. So it’s very important to continue to divert waste in any way that we can.

I have to agree with the member from Dufferin–Caledon. There are better ways to make it easier for people to divert. There are some provinces where you can just throw all your recycling together in a blue bag and they take it somewhere and it gets diverted at some kind of a facility. So the diversion rates in those kinds of jurisdictions are much higher.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): We’ll return to the member for Dufferin-Caledon. You have two minutes.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I appreciate the feedback. I think what is most important to remember about Bill 91 is that this is not a jobs plan. This is not encouraging innovation. This is not encouraging new businesses or existing businesses to figure out innovative ways to recycle the products that we all acknowledge and understand need to be recycled and can be recycled.

Bill 91 would enable the creation of more new taxes, more new fees, more bureaucracy and half a billion dollars in new costs for Ontario’s manufacturing sector, which I think we need to remember is shrinking under the Liberal government. If we keep putting more and more “thou shalts” on the manufacturing sector, then they will go elsewhere. We have to understand that there is a cause and effect of what happens in this chamber. When we impose new rules, new legislation, there are decisions that are being made on, “Will I continue to operate in Ontario? Will I go to another jurisdiction that has a better way of managing their waste diversion products?”

Red tape is not the solution for more waste diversion. All that it’s doing is monitoring and putting enforcement on a product that is already monitored by our municipal level of government.

Quite frankly, I think that our municipal partners understand the value of recycling and understand the value of encouraging blue box use. I think we can do some stuff here at the provincial level to help them, but we certainly don’t need to pretend that they have no level of knowledge and understanding of how it can be improved.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m very pleased to have been asked to speak on this bill this morning. I’d also like to thank our PC MPP from Kitchener–Conestoga for his strong leadership in opposing Bill 91.

Speaker, Bill 91 fails to scrap eco taxes and the government’s unaccountable oversight agency, Waste Diversion Ontario. After many years of having broken the trust of Ontarians, they should not be awarded with more power and an even bigger multi-million-dollar budget at the price of eco taxes.

I know this eco tax issue very well. I remember working in our family’s hardware and auto parts store in June 2010. In fact, on June 30, 2010, a bag of concrete mix, which is every hardware and building supply store’s number-one seller apart from products like two-by-fours and drywall and things like that, was selling for $3.99. The store was closed on July 1 for Canada Day. When our store opened on July 2, the very first customer of the day went up to the checkout and bought 70 bags of concrete mix. That concrete mix sold for $3.99 plus a $4 eco tax.

The Dalton McGuinty Liberals put a $4 eco tax on top of a $3.99 product. It more than doubled the price of the number-one selling product in any hardware and building supply store across the province.

The list goes on and on. On July 2, 8,000 products in hardware and building supply stores across the province of Ontario had massive eco taxes applied to them. A bag of sheep manure had a 50-cent eco tax on top of that. A bag of cattle manure had a 50-cent eco tax on top of that. A bag of grass seed had a 50-cent eco tax. A bag of potting soil—I mean, the list went on and on and on. A clock radio that sold for $3 had an $8 eco tax on top of that. That’s the legacy of the Dalton McGuinty-Premier Wynne Liberals when it comes to this failed eco tax policy.

It’s frustrating for Ontarians to see a government now introducing a piece of legislation that’s going to bury those eco taxes into the price of the products. People in Ontario will have no idea why a bag of concrete mix is going to jump 100% in cost. It’s going to kill jobs in the province of Ontario. It’s despicable that the Liberal government can sit here and pass a piece of legislation that is going to, quite frankly, take the people of Ontario for a ride. I think they’re going to live to regret this.

Interjection.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Of course, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is sitting here trying to shout me down when I’m actually speaking the facts. I know first-hand what the Liberals have done to eco taxes in the province of Ontario, and I’m going to explain what they’re going to do further with Bill 91.

It’s simple why the PC caucus cannot support this bill. It fails to meet the two very clear demands that Ontario needs right now: (1) eliminating useless bureaucracy; and (2) and most importantly, scrapping eco taxes.

Bill 91 is going to increase the price of everyday products for the people of Ontario. IPods are going to skyrocket in price, much like their federal cousins, when Stéphane Dion was the leader, wanted to bring in the iPod tax. This is what Bill 91 is going to do. It’s going to increase the price of iPods and iPads, too. Televisions are going to skyrocket. In fact, I represent a riding in southwestern Ontario. I fear that Bill 91 is going to drive customers to the US to shop. Televisions are going to go up—in some cases $70, in some cases $100, depending on the price of televisions.

Cross-border shopping, mark my words, will skyrocket with Bill 91. We’re talking about everyday items that are going to have an eco tax buried in them. Consumers are not going to know what they’re paying. They’re just going to know that products in Ontario are a heck of a lot more expensive than anywhere else outside of Ontario.

There are better and more realistic ways, going forward, to protect our environment, to handle our recyclable materials while lowering costs for businesses. Instead of creating more waste, we need to be looking for ways to recover and recycle them into new products. A year ago, our colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga presented our PC plan to set measurable and achievable targets for recycling, establishing environmental standards and ways to measure these outcomes, one that would not sacrifice Ontario’s beleaguered manufacturing sector.

We would start this by scrapping the eco taxes, getting rid of the government’s recycling cartels and allowing the Ministry of the Environment to truly do its job by restoring oversight authority back to the ministry.

Speaker, I want to be clear again about Bill 91. It is going to kill jobs in the province of Ontario. Probably the best story that I’ve heard on Bill 91—and I’m hoping the Minister of the Environment is listening to this debate in the House—is that I had a large electronics consumer company in to Queen’s Park. Their sales in Ontario a number of years ago were $1.2 billion. That’s what they sold just to consumers in the province of Ontario—an electronics manufacturer. This year they’re going to be down to $550 million—so from $1.2 billion to $550 million.

They told me directly that with Bill 91 there’s a good chance that they’re going to move their head office outside of the province of Ontario. That’s going to create more unemployment in Ontario. I truly do hope that the Minister of the Environment is talking to these large employers in Ontario.

Our party put out, when I was the economic development critic, a plan to create 300,000 manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario. Our leader, Tim Hudak, and I announced our plan in the summer. We have a plan to create 300,000 new advanced manufacturing jobs. We’re going to eliminate the productivity gap in Ontario when it comes to manufacturing versus our southern neighbours, and we’re going to make Ontario the number one jurisdiction in the world for advanced manufacturers to come to.

We know, through several studies—Boston Consulting being the latest—that the United States is going to create five million advanced manufacturing jobs over the next five years. Ontario needs to get a share of those, and our plan is to create 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Again, Bill 91 is going to, I think, further devastate the manufacturing sector in the province of Ontario. I hope the Liberal government is paying attention and speaking to these stakeholders, because now, more than ever, we need these jobs in Ontario.

The Liberal government claims that they’re taking steps to meet the PC caucus demands to scrap eco taxes, but all they’re really doing is attempting to force businesses to bury these expensive levies in the cost of their products or to display them so that consumers can’t see them, and we think that’s wrong. The bill, as it currently stands, would give the Minister of the Environment the ability to wind down ineffective programs and regulate organizations, if desired. However, this is highly unlikely or could reasonably take a very long time before happening, if ever.

Again, this government claims to be scrapping eco taxes. They’re doing the complete opposite. All that they’re doing is burying this cost in the price of the products. I just can’t state strongly enough that in my region of the province, cross-border shopping is running rampant right now. I fear that with the prices of televisions and iPods and clock radios and iPads and computers—and the list goes on and on—with the prices of products going up, it’s just driving people across the border.

Whether it’s across the ferry in Sombra near Sarnia–Lambton or across the bridge to Port Huron from Sarnia or across the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, people in Ontario will be buying products in the United States, killing jobs at the retail level in all of our towns along our main streets. I just hope the government is listening.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce members from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario today in the gallery: Henry Zantingh, Murray Opsteen, Gary Raycroft, Rob Dougans and Paul Bulman. It was a pleasure to meet with them this morning.

I would like to encourage all members to attend the Chicken Farmers of Ontario reception this evening in the dining room.

Welcome to Queen’s Park to the Chicken Farmers of Ontario.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Speaker, it’s not an introduction but a point of order: I believe we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear lapel pins in recognition of Lung Cancer Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbon for this month. Do we agree? Agreed.

Carry on, member from Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Today, the page captain is Nicholas Edward Scarcelli. He’s joined today in the members’ gallery by his dad, Dan Scarcelli; his sisters, Vanessa and Olivia Scarcelli; and his uncle Dan Demsar. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I am pleased to introduce, from the Canadian Automobile Association—here today for their annual lobby day—CAA’s president, Mr. Jay Woo, CAA CEO Mr. Nick Parks, and the CAA vice-president of insurance, Mr. Matthew Turack.

I’d also like to remind all members of the House about the CAA reception in the legislative dining room after question period today.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Particularly in my capacity as Minister of Agriculture and Food, I’d like to welcome the Chicken Farmers of Ontario and the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors to Queen’s Park today. I hope everyone will join them in the legislative dining room for their reception.

Mr. Michael Harris: I too would like to welcome representatives of the CAA visiting Queen’s Park today; two representatives in fact representing CAA North and East Ontario: President Christina Hlusko and board member Frances Mannarino. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I look forward to meeting with you later today.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I want to echo the comments from the member from Thornhill and the member from Kitchener–Conestoga and welcome the Canadian Automobile Association to Queen’s Park for their advocacy day.

Specifically, I’d like to welcome the chair for CAA South Central Ontario, Bill Carter; board members Janet Lafortune and Ethel Taylor; and members of CAA’s government and community relations team.

I, like the member from Thornhill, invite everyone to join the CAA for their lunch reception in committee rooms 228 and 230 following question period.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure today to welcome Mr. Bill Laidlaw, who’s with us in the gallery. He’s executive director of the Ontario Association of Food Banks. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Bill.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I too would like to welcome representatives of the CAA here to Queen’s Park for their annual advocacy day, including a resident of Windsor and chair of the CAA South Central Ontario, Mr. Bill Carter.

Mr. Grant Crack: It’s also a pleasure for me to welcome members of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario and also the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors across the province. We have a number with us today: Henk Lise, Murray Opsteen, Gary Raycroft, Adrian Rehorst, Mike Terpstra, Ryan VanTil, Ed Verkley; CFO director and chair, Henry Zantingh; and Lucy McKee. Again, I welcome them. I know the Minister of Rural Affairs has some more to introduce as well.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure to introduce in this Legislative Assembly here today one of my constituents from Barrhaven. Fighting for distracted driving demerit points is Rick Levesque. It’s a pleasure to have you here.

I’d also like to introduce a couple of my other colleagues who support our initiative as well. We have both Matt Hiraishi and Doug DeRabbie from the Insurance Bureau of Canada; Elliott Silverstein from CAA; and, of course, Frank Notte from the Trillium auto dealers.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome friends and students from the grade 5 class at Dewson Street Public School, and their teachers and parents. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d also like to introduce some other members of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, a group that is visiting here today: Murray Booy, Paul Bulman, Michael Burrows, Rob Dougans, Michael Edmonds, Chris Horbász, and, from the riding of Peterborough, my good friend Tim Klompmaker.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On behalf of my colleague Jack MacLaren of Carleton–Mississippi Mills, I would like to introduce the mother of page Phoebe Gao, Sharon Gao; her father, Wei Gao; and brother, Leo Gao. They will be in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to recognize Dave Smith, a great restaurateur and philanthropist from Ottawa, and his friend Bob Simpson, here today in the Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, every day I worry about Ontario’s growing debt and our anemic pace of economic growth and job creation, which has caused you to lower expectations on economic growth. I do sincerely hope that Thursday will be a turning point and we’ll finally see the Wynne Liberal plan to grow our economy that’s spinning out of control. But I worry about your penchant for kicking things down the road. In 10 months, you’ve launched 36 different panels. Your governing philosophy seems to be, “Why put off till tomorrow what you can delay indefinitely with a panel today?”

Let me ask you directly, Premier: Will the fall economic statement on Thursday contain any more panels that will kick this can down the road even further?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just respond to the Leader of the Opposition by asking him if his party is going to support the Supporting Small Businesses Act. We’re trying to get that piece of legislation through, so my hope is that we’ll be able to get it through committee. My understanding is that the opposition needs to support us in getting that through committee and getting it back to the House.

In terms of the work that we’ve been doing, I would say to the leader of the party that he would remember that we have more than recovered all of the jobs that were lost as a result of the economic downturn. We continue to work to invest in people and invest in infrastructure and to create a business climate—including with the small businesses act—that will allow businesses to thrive and will allow businesses to continue to hire and expand. I hope they will join with us in that work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t think I got an answer to the Premier’s question. She asked me a question, Speaker, and I’m glad to say that, yes, we did vote for that bill—yesterday, as a matter of fact, Premier—so you might want to loop in with your House leader to get updated information.

Let me get back to a more serious matter. Your philosophy continues to be to postpone tough decisions to panels, to conversations and consultations. It has now been 10 months. You say that you’re for job creation, but, Premier, not everybody can work for the government. We also need a healthy, thriving private sector.

You’ve abandoned any attempt to try to control spending. Your wage freeze has been abandoned. You have not moved on fixing the broken arbitration system. Don Drummond has basically become a missing person in the province of Ontario when it comes to his report.

I worry that your only alternative, if you won’t control spending, is to increase taxes. Will the fall economic statement contain a study, a panel, a consultation—anything—that’s going to increase taxes on hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate that the party opposite supported the bill yesterday. They are now blocking it at committee, so it would be very helpful if they would help us move it through committee so that we could get that act in place, so we could support small businesses.

In terms of what the member opposite will see in the fall economic statement, we’ve been very clear that investing in people, investing in infrastructure and investing in a business climate that will allow businesses to thrive, we believe, is the way forward.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition would like to focus everything in our power on fighting the deficit. The trouble is, if we do that—if we do not make the investments in business and in people and in infrastructure that are necessary—at the end of the day, according to his plan, there will be nothing to fight for. We want to fight for jobs; we want to fight for growth. We want to put the conditions in place so that that growth can happen. That’s what we’re doing. My hope is that he will join with us and help us to support that kind of growth.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, we’re going to fight against the growing Liberal debt and fight for job creation and opportunity to make Ontario again—I do that each and every day because, quite frankly, somebody has to do it because you’re not.

All we see now are 36 studies. You’ve made no difficult decisions to actually control spending in the province of Ontario. We’ve put forward 10 questions to the finance minister. I hope he’ll take the time to respond to those questions, standing in the name of Mr. Fedeli, including the fact that you had counted it in your plan on $6 billion in savings for a wage freeze that you threw under the bus when you became Premier. So where are you going to find those $6 billion?

Let me ask you a direct question, because I’m concerned about this. I understand the Liberals are contemplating increasing education property taxes. They’re going to try to do it. It’s a very sneaky education property tax hike. Other than an economic study, statement or studying that further—please tell me that that is not being considered by the Liberal government. You’re not going to ask hard-working families, already strapped, to increase their property taxes to pay for your overspending.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the leader of the third party really wants—of the opposition, sorry. The Leader of the Opposition wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, he says Don Drummond is not someone we’ve paid attention to, which is just not true; 60% of what Don Drummond recommended, we have paid attention to. There are other issues that Don Drummond raised in his report that we have said, “Yes, we have to look at those things.” He can’t have it both ways.

Either we take the advice of a well-respected economist like Don Drummond, which we have done and are doing, and we examine all of those issues and we put those into our documentation to say, “You know, these are things that we have to look at”—we are interested in investing in people, investing in infrastructure and the business climate. What they want to do is slash and cut services to people; we are not going to do that. We believe that the people of Ontario deserve better than that.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, my question is for the Premier.

Leader, I think you got your answer about the new taxes, by the way.

This week marks the fifth anniversary of Ontario becoming a have-not province. Let me remind you that when you took office, Premier, Ontario was a robust province and actually paid out equalization payments to those needy provinces. So far, your government has received nearly $10 billion in equalization payments. In those same five years, provincial revenue has increased by $17 billion. So between equalization payments and increased revenue, we’re talking about tens of billions of extra dollars in extra tax.

I have a simple question: How is it that you’re still running a deficit and can’t balance a budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s evident from the question that the member hasn’t been reading the budgets year over year. It’s evident that the member opposite hasn’t been looking at the tremendous—and is not aware of a global recession that has hit the entire world. And he has not, obviously, paid attention to the effects it’s having on all provinces and that of Canada. Ontario—

Interjections.

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

I have a list of about six names in my head. I’ll only use one for now, but I’ll come back to you. Member from Renfrew, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Our priority has been clear throughout. We have been controlling our spending. We’ve been very disciplined in the way we’re taking the measures necessary to respond to the recession, and it’s working. We’re creating more jobs. We’re cutting our spending, and Ontario and Ontarians are getting ahead.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: You know, during the recession, the member from Leeds–Grenville actually had hair. That’s how long ago we’re talking here, Speaker.

Let me tell you that Don Drummond had some—and I did that with his blessing, Speaker. Don Drummond had some serious recommendations. He called for a sharp degree of fiscal restraint, for a wrenching reduction from the path that spending is now on, and for you to act swiftly and boldly. But you didn’t do any of that. Spending continues. It’s absolutely out of control. So how are you going to balance the budget by 2017-18?

Your finance minister says, “We’ll grow the economy to get increased revenues.” But the Bank of Canada, only two weeks ago, said that we will not meet our growth expectations this year or next. We’ve failed on spending—

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: And there’s a dichotomy, Mr. Speaker. There’s no leadership from that side. They feel that austerity measures that we’ve taken—and we have taken many to control and actually cut spending year over year. We’re the only government in all of Canada to have achieved that, but we are also the government that’s investing in its people. We’re investing in infrastructure; we’re making strategic investments to provide for more jobs and stimulate economic growth. They choose not to do that, and we will.

We choose also to lower taxes for small business. They’re holding that up, Mr. Speaker. I ask them: Why are they holding up small businesses, 90% of which would no longer pay this health tax, and holding up a committee? Stand up for the people of Ontario and our businesses.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, I’ll stand up for Ontario right now, right behind my leader, Tim Hudak.

We have some serious questions about your ability with numbers. You haven’t made the tough decisions the Drummond report called for. Spending is not going down and the Bank of Canada says we won’t hit our growth targets, so revenues will not go up. As spending is not going down, it’s not possible to balance the budget without the $6-billion planned savings from the wage freeze. And with revenues not going up, you’re obviously planning further tax increases. We just heard one acknowledged to our leader a few minutes ago.

Enough of this nonsense; enough of the political spin. Come clean. Will you tell us how it’s even remotely possible for you to balance the budget in 2018, with spending up and revenues down?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I tell them to come clean. I ask them to come clean as well. Pass the bill to support small business. That is what we’re doing. That is creating jobs and that is stimulating growth.

When it comes to some of the measures that we’ve taken to reduce spending, we’ve done it without their support. They voted against the very issues that we’re putting forward that Drummond recommended, and as a result we’ve actually cut spending year over year.

More importantly, to those watching on TV, a number of austerity measures have been taken right across Canada, more so than anywhere else right here in Ontario. We know that other parts of the world have had to suffer through their austerity measures because they haven’t made the necessary investments in their future. We’re doing both, and now it’s time for us to make those investments, to create those jobs, to stimulate that growth—

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: —and to ensure that Ontarians have a future, have a better tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I continue to be concerned about people who continue to stand when I stand. The tradition and the convention is that you immediately sit down. Your microphone’s turned off anyway, and you’re stealing my time.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Ontario families are more and more concerned about a government that seems less and less clear about their plans for Ontario’s future. For months the Premier insisted that new tolls and taxes that hit family budgets were the only way to pay for new transit. Then, last week, she announced a different plan that involved floating bonds.

Has the Premier ruled out new taxes and tolls that hit family budgets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we are determined to do is to build—to continue to build—transit across the province and particularly in the GTHA. We know that investment in infrastructure across the province, whether it’s roads and bridges in rural and northern communities, whether it is transit in our urban centres and in the GTHA—all of that investment is necessary. It’s necessary in the short term because it creates huge job opportunities, but in the long term it is what will drive the economic growth that is so necessary.

If we do not have that infrastructure in place, if we do not have those transit projects in place, then people’s quality of life will continue to suffer and businesses will not be able to move through the congested areas. So we are going to continue to build transit, and we hope that the third party will support us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A few short months ago, the Premier made a splashy announcement about a transit funding panel whose job was to study the studies on studies about new taxes and tolls. But now, before the panel has reported back, she has floated a totally different idea. Can the Premier tell us anything about her plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Contrary, obviously, to the belief of the leader of the third party, there are a number of things that we need to do in order to be able to continue to invest in infrastructure across the province. The green bonds are one part of that, Mr. Speaker. Anne Golden is working with her team to put out a report by mid-December that will give us some advice on what other kinds of mechanisms we should put in place in order to have a revenue stream to be able to continue to build transit. So we continue on that path.

There’s not one answer to the question of how do we continue to build transit in the GTHA. It’s a complex issue. There are a number of things that we’re going to have to do. The green bonds are part of that infrastructure answer, but there is more that we will have to do, and that’s why Anne Golden will be giving us her report.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People want some sense that their government has a plan to confront Ontario’s challenges, but when they look at the Liberals at Queen’s Park, they see a party throwing everything at the wall in a desperate hope that something will stick. The Premier was clear that her plan was to slap new taxes and tolls on family budgets. Now she’s throwing out different ideas but can’t say what they’ll cost, what they’ll achieve or when they might happen. Speaker, can the Premier tell families in Ontario that she won’t be hitting them with new unfair taxes, or do they have to wait for the endless panels, conversations and discussions to actually get an answer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m just going to address the last part of that comment, the question, first, which is to say: Yes, we do believe in talking to people about decisions. We do believe that getting input on issues is important. I’m sorry that the third party doesn’t agree with that, but we do think that it’s important to talk to experts and to the people of Ontario about issues before we make policies.

In terms of a plan, we have invested $16 billion in transit across this province. We are building transit in the GTHA, in particular. The Big Move is in place, but we have put in place funding for transit in municipalities across the province, through the gas tax. We have a plan; we know that it’s very important to implement that plan. We are implementing that plan and we are working on getting the revenue to make sure that we’ll be able to continue implementing it.

What we have not seen is the plan from the third party on how they would build transit or what transit they would build.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. I want to turn to another issue where the government seems to be scrambling for some answers. People in this province are worried about finding and keeping good jobs. For years, the government championed a policy of no-strings-attached corporate tax giveaways and insisted that those giveaways would help create 600,000 jobs in this province. Does the Premier think that plan was working?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, those changes that we made, and I think the leader of the third party is referring to, among other things, the HST—and, of course, those predictions are coming true. Job creation: Since the bottom of the recession in June 2009: almost 500,000 jobs have been created; 95% of those jobs have been full-time jobs and over 80% of those jobs have been created in the private sector, exactly where we want to see them. So we actually are making success in precisely this area.

We have nearly a million people working in the manufacturing sector in this province, and we’re working hard to continue to create jobs there. We’ve got two regional economic development funds that have also helped to create and sustain more than 20,000 jobs across this province. We are meeting with success as a result of these changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance spoke vaguely about a plan for targeted tax relief to help companies that are actually ready to make investments in this province. It’s exactly the sort of plan that the Liberals have insisted wasn’t necessary for years, because their no-strings-attached corporate giveaways were supposedly creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Is the Premier now admitting that the old plan was a failure?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to go back to reckless taxes and uncontrolled spending. That’s not what we’re doing here. More importantly, they’d prefer us not to take those measures that are being used in other parts of the world to promote and support R&D spending.

We are looking for ways for our companies to be more innovative, to improve their productivity, to be more competitive, and in Ontario we’ll achieve that by partnering with them and taking the measures necessary to support business in Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, once again we see Liberals scrambling and people paying the price.

Richard is one of the many young people who wrote us concerning his job prospects, and he’s in a pickle. He moved to a new town to improve his job prospects and so that his fiancée could go to school. But jobs are in such demand that 300 people are showing up for temp positions, and he and his fiancée are wondering how they’re going to make the bills. Richard and his fiancée don’t need empty promises of a vague plan for the future from a scrambling government. They need real plans right now.

Will the Premier’s fall economic statement include anything for people like Richard, or just more warmed-over, vague plans that don’t have any details?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, young people in Ontario, people like Richard, who are starting off, are looking for opportunities—opportunities that can only be had if we partner with business, not fight against them. The NDP voted in committee against supporting small business yesterday—that’s uncalled for; that’s unacceptable—and you partnered with the PCs, no less, to do just that. We have to work together for the benefit of the people of Ontario, not for your political gains.

We will support them. We will continue to do what’s right, and that includes incentives to promote those jobs and to help people like Richard.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: This is a question to the Minister of Health. Minister, yesterday you indicated that you could not intervene in the case of Kimm Fletcher because your Committee to Evaluate Drugs determined that Avastin isn’t proven to be effective in prolonging survival in those with her diagnosis. But that committee’s report, which you shared with me yesterday, in point 4, states: “The ... studies showed that the use of” Avastin “in patients with ... GBM was”—was—“associated with higher progression-free survival rates....”

Minister, how can you continue to duck this issue? Will you now stand in your place and act on what your committee says: that Avastin can help prolong Kimm Fletcher’s life and others with the same cancer? Why are you failing to take action to save the lives of Ontarians?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, this is kind of remarkable. If the member would actually read the next paragraph, he would see that the committee noted that using historical estimates of survival as a basis of comparison is not reliable because treatment standards have evolved and historical rates are derived from studies that used older, less effective treatments.

If the member opposite would tell me what exactly he is recommending—is he recommending that we move back to the days when ministers, when political people made determinations about what drugs were covered? I would disagree with that. The right thing to do, Speaker, is to let these decisions rest with the experts. If he’s recommending that we have one solution for one patient, I reject that as well.

So my question to the member opposite is: Tell me what your policy is on appropriate coverage of drugs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Minister, I want you to be the Minister of Health. I think it’s shameful that you continue to hide behind the Committee to Evaluate Drugs as if its recommendations were binding pronouncements, when they are not. You would be aware that the committee’s recommendations are frequently rejected by executive officers. At no time is any mention made that you, as Minister of Health, cannot have any input into what can only be described as an ambiguous drug evaluation process at best.

Minister, helping Kimm Fletcher won’t save Liberal seats. There are no gas plants involved here.

On behalf of Kimm Fletcher and others like her, I’m asking you to show some compassion for a brave young woman who only wants to spend as much time with her family as possible.

Premier, is this the kind of health minister that you want running Ontario? If she can’t provide health care to vulnerable Ontarians, she—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Under the circumstances that we find ourselves in, I’m going to ask that all members show some restraint, please. I would appreciate all members doing that.

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we’re talking about a mother. We’re talking about a mother with two little children, a little seven-year-old and a little nine-year-old. This is a woman who has been given a very, very serious and tragic diagnosis.

Our health care system, every single day, does everything it can to support people as they struggle with various health issues. I ask the member again: Is he asking that we revert to a situation where political decisions are made around who gets what drugs, or do we respect the advice we get, not just from our Committee to Evaluate Drugs, but Health Canada? Health Canada has said there are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin in the treatment of GBM.

This is a tragic story, and I’m asking the member opposite to take the politics out of this.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Last week, I asked the minister about threats by Cancer Care Ontario to cut all cancer surgery in Windsor due to an escalating dispute regarding thoracic surgery. The minister brushed off my question and refused to intervene or to promise the uninterrupted continuation of these services in our home community. Windsor and Essex county residents do not take lightly threats to our health care services, and neither do I. So I ask again: Will the minister act immediately to protect cancer services in Windsor and Essex county?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. The member from Windsor West and I have spoken about this issue on several occasions because she is determined to do everything she can to provide the highest-quality care for people in Windsor.

Cancer Care Ontario has changed how they determine what level of hospital should be performing surgery for specific conditions. In this particular case, for this kind of surgery, they’ve set a threshold of 150 surgeries. The evidence is very clear: Mortality rates have been cut in half as a result of the quality improvement initiatives that Cancer Care Ontario has put in place. I want every person in this province to have access to the highest-quality care. That does mean sometimes consolidating so that volumes deliver the best outcomes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: That’s an unfortunate response. Today, Doreen Gravelle, a 75-year-old Windsor woman who is both a cancer survivor and a patient, is staging a sit-in at Windsor Regional Hospital. She’s there today to send a message that care close to home is indispensable for both patients and their families. This brave and ill woman is doing all that she can to protect services for the people in her community. Can the minister tell this House why she has not felt the same obligation as Mrs. Gravelle to stand up for Ontario patients?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, you’ve heard me say in this House many times that Ontarians have amongst the highest cancer survival rates anywhere in the world. They will continue to drive even better outcomes for people with cancer, and that does mean that sometimes programs are consolidated in order to reduce mortality rates for patients.

It’s important to note that cancer services will continue in Windsor. They will continue. I have spoken to Cancer Care Ontario about the issue, around the tone of the letter, and I have been assured that patients in Windsor will continue to receive cancer care. One particular procedure, thoracic surgery, will be moved to a centre with higher volumes because it saves lives.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités, l’honorable Brad Duguid. During challenging economic times, various employment services and training programs offered by government are especially important and valued. This is particularly true of the Employment Ontario network.

I’ve heard from some of our local community service providers that they are concerned about losing funding for some of the critical programs they provide to Etobicoke residents. Service providers like Community MicroSkills Development Centre on Vulcan Street, the Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, and the YMCA of Greater Toronto on Albion Road will all be victimized by funding cuts the federal government is planning to make.

Can the minister please provide some reassurance to myself, as well as members of my community and these critical training organizations, that they will not be hurt by the proposed cuts by the feds?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I wish I could give the member that reassurance, but unfortunately I can’t. The current federal proposal is to fund their untested, untried Canada jobs program by cutting 60% of funding to the labour market agreement which funds those programs that serve our most vulnerable Ontarians. They’re also demanding that the provinces match their funding, which represents a combined hit to Ontario’s training programs of $232 million.

The community groups ought to be concerned about this federal proposal, as should all Canadians. The federal government is asking us to fund their new program at the expense of programs for literacy and basic skills, aboriginal workers, people with disabilities, youth, newcomers and older workers.

The member can reassure his constituents that this government will not support any program that is funded on the backs of marginalized workers. We will stand up for them and ensure that our training programs are available to all Ontarians—

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

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Although I appreciate the ministerial update, I am disappointed to hear that the federal government intends to cut program funding for our most vulnerable workers, regardless of the impact to small business owners. Perhaps this is another example of a hard-right turn that Canada can do without, but I’m pleased that our government is standing up for those Ontarians who need training. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation, duty and responsibility to make sure that no one gets left behind.

I’ve also heard concerns from small and medium-sized businesses within my own riding. The fact is, these organizations are creating the bulk of new jobs in our economy. We want to make sure that any programs proposed to help businesses with worker training are not ignored by the proposed fed cuts.

Can the minister advise this House what is being done to ensure small and medium-sized businesses that they will not be neglected by the Canada Job Grant proposals?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member raises a very important point. The federal government’s Canada Job Grant proposal has not been well thought out. The original proposal ignored the needs of small businesses. It failed to recognize that most small businesses would not be able to afford to participate in a program that would require them to invest $5,000 up front in training a new worker.

Ontario and the other provinces and territories, as well as our Ontario Chamber of Commerce, have been very vocal on this. While the federal government has indicated that they would provide some greater flexibility in the program to address our concerns, we’re of the view that they need to go further to make this program effective.

We need to do everything we can to help small businesses succeed. That includes getting Bill 105 approved and passed by January 1, so that 60,000 small businesses in Ontario can get the tax break that they deserve. I urge the opposition parties to co-operate, stop stalling this important bill and join us in supporting Ontario’s small businesses.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, and I see he hasn’t gotten the job grant right, either.

Minister, I understand you are now going to consult with barbers and hairstylists. My understanding is, your enforcement thugs will no longer be harassing barbers for a while. Now that’s amazing, because you said they were a self-regulating body; they were standing alone, and you wouldn’t be interfering when some messy situation came up like this embarrassment to you with the barbers and the hairdressers.

So can you explain why your government didn’t consult with tradespeople before you implemented your nanny-state College of Trades? And by tradespeople, I don’t mean Pat Dillon and the Working Families coalition; I mean the tradespeople in Ontario. You never consulted with them. Why didn’t you?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I can probably see why, but unlike the member opposite, I have a great deal of confidence in my barber. He’s been cutting my hair for over 40 years. I think he does a good job.

I don’t only have confidence, as we all do, in our barbers, in their ability to do the work that they do; I also have confidence in their judgment. I believe, like all skilled tradespeople—and barbers are skilled tradespersons—that they know better than the member opposite what’s best for them and how they should be categorized in terms of their trade. Should they be a separate barber trade? Should they be under stylists, which is something that the PC Party did when they were in office, when they categorized all of the barbers, the hairstylists and the hairdressers together? I daresay I don’t know what kind of consultation was held then; probably not a lot.

We’re reaching out to barbers across this province to let them have a voice in how their trade is going to be governed. I don’t know for the life of me what the member has—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I know this is humiliating to you. It’s an embarrassment. I really feel happy that you like your barber; that’s a great thing—because my hairdresser, the guy that I get my hair cut by, they don’t like you at all; they don’t like you at all.

Minister, you have to know by now that the Ontario—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right. Get it all out. Get it all out.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t set it up that easy.

All right. Could you please finish your supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you very much. I know I’ve got nice hair, okay? But not as nice as Frank Klees’s hair.

But you have to know that the Ontario College of Trades is a complete disaster. At a time when we are trying to create jobs in this province, the Ontario College of Trades is actually driving jobs away. The ratio review is severely flawed, and in fact, your Liberal cabinet has only approved one ratio review, not all the ones you’re bragging about each week.

This expensive tax is simply not working. Will you agree with Tim Hudak and the PC caucus that the Ontario College of Trades should be abolished once and for all?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I will put my barber, John Spanos in Scarborough, up against the member’s hairstylist any time. I’ll go toe to toe. I’ll invite the member out to Scarborough, and at Bellamy and Ellesmere, he can get himself a great haircut by a barber who’s been cutting hair for over 50 years.

The member mentioned—I don’t know if I could continue with this answer. The member mentioned ratios. Look, our record on ratios was that we reduced seven. When the member’s party was in office, in eight years, they reduced none. The College of Trades has produced 14 more ratio reductions than all three parties put together over the last 20 years. I’ll not only put my barber up against his hairstylist; I’ll put our record on reducing ratios up against his any time.

Interjections.

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

New question.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Jonah Schein: My question is to the Premier. Premier, people who go to work each day in this province deserve fair compensation. Unfortunately, thousands of young people in Ontario work for no pay. They receive no compensation and they have few rights or protections in their workplace. Despite clear rules regarding unpaid internships, most of these workers are reluctant to speak up and risk being blacklisted by their employers. The current complaint-based system is unfair and it’s ineffective. When will the Liberal government do its job and proactively enforce the law on unpaid internships?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the member for Davenport. It’s very important to me that we make sure that interns in these situations are fairly treated. I think it’s a very good issue to raise.

As far as health and safety for interns, all workers in Ontario should be covered by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We’re currently looking at including co-op students working through accredited university and college programs under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In terms of the Employment Standards Act, the rules on internships are very clear. While most workers in Ontario are covered by the Employment Standards Act, there’s a narrow exemption for co-op students, and this exemption is only for accredited university and college programs to give their students a valuable opportunity for workplace experience while they’re pursuing their degree.

We believe that covers the situation, but as I say, we’re acting on including co-op students under health and safety. It’s a very important issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Back to the Premier: You’re not covering the situation. Often the best that most workers in these situations can hope for is a letter of reference that will help them get a paid job in the future. But, Speaker, vulnerable workers should not be forced to choose between their rights at work or a letter of reference. Enforcing the law should be responsibility of the Ontario government and not the responsibility of vulnerable young workers. This is the issue, this is what’s critical here, and the solution is clear. When will this government do the hard work, admit that their complaints-based system does not work for unpaid interns and start to proactively enforce the law?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I say, there’s only an exemption for some students who are involved with university and college degrees. It’s the responsibility of the university or the college to ensure that the placements are fulfilling their mandate.

If there is a situation where a worker in Ontario feels that their rights are being violated, they can—and should—get in touch with the Ministry of Labour, because we are very clear that that enforcement should be in place.

We are acting on making sure that co-op students are included under the workplace safety act. As I say, I think it’s important that we pursue this issue, that we make sure that there aren’t other loopholes. We will continue to work with anyone, including the opposition, who wants to ensure that we have those gaps closed and we make sure that all workers in Ontario are safe.

BIODIVERSITY

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. In Ontario, we are fortunate to have a diverse natural landscape with an abundance of biodiversity and wildlife.

On October 21, I was delighted to attend and participate in an announcement that the minister made in my riding of Vaughan, at the Earth Rangers Centre, about the Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program. I know that MNR announced this program earlier this year to support local projects across Ontario that help to conserve our province’s rich biodiversity. The program provides funding so that community groups can support local land stewardship initiatives and projects that enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitat. Could the minister please explain to the House how this Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program is helping to protect the biodiversity of our province?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank my colleague for the question, and I appreciated the opportunity to make this announcement with him last week in his riding. The residents of Vaughan are certainly fortunate to have a capable representative.

As he mentioned, the Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program will provide funding to projects that conserve Ontario’s biodiversity. The program builds on our government’s ongoing commitment to protect and conserve our biodiversity and to maintain healthy and sustainable habitats right across the province.

Recently, we announced that our ministry will be contributing $300,000 in funding 24 partnership projects focused on land restoration, rehabilitation and enhancement efforts. Together these projects will help restore more than a 1,000 hectares of important habitat right across the province. Protecting the environment will enhance the quality of life for Ontario families and ensure a dynamic economy for future generations. This project is part of our government’s plan to invest in people and infrastructure and build a strong business climate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I thank the minister for explaining to the House about this particular funding. This is indeed a great initiative, and I was excited to hear that a group in my riding, Earth Rangers, received a grant from the ministry. With the support provided by the ministry, the Earth Rangers Foundation will be able to carry out Project iRestore, which is an important project that will restore the fields around their headquarters that have been overrun with invasive species.

Peter Kendall, executive director of Earth Rangers, had this to say: “Project iRestore is working to restore ... what was primarily invasive plant species into native tall grass prairie habitat. Funding from” the ministry “will ensure we can continue this important work and see more biodiversity return to this area.”

Could the minister please tell the House about some of the other great projects that will be receiving funding under the LSHRP?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again, thanks to the member for the question. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to let members know a little bit about the great projects that local residents are working on to protect animals, plants, forests and wetlands in their own communities right across the province.

I want to point out that the 24 projects being funded this year will engage close to 80 partners and leverage an additional minimum $300,000 from other community partners and funding sources, making this truly a community-based initiative.

These community groups will bring great value to these projects through their knowledge of local issues, work experience in their communities and the established relationships that they have with local landowners.

The member mentioned Earth Rangers, which is a group carrying out an important project in Vaughan, just one of the many projects. The Credit Valley Conservation Foundation will rehabilitate damaged sections of a cold-water tributary to enhance the existing brook trout population in the Thunder Bay area. The Bright Lake Association will also work with farmers in the Algoma region to help rehabilitate more than 17 types of fish species.

This is just one important investment our government is making to help strengthen our biodiversity.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, 15 years ago, I fought to get slots at the Fort Erie Race Track. I did so because the track faced closure, and it gave them a 15-year lease on life. It helped to preserve and enhance hundreds of jobs at Fort Erie Race Track and hundreds more in the broader community.

The Liberal government decided, basically in the dark of night, to rip out the slots, supported by your NDP, who drove the getaway car. As a result, that track is spiralling towards closure.

I wrote to you a week ago and I said that I have a three-point plan, actually, to save the Fort Erie Race Track and give some economic stability and opportunity to the people who work in that sector. It results in restoring the slots; forming a public-private partnership with an operator who knows how to run the business; and local revenue sharing.

You haven’t responded to my letter yet or asked for me to discuss it. If you want to steal the plan, steal it, but, please, do something. Will you follow the PC plan and restore the slots at Fort Erie Race Track to save those jobs?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, we won’t, because the plan that the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged he fought to put in place was not accountable, it was not transparent and it had to be changed. We made a decision that we would change it.

At the same time, we have put in place a five-year plan with $400 million attached to it, that will allow horse racing in this province to be sustainable, including, if the Fort Erie Race Track chooses to, to work with the Ontario Racing Commission and to establish their future. There is absolutely no reason that the Fort Erie Race Track shouldn’t be able to have a sustainable future if they work with the ORC.

My hope would be that the Leader of the Opposition would work with the folks in Fort Erie, would encourage them to work with the ORC and put in place a plan that would be transparent and that would focus on the customers and on the industry. I hope he’ll work on that, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Premier, I am working with the folks at Fort Erie. I was there yesterday. I’ll tell you, they like our plan, and they say the Liberal-NDP plan is going to close down that racetrack.

You’ve got to make a decision and you’ve got to make it now. I think you know, as I heard from Ben Vander Meer yesterday when I was at his farm, that they need to make a decision now about where they’re going to race next year. If the track has closed, if it has no future, they’ll pick up stakes; they’ll lay people off; they’ll eliminate jobs; they’ll move to the States or elsewhere. That’s what’s at stake here.

You, in the dark of night, ripped out the slots. You’ve decided that if a program had a flat tire—if a car had a flat tire—you would junk it entirely. It’s going to cost us tens of thousands of jobs. My colleague from Perth–Wellington, Randy Pettapiece, has a plan that will actually give the sector a better future. That should give it some stability and make it a world-class jurisdiction.

Why are you so hell-bent on closing down the racetrack and rejecting any idea that’s going to save jobs? I’m on the side of jobs; I’m on the side of saving the track. Why aren’t you?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m on the side of jobs, and I’m on the side of an accountable and sustainable horse racing industry in this province.

I would encourage—

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Okay, sit down.

I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to have a conversation with John Snobelen, who has worked very closely with us. He has been part of the panel that has worked with us to put in place a five-year plan that will lead to that sustainable horse racing industry.

It’s very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition, for purely political reasons—and we all know what those are, as it’s transparently political—has stirred the pot in terms of encouraging the people at Fort Erie to suggest that they don’t have a future. That is just not true. If they work with the ORC, they have a future, and he should help them to do that.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier.

The Premier wants to cut her way to sustainability. She is cutting jobs in rural Ontario because she thinks the only way to save thoroughbred racing in our province is to thin the field down to one private operator: Woodbine. But she also says the Slots at Racetracks Program had to go because Woodbine used a pile of purse money to stuff the wallets of their executives.

The government audited Ontario’s racetracks. If the Premier isn’t picking winners, why won’t she make those audits public?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve answered this question a number of times. I think the leader of the third party knows that those audits were done with the understanding that they were confidential, in order to work towards a transition plan for the tracks in the province.

If the leader of the third party thinks that there shouldn’t have been work done to create transition plans so that we could have a plan going forward, well, that’s one thing. But if she thinks that we needed to have a plan going forward, then it only makes sense that we would have worked with the tracks, that we would have had those audits. The Auditor General is looking at the situation now, and she will release a report.

The fact is that those discussions with those audits with the tracks were done as confidential audits in order to put a transition plan in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier likes to brand her government as open and transparent. I guess transparency is only of value when it’s convenient for the Premier.

She is asking Ontario horse people and track workers to trust her and not to ask too many questions. But people are losing their livelihoods in communities like Fort Erie, and they deserve some answers.

Before the Premier closes down the Fort Erie Race Track and other tracks across the province, will she pony up the results of government audits so we can see just how much horse money went to executive compensation and perks at Woodbine?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party will read the Auditor General’s report when it’s released.

Mr. Speaker, it’s very interesting that the leader of the third party seems so interested in the health and stability of the horse racing industry and yet did not support the appointment of a former NDP agriculture minister to lead the Ontario Racing Commission. It is beyond understanding why they would not have supported the appointment of Elmer Buchanan, given that he has such a deep knowledge of the sector and that he has worked on putting a sustainability plan in place. It says to me that the leader of the third party is not interested in a sustainable plan, but is actually more interested in political gain on this, which I think is shameful.

We want a sustainable industry. That’s why we’ve worked—

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

Interjection.

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

New question.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

This past Thursday, second reading on my private member’s bill carried. Bill 116, the Manoranjana Kanagasabapathy Act, was introduced to address the number of drivers who disregard the law and still continue to use a hand-held device while driving, despite the fact that it is illegal. My bill will increase the fines for distracted driving and assign three demerit points to offenders.

Speaker, distracted driving is responsible for causing more than 20% of vehicle road accidents in Ontario. As legislators, it is our responsibility to review the current laws regarding distracted drivers and strengthen them to ensure that the fines and penalties in place deter drivers from using any hand-held device while driving.

I know the government has a lengthy history of taking action on making our roads safer. Can the minister tell us about these steps but also if he supports the initiative in my bill?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank my colleague and my friend from Scarborough–Rouge River for his very solid leadership on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

I just came from spending the morning with Chief Blair and the volunteers of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is a really remarkable leader, with incredible integrity.

The success of our drunk driving laws have brought fatalities down to where we’re almost 50% less than the Canadian average, and they have dropped from 227 deaths to 160, but distracted driving losses have gone up by 65. That’s 65 families who have lost a father, a mum, a child, and that’s devastating. We need to look to the success of things like drunk driving laws and apply those lessons to distracted driving.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I’m glad to hear that our government is taking the problem of distracted driving seriously. Initiatives taken by our government have made our roads safer, much more than many other jurisdictions in North America, but we all know that there’s more that can be done. There have been too many innocent lives lost because someone else feels that their text message or phone call is more important than focusing on the road.

It is also reassuring that the minister supports my bill and that he identified that it is important to take action now on making our roads safer and penalize those who break the law. But we need to take action on this issue now.

Can the minister tell us some of the measures his ministry is working on and what new action we can expect from this government?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to commend the member on his private member’s bill. This is really an excellent step forward.

Mr. Speaker, it’s great that we have young people in the audience today, because they are often the victims of distracted driving and drunk driving. I was just with several mums who have lost to that, and one of the things they raised with me was that we’ve done it on drunk driving and now we’ve got to do it on distracted driving. That’s a mixture—I know the Canadian Automobile Association is here. I want to thank them and recognize them in the gallery, because they are running some of the best education programs on distracted and drunk driving.

We need to increase both our regulations and penalties, and we’re reviewing the law right now. I know there are members opposite, as well, from Nepean–Carleton and other constituencies, who have also been in support of this. We will be bringing forward an action plan considering legislation and regulations, as well as education, in the very near future.

DRIVE CLEAN

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of the Environment today. Now, Minister, I have repeatedly asked you in this House if you’re going to pay back the money that the Liberal government stole from Ontario drivers using the Drive Clean—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Withdraw—took from Ontario drivers using the Drive Clean program, and every time you avoid my question, saying you will potentially stop stealing money—or taking money, rather—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I know what I’m doing. Withdraw.

Mr. Michael Harris: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ask the question.

Mr. Michael Harris: —potentially stop taking money in a few months from now. Minister, that’s not good enough. The Supreme Court ruled that profits made off revenue-neutral programs are illegal, and they must be paid back. That means you owe Ontario drivers $19 million. Minister, will you commit today to repay the money you illegally took from Ontario drivers, or will—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I’m loath to miss any question, but if the member wants to go down that road, I have warned him to make sure that he’s perfectly clear that if he goes down that road, I will pass the question.

Finish the question; you’ve got 10 seconds.

Mr. Michael Harris: Will you agree to pay back Ontario monies today, or will it take a lawsuit filed in court to get the money back?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has already indicated that the program will be made revenue-neutral. You will know that it was, of course, in deficit for at least the first decade.

But, you know, it’s interesting that you ask this question on the day when all of us are wearing a pin which deals with those who suffer from lung cancer, because the Ontario Lung Association says that there are problems: “These pollutants cause breathing difficulties, irritated eyes, coughing and headaches. They also trigger asthma attacks, worsen symptoms in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and contribute to other serious health problems including heart disease and cancer.”

This is a program which the Ontario Lung Association and the medical community indicate tremendous support for. It’s one that saves lives—

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Again to the minister. Minister, your answers prove you will stop at nothing to defend this temporary program which the vast majority of Ontarians oppose. And now even the Toronto Star—you heard that right; the Toronto Star—has adopted our position to scrap Drive Clean. So clearly you’re on the wrong side of this issue.

Minister, there’s time to save face here. You can do that today by committing to Ontarians that you will meet the demands of the Ontario PC Party and our leader, Tim Hudak, which we made more than two years ago, to get rid of Drive Clean. Minister, will you back down from your unreasonable defence of this useless program today and commit to scrapping Drive Clean?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, I must call into question—here we have history in this Legislature. We have a member of the Conservative Party quoting what you usually refer to as the red Star. I simply can’t believe that you would be doing so.

But let me quote someone who’s very credible on this issue, Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario: “The Drive Clean program has undergone a number of independent program revie