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

February 24, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Feb-24 (PDF)

L140 - Wed 24 Feb 2016 / Mer 24 fév 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 February 2016 Mercredi 24 février 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Derwyn Shea

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Ontario budget

Ontario budget

Health care funding

Ontario budget

Climate change

Air-rail link

Ontario budget

Ontario budget

Consumer protection

Ontario budget

Hospital funding

Aboriginal education

Domestic violence

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

David Mackay

Howard Pawley

632 Phoenix Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron

Halton region

Organ donation

International Day of Pink

Team 1305

Ontario Trillium Foundation

Municipalities

Use of members’ statements

Use of tributes

Visitor

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Capping Ontario’s Debt Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le plafonnement de la dette de l’Ontario

Trans Day of Remembrance Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée du souvenir trans

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

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Waste Collection Vehicles and Snow Plows), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (véhicules de collecte des déchets et chasse-neige)

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

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Black History Month

Petitions

Driver licences

Rural schools

Home inspection industry

Privatization of public assets

Rural schools

Water fluoridation

Health care funding

Way-finding signs

Caregivers

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Hydro rates

Rural schools

Opposition Day

Ontario budget

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 23, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this issue, the official opposition had the floor.

Further debate? The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker. I saw you walk in with a little bit of a limp. I hope everything is good. I know you are an avid athlete, and you do spend a lot of time on the hockey rink, soccer field, badminton—you name it; I always see you all over the place putting on a good sweat. I hope you recover well from that minor injury of yours.

This morning, we are here to debate Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2015 and the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2015 and to repeal the Waste Diversion Act, 2002. That’s quite a title.

It’s pretty evident that our province is facing serious challenges with regard to waste management. Last week, the member from Mississauga–Brampton South said, “In the residential sector, 47% of household waste is diverted from landfills, but the rate for the rest of the economy is much, much lower. Existing waste diversion programs cover only 15% of Ontario’s waste stream, and over the last decade, our overall waste diversion rate has stalled at 25%.”

A few of my colleagues have already spoken to this, and my colleague the member from Toronto–Danforth reminded us that the Blue Box Program is something that was in place largely in the 1990s. This is prior to this government coming to power in 2003. Since that time, in over a decade, not much else has happened, Mr. Speaker.

I see that there is a new Speaker in the chair. Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Good morning.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Everyone knows that the problem still exists. My NDP colleagues and I have been raising the issue on a regular basis, and yet this government has not addressed it with real, concrete action.

We can talk about the act. New Democrats have called for greater individual producer responsibility to replace the current system of industry-funded, privately run stewardship monopolies. Individual producer responsibility is long overdue, and we think that this is quite important. This bill allows for a transition to individual producer responsibility. Finally, we’re going to do something about it.

But what is very clear to me is that this is just enabling legislation. I’ve read through this, and I find it to be quite vague. What is clear is that in order for this bill to be successful, we need to ensure that the policies and regulations are clear and will actually create positive change. Unfortunately, these policies have not been disclosed—something that we regularly receive from this government.

Another major concern I see is that there are no timelines in this: no timelines for when the change will happen. I have seen this year after year. I’m glad that my friend from my critic portfolio, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, has joined us here this morning—because we often see things coming from this government where they make many promises, many positive announcements, positive press releases, promise after promise, and then nothing—no action, another media release. We actually are further behind than we were eight years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m glad that my friend is with us this morning. We often have these discussions about many projects, and I’ll be touching on another one, so I’m glad he’s here this morning.

It’s entirely understandable for my colleagues and me to be skeptical. It’s even more understandable for organizations and Ontarians to be cynical of this government’s legislation. This government says one thing and does the opposite: “Wait. We won’t sell our assets. Oh, wait one second. Who wants to buy shares?” or, “Wait, wait. We’ve got a billion dollars, and we’re going to spend that money right now on a road to the Ring of Fire. Oh, wait, wait. We meant we’re going to spend it after the next election.”

I could use my entire time here speaking about concrete examples of this government over-promising and under-delivering. What is important here is to deal with the issue at hand. We’ve got a waste problem, folks. We know that. We’ve known this for some time. We have got to address it.

In my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, there’s a small community called Goulais River. Goulais River is not a municipality; it’s a local services board that provides services to its community members. They had a wonderful initiative through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, which had planted some seed money for some of these municipalities to set themselves up to have a recycling program.

The Goulais River area embraced this program. The community members embraced this program and were very active in it. Unfortunately, the seed money is now gone. While the local services board was working toward a transition, because they get their empowerment through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, there were delays that happened which pushed them over, and they missed the opportunity to add the recycling program fees to their taxation billing. They’ve been without their recycling program since June of last year.

Now, it might not seem like much to you, Mr. Speaker, but these were four good jobs in Goulais River—four really good jobs. These individuals in this community really thrived and really worked hard to make sure they recycled everything. When they lost that program, it was very frustrating for them.

I’ve been working with the minister, and I have to say that we’ve had many discussions about how we could get this program up and running. However, unfortunately, the year has elapsed and the community did not wait. They went ahead and proceeded to make sure that this coming March, they’re going to be able to start their recycling program once again. This is from a local services board. The community deserves it, they want it, and they have thrived and excelled. They’re an example of what you can do when a community backs their leadership and actually organizes this. That’s the community of Goulais River. I’m very proud to be working with their community leadership.

When I was walking through the community during the summer community parade, I was shaking hands, talking to people and saying hi, passing out candies to the kids, and having lots of pleasantries. However, the one outstanding issue that came up time and time again when I was shaking hands was, “When are you going to give us a recycling program?”

When we see legislation like this, a community like Goulais River wants to see it go into action. They have gone into action. This is what not only Goulais River is asking for, but Ontarians are asking for, and that is: “When is this government going to go into action?”

Industry-funded organizations will still run our waste diversion programs, and could keep running them for a long time. This bill offers no timeline for when the transition to individual producer responsibility will be completed or even when it will begin. My New Democratic colleagues and I support the bill’s promise of individual producer responsibility, but we are looking for some clarification, some amendments, something in here that will guarantee the government will actually follow through on their claimed goals in this bill—again, a call to action.

I don’t know how this government can sell a bill where the Ministry of the Environment can propose a waste-free Ontario, while the Ministry of Energy orders up a new garbage incinerator requiring a guaranteed 10-year supply of burnable garbage equal to 750,000 tonnes a year. Can someone explain that one to me? I just don’t understand that one. I know from previous dealings with the Ministry of Energy, dealing with issues in my riding, and the Ministry of the Environment, they don’t seem to talk to each other. The left hand doesn’t talk to the right one. But come on, guys, this is one that we need to get right.

Bill 151 does not guarantee that municipal blue box costs will go down, another big concern for the various municipalities across my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin. The provincial government has already downloaded too many costs on to municipalities. For some of you MPPs getting a call or two from your local municipalities, think about the earful I get from mine. I have 37 municipalities that are at their wits’ end on their budgets and cannot take any more of these fees—21 First Nations and 15 local services boards.

I hear time and time again about the burdens this government is placing on the backs of municipalities and constituents with their continuous downloading of programs, costs and services to municipalities.

Many of the municipalities across Algoma–Manitoulin just can’t afford this. They are already struggling with lost revenues and increased costs. They simply can’t afford any more fees. This bill must not needlessly add to the burdens on municipalities. The government proposed individual producer responsibility back in 2008 and little has changed. We have waited long enough.

Despite its title, the Waste-Free Ontario Act, it has no legislated goal of a waste-free Ontario. Under individual producer responsibility, producers pay the full cost of end-of-life management of their product and packaging and are free to find creative ways to reduce waste, but under the existing system, both consumers and producers are trapped. Under the existing system, producers have no choice but to work with the stewardship monopolies and have few incentives to find creative ways to reduce waste and packaging and to improve the recoverability of their products. And consumers get stuck with eco fees. We’re simply passing on costs without creating incentives for better outcomes

This government has not advanced or progressed at all on waste management, and we notice. When we look at other jurisdictions like Nova Scotia, Ontario’s waste diversion rates within the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors are lagging. There are significant economic opportunities and environmental benefits from waste reduction, reuse and recycling. I say those words like I’ve heard them a thousand times from my children. They learn the benefits of recycling, reusing and reducing at a very early stage.

Every time I come home on weekends, I tell the boys: “You’re coming from downstairs? Close the lights,” and they always close them. Well, not really. I have to remind them: “Close your game. Shut the TV off. Turn the light off in the washroom.” If you do this action, it’s repetitive. But one of the things they have been participating in is one they remind me of when I go to the washroom and either brush my teeth or shave: “Dad, turn off the water,” or “Dad, that cap on the pop bottle can go in the plastic.” They’re really engaged in the recycling program, and they remind me of my duties.

I remember a time when you used to grab that plastic bottle, throw it in the garbage can and just walk away,

whereas now you get a sense that, “Hey, I just did something wrong,” so you go back to the garbage can, pull that plastic bottle out and put it in the blue bin like you’re supposed to. It’s part of our DNA now, and part of my family’s. The younger generation seems to have learned this; however, this government has not.

I’ve been down at the Ontario Good Roads Association and Rural Ontario Municipal Association meetings, as many of you have over the course of the last few days. I am in constant contact and regular communication with all the mayors and councillors of Algoma–Manitoulin. I have heard from them and have also heard from stakeholders across my riding.

We know that the Ontario Waste Management Association has expressed broad support for Bill 151 but cautions about potential issues that could emerge as details are ironed out. Rob Cook, the CEO of OWMA, says, “This is an important step forward for the province today in embracing the move towards a circular economy, which will improve resource efficiency, reduce our environmental footprint, increase productivity, create local jobs and foster economic growth.” He goes on to say, “The waste/ resource management sector remains one of the best kept secrets to driving emission reductions and we are pleased the government is acknowledging this.”

So we know this. We are hearing from the experts. We need to ensure that this government legislation is actually going to deal with the current problems and create positive change.

I also meet regularly with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has long advocated for extended producer responsibility for waste diversion programs. As I mentioned before when speaking about many discussions with municipalities in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, AMO has been concerned about rising costs to municipalities, imposed on them by industry-funded organizations that find ways to avoid paying their traditional 50% share of the cost.

We know that AMO would welcome legislation that would shift these responsibilities and costs to producers, but it notes that the actual effect of this act will depend on regulations, and that transition is estimated to take about three to five years.

Environmental Defence and Toronto Environmental Alliance have said that they “welcome the strategy for a waste-free Ontario and are very pleased to see Ontario making the explicit link between waste and climate change and committing to a vision for a circular economy where Ontario produces zero waste.”

Again, of course they welcome this. Who wouldn’t? But what we want is to see something actually happen. For 13 years, there has been no progress.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, in a statement, said, “OFA applauds the waste-free Ontario initiative proposed in Bill 151,” noting that one objective of the act is “to reduce waste, and reduce the province’s dependency on landfills that are typically located in rural areas.”

I meet with these folks often, as well, up north. We know that the cities want to ship their garbage up north—not just garbage; we are closely monitoring and watching what is happening with the nuclear waste discussion. That’s a different story, but the premise is the same: again, garbage coming up north. Northern and rural areas are hosts to the waste of the larger urban areas.

The OFA also noted that much will depend on subsequent regulations: “We don’t want to be surprised by any unintended consequences impacting Ontario farm businesses. Ontario farmers already participate in recycling programs that involve the recycling of pesticide and fertilizer containers, feed, seed and pesticide bags, plastic bale wrap and many other items used on the farm. Expansion of those programs will be an important development under the proposed act.”

Some of my friends over at the Workers Health and Safety Centre whom I speak with on a regular basis in regard to mining issues are hopeful that Bill 151 will result in fewer hazardous materials in the waste stream, noting that while the Toxics Reduction Act requires monitoring and reduction plans, the implementation of these plans is not mandatory.

I’m coming to the end of my notes here this morning. This is a very large bill, a very comprehensive bill. We need to put some meat into this bill because that’s what a lot of people across this province are asking for. There’s a lot of content in this bill. We need not waste our time anymore with talking about this issue. We need to really address the waste problem that we have.

I think the intentions of the government are good, but, again, I call this government to go into action because their actions are going to be stronger than words. We’ve got to get this right. My kids are depending on me to get this right. Ontarians are depending on all of us in this room to get this right. We have an opportunity; let’s put some meat on the bones and let’s make sure that what we do with this bill is not just, once again, another splash and another title that we see in the media that sounds real good but really accomplishes very little.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I cannot resist having an opportunity to respond to my colleague from across the floor, my good friend the member for Algoma–Manitoulin. He referenced the Rural Ontario Municipal Association/Good Roads conference. Like my colleague, I was there for the last two and a half or three days. I met with scores of municipal delegations—it was tremensdous—many within the member’s riding as well.

What probably needs to be said as well—not referencing specifically the legislation at this very moment—is how optimistic and positive municipal leaders are all across the province about the opportunities that they see moving forward. That’s really what that gathering is about: How can we continue to help move the economy forward and deal with issues such as this?

May I say also, specifically related to Bill 151, that while I heard the member’s feelings and belief that indeed we need to perhaps provide some amendments, which I’m sure the party will be providing, what I did hear was an overall support for this very important legislation. The fact is that Ontario is showing leadership by taking action to support what we’re describing, I think, as a circular economy. That’s really, really important.

There is significant stakeholder support for Bill 151, and I’m very pleased that the member for Algoma–Manitoulin is supporting it as well. I know he isn’t necessarily speaking on behalf of all the members of the opposition—but we think this is a very important piece of legislation.

May I say, too, that the member referenced how often he and I worked together on a number of issues for each of his communities. That is certainly the case related even to this specific issue. We haven’t always been successful, but we work in a positive way all the time to try and improve the communities that both he and I represent, and all across the province of Ontario. I thank him for his comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to offer some comments on those offered by the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. We often get accused of being the same person by legislative security here. I don’t know which one is more handsome. I would suggest it’s probably the member from the NDP.

He did bring up some very, very good points in his remarks this morning about the fact that not much has changed when it comes to recycling levels in the province of Ontario. In spite of the fact that the current government continues to announce that they’re doing more, nothing ever seems to get done. I think recycling levels back in 2004 were at 26% in the province of Ontario, right around the same place that the Premier’s approval ratings are at right now—about 26%. But they haven’t increased over that time, in spite of all of the talk that we’d heard from various ministers of the crown on how they were going to improve recycling.

Now they’ve brought forward this bill. It’s a good initiative, but there are some items in there that we have serious concerns about. Do we really need to create a team of recycling cops in the province of Ontario? Do we need to create more bureaucracy? We would argue that we need to strip away Waste Diversion Ontario and the bureaucracy that exists there, and allow industry to battle this out on their own. We believe that businesses can advance innovation far quicker than what a government could do. We’ve seen that in the past. This government, anyway, certainly hasn’t been able to advance the markers on this.

We believe that if we set the targets, industry will meet them. There’s money in this game; there’s a lot of money in recycling, and we think there’s an opportunity here for businesses to take advantage of that.

All in all, the main point I took away from the member from Algoma–Manitoulin is that we have heard promise after promise after promise, whether it’s about recycling or the Ring of Fire, or many other things. They just don’t deliver on their promises.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate this morning. I thank my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin.

The concept around this bill, as it relates to a circular economy, is something that should be applauded. It’s a novel concept; it’s one that I think our economy in general has to move towards. It brings us even further beyond sustainability to an economy that is regenerative. It’s something that supports—and has triple net benefits.

This is really complex stuff through an economic system. It really is as sort of simplistic as recycling as we know it. There’s garbage in and you recycle it, you retain it, you turn it back into something that can be produced in another fashion and divert that waste from our landfills. We obviously understand that concept, but as it relates to an economy, that’s where it gets a lot more complex.

Unfortunately, what we have before us today, for viewers who are tuning in at home, is simply enabling legislation. What that means, to folks that are tuning in, is that it gives the government the legislative ability and framework to, in the future, do something regarding this issue. It’s pretty basic stuff; it’s not really visionary. It doesn’t give a whole lot of details. It doesn’t give any targets. It simply says, “This is something that we think we should move towards,” and we will applaud the government on that front.

However, as legislators, our job is to criticize and scrutinize the mechanics of the bills that are put before the House from the government, and unfortunately, it’s difficult to do that because we don’t really have any.

Therefore, we look forward to further discussion and a whole lot more consultation, especially when it comes to municipalities, which certainly have borne the brunt of failures in waste diversion in the province for quite some time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to speak to Bill 151. As the member from Algoma–Manitoulin said, in my remarks I said that in the residential sector, 47% of household waste is diverted from the landfill. I made those comments in the light that it’s very clear that more needs to be done.

I would like to point out that the Ontario Liberal government—it doesn’t matter if it was in 1980 or since 2003 to now—they have always shown leadership when it comes to environmental issues. We all know that Ontario was the first jurisdiction to introduce the Blue Box Program, and it was done under the leadership of a well-regarded member of our caucus and cabinet, the member from St. Catharines, the Honourable James Bradley. Even our current Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Mr. Glen Murray, is very passionate about fighting climate change. Our leader, our Premier, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, is also very much committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So you can see there’s whole a lot of leadership and there is a broad range of support for this bill. To name a few companies: Unilever, Loblaws, the Canadian Beverage Association, Dell Canada, Tetra Pak Canada and USA, the Ontario Waste Management Association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which represents 36,000 family farm businesses—they all support this bill.

Last week, when I was watching television, there was news on CP24 that Ikea, a Sweden-based company, is soon going to announce that if you buy a product from their store and bring it back at the end of the life, you will get store credit. So—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Your time is up.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: —all of the companies are moving in that direction—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. When I say thank you, you sit down.

The member from Algoma–Manitoulin has two minutes.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to thank my good friend—I always refer to him as a friend—the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. We’ve often discussed that if it was left to us as far as setting up and fixing things across northern Ontario, we would probably get some stuff done. Unfortunately, he has to report back to someone else, and it kind of prevents things from moving forward.

The one thing that he did quote on is what we heard over at OGRA/ROMA: optimistic and positive comments coming from municipalities. I also heard quite a few questions and some concerns that are coming from them as well, and I hope you heard those issues as well while there.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings: You pretty well hit the nail on the head as far as the points that I was trying to bring across—the actions, or the inactions of this government, the costs and the fees, and the fact that we keep hearing promises of deliverance, and there is nothing that is happening. I’ll leave it to the viewers to determine who’s most handsome between you and me this morning. Anyway, we’ll leave it at that.

My good friend the member from Essex, it’s always a privilege to be in the House with you. You talked about the circular economy—absolutely. This is something that we need to see come into action. That’s essentially what we’re calling for from this government. This is enabling legislation, and we see no directive, we see no timeline and we see no targets. We don’t see how you’re going to be doing this. We see the grandiose idea, but there is no action.

The member from Mississauga–Brampton South: I hear your words. I hear you talking about the Premier, I hear you talking about the minister. But those are words; actions will speak a lot more. That’s what Ontarians are asking for and that’s what has been lacking. We haven’t seen any action. We’ve seen more promises and more media releases, good-news stories, and no action from this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much.

Applause.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Oh, my God, that’s very kind of you. Even a standing ovation, Speaker, from the other side—very nice.

I’m glad to have had an opportunity to join this debate. I think what’s really clear from the discussion this morning and the debate this morning, and other debate that’s taken place, is that this is a very important subject; there’s just no question about it. I think, actually, the quality of the debate this morning as well reflects the fact there’s an understanding of how complex it is. I was listening to the member for Essex and his two-minute response and was conscious of exactly what he said: This is really complex.

I hear everything that’s being said about our desire, all of us, to do this better—because we need to do exactly that. Again, I get the impression that we’re going to have support for this legislation, as we all have a desire to move forward and find some solutions.

The bottom line is, from our perspective, and I think it’s a fair perspective, that we are showing leadership by taking action to support what we’re describing as a circular economy, a system where ultimately nothing is wasted.

Oh, and by the way, Speaker, I apologize, if I may—and I hope I get permission for this. I’m sharing my time with the member for Ottawa–Orléans—I know it’s dodgy—and the Chair of Cabinet, even though I know they wouldn’t mind if I spoke for the entire 20 minutes.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: No.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Are you speaking? Have I got the wrong member? We’re good. Ottawa–Orléans—have I got an okay for that, Speaker?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. That might have been good if you had done it at the beginning, but that’s okay. And thank you to everyone for giving you permission.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Of course, Speaker, you’ve got to give me permission for that, so thank you very much. I didn’t want to forget that. I think that’s another reflection of what an important debate this is.

The proposed legislation, as the members know, requires the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to develop and maintain the Waste Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy strategy. I’m sitting beside the parliamentary assistant to the minister, who I know knows this incredibly well. A draft strategy was of course released when the proposed Waste-Free Ontario Act was introduced this past November, and it really and truly does provide a road map. I think we do need that road map to support that circular economy.

The strategy was clearly developed in response to what we heard from people all across Ontario. That speaks to my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin, as well. And yes, indeed, while we’re all working towards positive things, we have our challenges as well. I did hear those things at our meetings that we held.

We certainly heard from people related to this particular legislation about the need to have clear Ontario goals to support that economy—the need to take actions to increase diversion, and the need to measure our progress in achieving those goals. So that draft strategy outlines very clearly, actually, Ontario’s goals, which I believe we all share: zero waste in the province and zero greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector.

The draft strategy is obviously a crucial element in terms of detailing the key actions that will support Ontario’s vision and goals, including establishing clear provincial direction, expanding producers’ responsibilities for their products and packaging, diverting more waste from disposal, increasing promotion and education, and stimulating markets for recovered materials. The strategy also sets out a series of performance measures, so we will know what is working and where improvements are needed.

So this legislation is pretty important. It will require the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to prepare progress reports at least once every five years, outlining actions taken to achieve the strategy’s goals. So those targets will be very much in place. In addition, there is a requirement that the strategy be reviewed at least every 10 years in consultation with stakeholders and the public, and it would be amended as needed. This will very much keep Ontario’s actions current, and it will also align our efforts with our key partners.

The key thing that I think needs to be said about this legislation—the important element to it that everyone in this House agrees on is that by enshrining the strategy in legislation and by requiring regular reporting and reviews, the government will be making the strategy an ongoing, inclusive and transparent mechanism to direct actions to support a circular economy for the long term.

Mr. Speaker, I’m grateful to have an opportunity to say a few words, and I’ll pass it off, if I may, to my colleague from Ottawa–Orléans.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m very proud to rise today to speak about Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act.

Ontario is an incubator of innovation, one that has become not only a leader but an advocate for a circular economy. Just to say what a circular economy is for the folks watching out there: It works to ensure that absolutely nothing goes to waste. Valuable materials that are destined for landfills are instead put back into the economy without negative effects on people or the environment. That is why we have brought forth the Waste-Free Ontario Act.

Ontario’s need for clear and concise goals to support a circular economy, increase diversion and measure progress are all mandates given to us by the people of Ontario. That is why I’m honoured to stand today in support of the Waste-Free Ontario Act. Like Ontarians, I want a clear and radiant Ontario, one that yields zero waste and zero GHG emissions; an Ontario that reduces, reuses and recycles, helps mitigate negative effects and keeps waste that would go into landfills out.

The bill, if passed, would give the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change the authority to conduct reports at least once every five years which seek to outline the actions taken to achieve the strategy’s goals. This is a continuation of our commitment to a government that strives for ultimate transparency.

The achievements of our existing program, which has been designed to keep waste out of landfills, are some of the broadest and most comprehensive in North America. However, these cover only 15% of Ontario’s waste stream. We aim to increase this number and do better. This is why the government brought forward this bill. Over eight million tonnes of waste is sent to landfills each year and this represents an estimated $1 billion worth of recoverable materials lost. We would be missing a huge opportunity to generate revenue and create jobs.

A 60% recovery rate of materials would generate 13,000 jobs and contribute $1.5 billion in GDP to Ontario. For businesses, this bill would provide them with the incentive to design long-lasting, reusable and easily recyclable products.

The new ways of reducing waste will also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from landfilling. Working with businesses would be in conjunction with the government’s strategy to preserve resources and recover valuable materials from waste lost to landfills. It would also mean a continuation of our commitment to an all-inclusive government.

The public has expressed significant concern on eco fees. Under the current Waste Diversion Act, 2002, mandatory industry funding organizations, or IFOs, have set uniform fees. This bill, if passed, would eliminate the IFOs and the uniform fees that were set by these organizations. Under the proposed legislation, there would be an open, fair and competitive marketplace that would discourage producers from charging eco fees. But if producers do pass the cost of recycling to the consumers, this would have to follow the rules set out in the Consumer Protection Act.

There are many members in this House who are devoted to the cause of climate change. It is great to see that many here understand that it is vital that we take the necessary action to manage our resources and ultimately preserve our environment.

I hope everyone here will support this bill. Today we are one step closer to a clean Ontario.

I would like to share the rest of my time with the member from St. Catharines.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Chair of Cabinet and minister without portfolio.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m pleased that this bill is where it is at the present time, although I must say it has been a long time getting to this stage.

There are people out there who are observers of political process who are great fans of minority government. Indeed, from time to time, minority government can produce some beneficial results. I must say, however, in the instance of this particular bill, minority government did not work well, largely because one of the opposition parties was intent upon making sure this bill did not pass no matter what changes were proposed, no matter what was said.

From my perspective of being the former Minister of the Environment who first introduced legislation of this kind, I can’t recall a piece of legislation that had more consultation than this piece of legislation has had over the years. I can recall meeting personally the members of the ministry and, certainly, committees heard from people. We heard from a variety of people about what should go in a bill of this kind. I think everyone recognized the need for it.

While household recycling has been quite good in the province of Ontario—in other words, you and I in our homes have put things into the blue box and other containers that our municipality allows or suggests that we do so—the industrial and commercial sector, the business sector, was not as good at recycling and recovery and so, as a result, we need this legislation.

Former Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller was instrumental in promoting the need for this legislation through reports that he provided to the Legislature. Indeed, in a somewhat different role, he actually intervened, which is unusual for an Environmental Commissioner, in a very positive way to try to bring the various parties—that’s with a small “p,” not political parties, although you could say the political parties as well, but the various stakeholders—together to try to develop a consensus. And indeed, we had this.

I will say that the New Democratic Party, the third party in the House, I think was prepared to see the bill proceed through not only the Legislature but legislative committees. The official opposition saw in it reasons to block it from proceeding through the House, and some are legitimate concerns that are expressed; I’d like to concede that. But I could tell you one thing: We had incorporated ideas from all political parties, including those which were proposed by the official opposition, but it became a moving target. As soon as you addressed one issue that they were satisfied with, they went after another issue.

Now, that’s part of the process. In a majority government, there’s a better opportunity to move legislation through the House, though I was really hopeful in this case, because I saw interest in all three parties in the House. I was hopeful that that legislation could move forward with the acquiescence, if not the enthusiastic support, of all three parties in the Legislature, but it just got blocked constantly. And there were people out there, who previously would have been annoyed with and considered to be an inconvenience legislation of this kind, who were supportive of it, who ultimately decided that it was needed.

There are many components to this that are very significant. It’s interesting that when you bring things to a sanitary landfill—I sound like a former environment minister; now everybody calls it the dump, they don’t call it a sanitary landfill. When you bring things to the sanitary landfill, there are not many jobs created in that. There are a lot more jobs that are created through the three Rs of recycling, reuse. I can tell you those jobs are jobs for some people who would not have another job in our society.

I was encouraged to see the private sector moving forward into businesses which indicated you could make money on waste.

The first thing you want to do is make sure you don’t create the waste in the first place. Second, you want to reuse it if you possibly can—and some of our ancestors knew how to reuse things very much. I can remember pillowcases which were made from old flour bags and things of that nature. People were quite innovative in those days, I am told by my grandparents.

I think there’s a lot that can be done with these materials, so it’s great to see businesses that are developing out there to address this issue. They saw an opportunity and are moving forward. But there was a need for legislation for what we call a level playing field. That’s what business looks for. When you’re dealing with these kinds of matters, first of all, don’t surprise them. They want to know what you’re going to do, and will you consult—because very often the role of government is not to specifically tell somebody how to achieve goals but, rather, to set those goals or those rules, if you will, and then have them use their own ingenuity in achieving them.

There are some very creative businesspeople out there. I toured many of the plants, I must say, many of the operations out there when I was minister. There was a lot of enthusiasm for this piece of legislation. I was hopeful that it would have passed some time ago because it now means the better part of two years have gone by before this legislation is implemented.

It’s interesting that over eight million tonnes of waste is sent to landfills every year. That is a sign of “not success,” let’s put it that way. That represents approximately $1 billion worth of recoverable materials lost to landfills in Canada.

The proposed Waste-Free Ontario Act, if passed by this Legislature, would be the pillar of our government’s strategy to preserve resources and recover valuable materials from waste currently lost to landfill. Under the proposed approach, producers would be fully responsible for recovering the resources and reducing the waste associated with their products and packaging. This would provide business with the incentive to design long-lasting, reusable and easily recyclable products that are never discarded or sent to a landfill. Finding ways to reduce waste and reintroduce resources into the economy, we recognize, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from landfilling.

As I indicated, about 47% of Ontario’s residential waste is diverted from disposal. The real challenge, certainly, is in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors that, at this time, divert about 13%, which is simply not satisfactory.

I look back with a good deal of interest on the blue box, because when I was Minister of the Environment back in 1985, I recall that there were some communities out there that had decided that the blue box looked like a good idea. Indeed, it was, and one of my goals at that time—and the goal of the government and, I think, the goal of the Legislature—was to see the Blue Box Program right across the province of Ontario. So we implemented the program, indeed, right across Ontario.

It was interesting watching, in the early days, children teaching adults how to divert waste. An adult would go to throw something in the garbage and often a fairly young child, aged nine or 10, might say to the adult, “No, that goes in the blue box.” Now we have a number of different containers that enable people to not throw things in a landfill but have them used in a different way. I think that’s very positive.

One side story that I want tell: Students ask us if they can have any influence on the government process or political process. I remember a girl who was a student at Grantham High School. She wrote to me and said, “This Blue Box Program is great, but we don’t have it in schools.” As a result of that letter to me in my capacity as Minister of the Environment, we developed a program called STAR, Student Action for Recycling. To this day, I’m grateful to that girl who took the opportunity to write about that. I think it’s a lesson for all out there that when good ideas come forward, if governments are smart, they will certainly proceed with those ideas.

I think the framework is here. Members have mentioned that there’s a regulatory framework yet to come, and I hope we have input from everybody on that regulatory framework. I think this is a very progressive piece of legislation that, if passed by this Legislature, all members of the Legislature can be proud of.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s always entertaining and I always enjoy listening to the deputy House leader and the minister without portfolio.

Just to clarify things, we will, in fact, be supporting the bill, but we will be advocating for some changes. Of course, you may not want to hear some of our changes, but I’d just like to establish four of them in which we firmly believe—because we have been advocates, as well, for the Waste-Free Ontario Act.

First of all, we think that there needs to be established a clear legislative time frame to eliminate every single—brace yourself—Liberal eco tax program.

Secondly, we need to scrap the Liberal’s eco tax agency, the worst—that was a Freudian slip—the Waste Diversion Ontario.

Thirdly, we also feel that we need to drop all the plans to create a force of local waste cops to police recycling bins and garbage cans across the province.

Lastly—yes, it’s been a big issue—red tape: We need to cut a lot of the red tape that we believe, on this side, as the official opposition, increases costs for Ontarians and, of course, impedes the environmental protection in our province.

These changes, we feel, will protect Ontario’s taxpayers and, of course, our environment as well.

We as PCs have long championed the plan to increase recycling and to reduce waste through innovation and competition among businesses in the private sector. Our plan, of course, would be very measurable and would set recycling targets for businesses, establish environmental standards and enforce the rules.

Those are some of the key elements we feel need to be incorporated to improve this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: As I was listening to the debate, the minister without portfolio talked about children and about teaching the next generation, learning from children, and about the letter that was written to him and how that made a lot of sense.

I think what makes a lot of sense is that we need to educate the public at large, and especially our children, so that they can educate the adults. When it comes from kids, for some reason, we do pay attention to what they say because really, they have the right idea, and there’s no wrong intention when a child expresses an idea or an opinion about something. So congratulations to that young girl who wrote to the minister. He acted upon it because it was the right thing to do.

We’re talking about the Waste-Free Ontario Act, Bill 151, today. Many members have talked about how there’s a vision here. We all agree with that vision. We all agree with a green Ontario. We all agree with conservation. People actually want to conserve; they want a better environment for the next generation. But we do have concerns. A lot of this bill, as we’ve talked about, is left up to regulation, and there are no timelines. So it would be interesting, once that actually all happens—it would be great to have it come back here and let’s see what it actually looks like.

I do want to ask this government, though—they’re talking about a waste-free Ontario, and they’re also mentioning the garbage, 750,000 tonnes a year, that we have in Ontario, but the Ministry of Energy is also talking about incineration. I’d like to have some clarification on why we’re discussing a waste-free Ontario but then talking about incineration. Incineration does not help the pollutants in the air; there are many studies about that. If anyone could respond to that later in the debate, I’d really appreciate it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Brampton South-Mississauga.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Mississauga–Brampton South, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Oh, I’m sorry.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It’s okay; it happens. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a privilege to speak to Bill 151. It’s quite remarkable that when the bill was developed, we received a lot of support from the retail and producer sector. What we heard from people across Ontario was very clear that that transition to the existing programs should be in an orderly fashion and smooth.

Bill 151 would be based on four principles: (1) the government would lead the overall transition process; (2) each program would have a customized transition process; (3) there would be huge stakeholder consultations; and (4) the Blue Box Program should not be interrupted at all.

Bill 151 would allow existing waste diversion programs to continue until they are transitioned to the new one. This bill will facilitate the smooth transition of all the existing waste diversion programs to a new producer responsibility model.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you to the member from Brampton South-Mississauga.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Mississauga–Brampton South.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m sorry about that. It’s a major problem.

The member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Or Caledon-Dufferin; whatever you prefer, Speaker, because you’re in charge.

I wanted to speak very specifically about ICI—industrial, commercial and institutional—because there seems to be a bit of a whipping happening in the ICI sector: the suggestion that they are not doing an effective job of recycling.

I’m going to tell you a very brief story. I am very closely involved with some municipalities that are trying to proactively do a lot of recycling. I’m sure most of us are familiar with household hazardous waste days in our various municipalities. It is, in fact, not available to our ICI sector. Even things that are not part of their manufacturing process—fluorescent tubes, printer cartridges, old computers—they are not allowed to bring it into the household hazardous waste days. I think that would be a very simple and easy solution.

If you want to bump up your numbers and have that 25% number finally get a little higher, you should start looking at allowing ICI to put in, not the stuff that they’re using for their manufacturing—but just the fact that they are part of the municipality, paying their taxes, and yet still cannot participate in household hazardous waste. It’s a very easy fix.

In the example that I was trying to help, they were actually told, “Those fluorescent tubes, you’re not allowed to take them to the household hazardous waste,” even though you could as a homeowner. “Just break them and throw them in the garbage.” What kind of message are we sending to our ICI sector, who are proactively trying to recycle and trying to get this stuff back into the stream, when we’re saying, “Because you’re ICI, we don’t want your stuff”? It’s a terrible message to send.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): One of the three speakers has two minutes.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I appreciate the comments and suggestions that have been offered by those from all three political parties in the House.

There was one reference made to incineration. At one time, they used to talk about the four Rs. Up until the mid-1980s, they talked about the four Rs. They would say, “Well, the best one is going to be ‘reduce,’” so you don’t produce waste in the first place. The second R, after you reduce, is how can you reuse the product completely? That’s what many of our ancestors were able to do with some success. The third was “recycle,” and the fourth they referred to as “recovery.” Recovery was removed from that, with a good deal of justification, because it wasn’t really fitting the category of diversion.

Now, there have been very few examples of incineration in recent years. I can recall being in a court case in the city of Detroit where I had to answer on behalf of Ontario because we were objecting to an incinerator in Detroit which was going to use electrostatic precipitators instead of scrubber baghouse technology. In the court, the authority that wanted to put this in tried to say that Ontario did not have clean hands, but in fact, any new incineration process in Ontario would have to use scrubber baghouse technology. So we ended up being part of that particular case.

It was the first time I’d ever been in a court. Mr. Speaker, the judge actually says, “You must answer the question.” I had been a cabinet minister, recognizing that you don’t always give a definitive answer to questions in the House, and here I was before the court being compelled to give a very definitive answer. It was a shocking situation for me.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. Did I get that right?

Mr. Jim McDonell: You got it right. It’s a first. Maybe not you, Speaker. I’m just a little rattled because they were talking about being forced to tell the truth on the other side.

It’s a pleasure to stand up and offer remarks on Bill 151, an attempt by this government to bring Ontario to levels of recycling and waste diversion that we see in other provinces and jurisdictions.

Ontario’s stuck in a situation where only a quarter of the recyclable materials are actually diverted from landfill. Much of the blame for this failure rests on the shoulders of this government, who have burdened municipalities and recyclers with red tape while ignoring the facts.

Recycling and landfilling are two faces of the same coin—turning one person’s waste into revenue. In the case of recycling, it’s a question of collecting waste that has a residual value to it, converting it into a form that can be sold for reprocessing, and delivering it to a customer. For landfilling, you would add steps to ensure that recyclable waste is removed to maximize this expensive resource.

It is absolutely important to highlight that neither of these processes is free. There is a cost involved at each and every step, including capital costs, such as property, machinery and warehousing, and operating costs such as insurance, labour, hydro, marketing and machine fuel. You can’t look at waste diversion and recycling exclusively through the lens of the Waste Diversion Act or other waste-related legislation. It is an economic ecosystem operating in an environment where commodity prices, including those for recycled materials, are volatile and where government policy can make or break a business.

In my own riding, I visited a large landfill site. When I compare it back to our own township, they were looking at receiving—they use methane to produce some electricity. There was an excess of gas. Any of that gas, they were forced to flare off. They would like to use that for electricity. It would make sense. It’s a carbon that goes into the atmosphere, which is something we’re trying to cut back. They couldn’t get permission from this government—it was taking months and years—to develop more electricity. You could say, “Well, maybe we don’t need the electricity,” but, at the same time, we’re setting up 300 windmills in the same township for electricity.

Now, the flaring off, and the gas—you can control the time of use to some extent. You would be able to produce this when the costs are highest or, I guess, when the electricity is in demand, as opposed to the windmills that produce all the time and they’re buying the power whether they need it or not. There’s a clear example of a step this government could take to actually lower their electricity rates and get rid of carbon.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would ask the member to stick to the bill. You’re off onto hydro and turbines. That’s not really about waste diversion. Can you get back to that, please?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thanks, Speaker. I’ll get back to it.

I guess it is all about our local landfill site that is having some problems. Really, their job is to reduce the amount of waste they have—the recycling. They also had a great program where they had a falcon that was used to keep the seagulls down—a pet falcon that they were very proud of. It was a requirement of the government. Something that was interesting: In their own landfills—we have a number of them at the municipal level—that was not something that was required.

It just speaks to how there are many other regulations that could be in place that would actually develop an integrated plan. The waste management is part of it, but also what’s left; there’s more to divert. In this case here, the methane gas could easily have been diverted, but we have somebody who’s waiting for permission. The application is there, but, of course, it’s waiting to be acted on.

There is a market for post-consumer goods that are ready to return into the economy. However, the trend over the past two years has seen prices tumble. Here are some examples: The composite index for scrap metals has dropped by 36% in the last two years; the index for waste paper lost about 12% since its 2015 peak; tire and rubber is down 14% over the past two years; and recycled plastics are down 6%.

These price decreases can only mean two things: It can become uneconomical to collect recycling, or, at least, it will become uneconomical to produce the materials for reuse. This market doesn’t follow the dynamics of the public sector where shortfalls can be covered by taxpayers’ dollars. If a recycled material processor can’t make money, they simply close down. It stands to reason that these commodity prices are as susceptible to the end of the commodity super-cycle as any other raw material, which means that the lower prices may be here to stay.

If and when the world’s worst recyclers catch up with us, and maybe even overtake us, we can expect the current price of post-consumer materials worldwide to fall even further. It is an elementary question of supply and demand.

There are, of course, two approaches the government can take in a situation where business profitability and jobs in the green economy are at stake. Governments can, as the Liberals have done on many occasions, intervene by picking winners and losers and attempting to direct the recycling market, usually without giving much consideration to global market demands. In doing so, governments utilize a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores local factors, such as the cost of collecting waste or the proximity to a processing facility or final markets.

One of the main end-users—manufacturing—has been decimated by similar failed policies of this government. This particular course of action is favoured by governments that treasure photo opportunities and feel-good initiatives above sustainable and effective public policy. It inevitably results in the inefficient use of local and national resources.

Bill 151 is the perfect example of this kind of bad policy-making. Out of the provisions of this bill, the Liberal government intends to create a system whereby they can write a policy statement and impose its obligations on industry. It is unclear what particular aspects of the waste cycle the policy statements will affect and how the government intends to enforce them. To be honest, the public doesn’t even know whether the Liberals will write any policy statements at all.

Once a policy statement comes from the ministry, however, the government intends to apply its principles to all industries and expects them all to comply. This direction might include specific requirements for packaging, labelling and distribution and affect the other steps in the supply chain and the waste cycle.

This particular made-in-Ontario approach could have a logical justification, if most goods Ontarians consumed were made in Ontario and our market could use its size to force producers to adapt to our standards. This, however, is not the case. According to the Ministry of Finance’s January data sheet, in 2014 the province imported $356 billion worth of goods and services and exported $370 billion. Overall, we have an affluent and sizable consumer market, especially within a Canadian context.

Zooming out to just our NAFTA partners, however, reveals that our market size is smaller than the US states of California, New York, Florida and Texas. We can’t compete with the purchasing power of the 300 million neighbours south of our border.

In 2014, our province imported, according to Statistics Canada, $295 billion in merchandise. Our imports constitute a large proportion of our GDP, since consumer spending on imports is included in the GDP calculation. The government of Ontario expects to force multinational companies to comply with the Ontario requirements for the sake of selling in our market. Depending on how detailed and onerous these requirements are, we could be looking at a tailored, made-in-Ontario regulatory framework for everything from packaging to distribution.

Some companies may be dependent on Ontario consumption and will comply, although I don’t expect that to be a very large number. For many others, Ontario’s massive red tape and unrealistic directives will warrant an examination of whether it’s worthwhile to continue to supply their products to our markets or, at the very least, raise prices above those of our neighbours to pay for the new scheme.

There can be three outcomes when a company undertakes such a step. First, they can choose to dedicate a supply line to Ontario-compliant products different from their larger supply lines to other markets. This is far from a victory, as it diverts resources and creates additional costs in terms of labour, space and expertise to ensure continued compliance.

Second, the company can decide to pull out of the Ontario market altogether and mitigate their losses through more effective marketing in either the markets that they already have a presence in or in attempting to enter new markets.

Third, the company can spin off an Ontario-centred subsidiary designed exclusively to comply with the ministry’s policy statements. This arrangement, again, misallocates resources by adding incorporation, labour, transportation and compliance costs to the supply chain, driving up prices for Ontario consumers.

Last week, the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of Saskatchewan had a bit of a fight over the new carbon-based pricing, where they said that it was an unfair advantage if they were forced to follow through on this. This is an example of somebody that’s interested in our competitiveness with our neighbouring province that really doesn’t compete with us in any way. We don’t sell oil, basically; we don’t have potash. So we’re not worrying about the bigger picture, which is our neighbour to the south that really competes with us in manufacturing, and we aren’t competitive. We need to look at the red tape.

It really is an example of a minister who is worried about one small sector of the economy but he’s not worried about the overall.

I guess, Speaker, you’re giving me the wave that this is the time to sit down and continue another day. Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I know what’s going to happen. I’m going to ask for all members’ indulgence as there is a large number of people who want to stand up to introduce guests because of the circumstances that we find ourselves in today. I’m going to ask you to do the introduction without any editorial, and we will get through all of your guests. My intention would be to remind members that the Speaker usually introduces former members.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Julia Munro: It gives me great pleasure to recognize Subahini Srikantha, who is here from my riding for the model Parliament reception.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to welcome some friends from my region of Essex: Mayor Ron McDermott; Bill Parr; Arlene Parr; Councillor Bill Caixeiro; Sheri Dzudovich; Rebecca Robinson; Joann Myer; Ethan Robinson; and Melanie Paul Tanovich. They’re here today to fight the closure of Harrow high school. They braved the weather to come up. We appreciate them being here.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome the civic engagement volunteering activities club from my riding of Don Valley West. I just want to read their names: Dario Mendez; Aadil Shaikh; Will Randall; Ian Hayward; Mia Tucker; Amelia Lin; Nelka Jankechova; Olivia Lasanowski; Riane Jin-Hee Lee; Sanjay Suganthan; Catherine Chen; Angie Luo; Hana Hadley; Rachel Quon; Kaafi Hamid; Heather Coyne; Rie Montgomery; Rick Mahoney; and Devin Swann.

These are very engaged volunteers in Don Valley West, and we welcome them.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome the public affairs students from Seneca College, taught by my good friend Professor Jon Olinski, to question period this morning.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome a student who’s here from my riding for the Ontario model Parliament: Seamus McKenna. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m pleased to welcome some members of our Ontario oil and gas sector: Hugh Moran, executive director of the Ontario Petroleum Institute; David Thompson, the chief executive officer of Northern Cross; Frank Kuri from Dundee Energy; David McLean, the president of Riverbend Consulting; and geologist Ian Colquhoun. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: In the public gallery this morning, I would like to welcome, from the riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, page Delaney Mastronardi’s father, Domenic, and his mother—her grandmother, known as Nonna—Ascenzina Mastronardi. Benvenuti.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Jennifer McIntyre, Suzanne Lesnowski, Lila Fraser and Alex Robinson to Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us in the west gallery today is a good friend of mine, and many members of the Legislature: Bruce Davis, former chair of the Toronto District School Board and owner of Gananoque Brewing Co.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: [ inaudible ] Ryerson student working in my office, Chelsea Goberdhan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to welcome some students from Oakville who are here with us today for the 2016 Ontario model Parliament: Evangeline Mann; Henry Mann; Nicolas Scarcelli; and Alvin Leung. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Today, page captain Richard Fan is joined by his mother, Cherry Liu, and father, Jeffrey Fan. They’re in the public gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’d like to welcome Karlee Reece, a student from my riding in Sault Ste. Marie, to the Ontario model Parliament.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Jason Rohfritsch, John Metzger and Will Patterson from my riding. They’re here for the model Parliament.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m very pleased to welcome my two guests who are here today to visit Queen’s Park: my very good friend Ingrid Läderach Steven, the owner of the beautiful chocolate store called Swiss-Master, and Jaclyn Hawkins, who is a rising student visiting me here today at Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to welcome one of my constituents, Peyton Horning from Merrickville-Wolford, who is here for the Ontario model Parliament. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to welcome a new intern: Irena Jury, from the Akron, Ohio, internship program.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today in the House Maya Joy Lindstrom Parkins, a student from Davenport attending today’s model Parliament.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce Darren Summersby, who is here from Nipissing for the model Parliament.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m delighted to welcome Zachary Piette and Alexandra Pumner, who are here today for the Ontario model Parliament, representing London West.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to introduce Alex Hu, a former page, who is here for the Ontario model Parliament for the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome Julia Brunet from my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, who is here for the model Parliament. She is also a former page here at the Legislature. Welcome, Julia.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome a former page, a member of the Windsor–Tecumseh riding. Evan Tanovich is up with the model Parliament people today. His mother, Melanie, is over here in the gallery as well.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to welcome Dominic Jayetileke, who is from my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, here for Ontario’s model Parliament.

Speaker, if you would indulge me, please, I’d like to also welcome the Consul General of Jamaica, Mr. George Wilks, given that’s the place of my birth; and also C.J. Augustine-Kanu, who is the daughter of Dr. Jean Augustine, Consul General of Grenada. I know there are many others to be introduced by you, Speaker.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Today I want to welcome to the assembly Brian Popowich, who is page captain Jessie Popowich’s father. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m very happy to welcome a good friend, Larry Rose, formerly of Kitchener Centre but now choosing to live in St. Paul’s. Welcome.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a former page, Olivia Fox, who is also the granddaughter of a former member here, Gary Fox, as part of the model Parliament. Welcome.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I wanted to also introduce today here in the House Bill Moniz and Lino Torrado from OMNI, who here doing a documentary to be aired later on OMNI. Thank you and welcome.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to introduce Maddy Davidson from the great riding of Oxford county. She’s participating in the 2016 Legislative Assembly of Ontario model Parliament and I want to welcome Maddy to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It gives me great pleasure to introduce representatives of the Canadian Men’s Health Foundation: Order of Canada recipient and founder Dr. Larry Goldenberg; President Wayne Hartrick; Canadian Olympic gold medallist in rowing, Adam Kreek, also a spokesperson; and Rod Elliot of Global Public Affairs. Thank you. Welcome, gentlemen.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I would also like to welcome, from my riding of Oshawa, Jacob Ebbs, who is participating in this year’s model Parliament. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome Diana Eqbe, who is the new general assistant in my office, joining us today. Welcome.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m also pleased to introduce Lachandra Jordan, similarly joining the assembly from the state of Ohio as an intern. She has a particular interest in the sharing economy, and the poor young woman got stuck with Hudak. Welcome to the assembly and good luck in my office.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I need to correct my record for Hansard. The Consul General for Jamaica is Lloyd Wilks.

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

Not that we haven’t mentioned it, but we have with us in the public galleries today 95 students from across the province, participating in the third annual Legislative Assembly of Ontario Model Parliament. Please join me in welcoming all of them, including an individual from my own riding. I’ll just leave it at that.

I’d also like to thank all parties in the House for participating in making the model Parliament work the way it does. Congratulations and have a great weekend.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We also have with us in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation of consuls general and members of the consular corps representing 11 Caribbean countries. Please join me in welcoming our guests from the Caribbean.

Now I would ask all members to please join me in welcoming the family of the late Derwyn Shea, MPP for High Park–Swansea during the 36th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery. His partner, Christine Schubert, cousin Lorraine Clarkson and friends Sarah Davies, Janet Carwardine and France Cass are here to pay tribute. Welcome, and we’re glad you’re here with us today.

Also along with us to pay tribute in the Speaker’s gallery are former members: Mr. David Turnbull, MPP for York Mills during the 35th and 36th Parliaments and MPP for Don Valley West during the 37th Parliament; Mr. David Warner, Speaker during the 35th Parliament; Mr. John Parker, MPP for York East during the 36th Parliament; Mr. Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments; Mr. Murad Velshi, MPP for Don Mills during the 34th Parliament, and his wife, Mariam. Welcome to our former members who are here today.

Derwyn Shea

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader on a point of order.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Derwyn Shea, former member for High Park–Swansea, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed. Thank you.

The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s an honour and a privilege to rise today and remember the life of the Rev. Canon Derwyn Spencer Shea. This was a gentleman who was born in 1937. In fact, his elder brother was shot down in the Second World War, and Derwyn himself would go back to England to recognize that event every second year of his life.

He was first and foremost a pastor. He was first and foremost a Christian, and he lived for his faith and through his faith. In fact, it was his faith that brought him here and took him to city council in Toronto. He was ordained in 1966 as an Anglican priest, and he worked in the dioceses of Saskatchewan, Algoma and Toronto. He founded the Eastview Neighbourhood Association for latchkey youth in Toronto’s east end and was co-author of the benchmark East Toronto Deanery Study.

He was the first Canadian ever to receive a fellowship from the Academy of Parish Clergy and was a member of the city of Toronto’s planning board from 1972 to 1982, including four years as chairman, when he was elected in his first attempt as senior alderman in Toronto’s ward 1. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it was Derwyn who fought to change the name from “alderman,” because it clearly left women out, to “councillor.”

As a member of council, he served with a number of agencies, boards and commissions. He was variously a police commissioner and a commissioner of Toronto Hydro, as well as president of the Canadian National Exhibition, governor of Exhibition Place and chair at the O’Keefe Centre. He served on a number of hospital boards: Toronto General, Toronto Western, Princess Margaret and Runnymede Chronic Care.

In the 1995 provincial election, Shea defeated New Democratic Party cabinet minister and incumbent Elaine Ziemba and became a member of Mike Harris’s caucus for the next four years, serving as parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and then as parliamentary assistant for citizenship, culture and recreation.

He retired from the Legislature in 1999 and returned to his position as rector of St. Clement’s Anglican church in Riverdale. In 2000, Shea initiated, and was later elected founding chair of, the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians. I’ll talk about that more in a minute.

I want to share something with the assembly that Steve Paikin wrote about Derwyn Shea. He said that, although Shea was a man of faith with modest ambitions, it did not “mean he was a shrinking violet. During the Harris government’s first term in office, the finance minister, Ernie Eves, was considering bringing in a new ‘market value assessment’ property tax system for Ontario’s cities. The gist of the new system was to raise property taxes on older homes which hadn’t been reassessed in decades and therefore were paying a ... lower share....

“When Shea discovered what that would mean for his constituents in the west end of old Toronto, he hit the roof. He marched into Eves’s office and gave him an earful about how seniors in his ward would have to sell their homes because they could no longer afford to pay their property taxes.

“Given that he was a clergyman, I asked”—this is Steve Paikin—“Shea how intense the conversation with Eves got. The answer was ‘plenty.’

“‘Was there any profanity used?’ I asked.

“‘Yes, by both of us,’ he replied.

“Shocked at the notion of an Anglican Church minister and a provincial finance minister using longshoreman’s language, I asked one more question.

“‘Did you use the F-word?’”

Shea replied, “‘Not unless you mean ‘fundamental.’”

One of his most enduring accomplishments while representing what is now my riding was in getting the Humber River in Toronto’s west end designated as a historic river. We’re thankful for that, I can tell you.

“‘It was a really exciting moment to get that through Parliament,’ Shea said. There were long negotiations but eventually his private member’s bill passed. ‘I’m very proud of that.... It gives us the chance to really make sure that river goes through reclamation and gets improved. That really made my day.’”

I also want to highlight the fact that he was one of the founding members—as you will hear, I’m sure, from others—of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians. This goes back to Reverend Shea’s faith. Really, first and foremost, he was a pastor, and in his retirement he really was a pastor to all of us here in starting that organization.

I want to say thank you on behalf of the New Democratic Party and our leader Andrea Horwath for the life of Derwyn Shea lived here, in part, in this assembly, and to his family for sharing it with us.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the Reverend Canon Derwyn Spencer Shea, who, while he served in the Legislature for only one term, had a profound effect on the deliberations both in this House and within the Progressive Conservative caucus.

I first met Derwyn Shea, that I can recall, in 1995, when he introduced himself to me and to several colleagues in the Legislature upon his first appearance in the chamber. It was in his usual jovial, friendly manner, which all who knew him can recall to this very day. He was the kind of individual who made a good first impression and the kind of person who always had a cordial greeting whenever he encountered you, whether it was in the House, in a legislative committee, in the hallway or on the streets of Toronto.

Derwyn had a dual role to play in his community as both an Anglican priest and a politician, first at the municipal level, as has been mentioned, and as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In doing so, he had to walk what Toronto Sun columnist John Downing referred to as a tightrope in a column in April 1999, when Derwyn announced his retirement from provincial politics.

I always wondered why, being such a progressive individual, he chose the party he did. Some people said to me that in those days the Anglican Church was really the Conservative Party at prayer. I discounted that completely because I never thought it to be the case. But certainly, he was very much loved by members of all parties in this House and not simply by his own friends within the Progressive Conservative Party.

There was much speculation—and I assure you, it was only that—that Reverend Shea was leaving because of dissatisfaction with his government’s policies or fear of defeat because the riding boundaries were changing. I suspect the real reason was to devote his full time to his first calling, that being his role in the Anglican Church. He truly did take that role so very seriously.

Without a doubt, there are always inevitable conflicts that arise when the teachings of the church clash with political imperatives of a government, and knowing Derwyn as a compassionate, caring individual with a strong commitment to Christian values and principles, he very likely came to the conclusion that he should devote all of his attention to his duties and his responsibilities as a priest. I’m certain that his decision was welcomed, if not by his party, which loved him very much and which found him to be a good member of the Legislature, by the Anglican Church, which wanted his full time and attention because he was so instrumental in its success in Toronto.

I think it’s safe to say that Derwyn was not afraid to ruffle feathers or dissent from the prevailing view, as he demonstrated in embracing the call for change in the title of local city politician from “alderman” to “councillor”; or when he suggested that the CNE needed a more multicultural flair to make it a truly national attraction; or for taking independent stands on issues before the Toronto Police Commission—and he did that quite vociferously and openly.

There’s a cat story to this, as well. The headline says, “MPP Joins Cat Fight: Shea Backs Tigger in a Tea Shop.” Only the Sun could come up with these particular headlines.

“Tigger, the feline fighting the law ruling he poses a health risk by curling up in his owner’s Say Tea shop, found an ally in his local MPP yesterday.

“‘I’m proud to wear Tigger’s colours,’ said Derwyn Shea, MPP for Tigger’s High Park–Swansea riding. ‘He’s a terrific cat,’ said Shea, who claims to be ‘owned’ by four cats himself. ‘And I say “Tigger, come on home and get in your window and enjoy the sunshine”,’ he said....

“Shea has asked Jim Wilson”—who was around at that time and still is—“the Minister of Health, to review the regulations prohibiting Tigger’s catnapping in the shop.

“If the regulation can’t be changed, Shea promised Tigger’s owner, Wendy Winship, he would present her 2,000-signature petition to the Legislature.”

So Derwyn was prepared to take on the cats, as well.

When you review the various agencies, boards and commissions that Derwyn Shea was part of, you understand his love for and his devotion to his community and so many good causes in that community. Whether it was the Toronto planning board, municipal council, the O’Keefe Centre, the Variety Club, the Ugandan Relief and Development Organization, the Hospital for Sick Children Herbie Fund, the Eastview Neighbourhood Association for latchkey youth, the boards of Toronto General, Princess Margaret and the Runnymede Chronic Care Facility, Derwyn was prepared to dedicate his time, talent and enthusiasm. For that, all of us in this province should be extremely thankful.

On a personal note, I applaud Derwyn for his distaste for government gambling policies, a cause with which I’m in sympathy with the former MPP for High Park–Swansea. For those of you who have been around for a while and had to listen to me drone on about the evils of gambling—there were members of the Legislature from different parties who did that—I was really glad when Derwyn took that cause on, as well.

The Reverend Canon Derwyn Shea demonstrated his commitment to the ministry—this is rather interesting—by bequests in his estate to the Diocese of Toronto to establish a fund for the assistance of parish clergy and to Wycliffe College to fund a chair of urban ministry in memory of his late wife.

For many present members of the Legislature, the last time we saw him was at a gathering of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians, an organization he founded and led with great dedication and commitment. He may no longer be with us in the mortal sense, but his irrepressible spirit and ready smile will remain forever in all of our memories.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m pleased to rise on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus in tribute to our friend and colleague the Reverend Canon Derwyn Shea. Welcome to friends here as part of this tribute.

I’ll confess, when I first got here and I sat in the very back corner, Derwyn Shea scared me. He was an intimidating fellow. I remember getting here and trying to get the measure of the characters I was about to serve with. Norm Sterling was very professorial; he was always carrying around a book or a newspaper. Jim Wilson was a young firebrand with a beautiful set of hair. David Turnbull, who joins us today, the former member for York Mills, was our party whip. He had this clipped British accent, so, to me, he was some kind of Bond villain making sure we were all in place.

And Ted Arnott, well, he still looks the same. But Derwyn intimidated me. He had this gravitas, this authority to him. He was well read, well educated, principled, good at his job and he tended to get his way.

My colleagues from St. Catharines and Parkdale–High Park did an excellent job talking about his accomplishments here, but let me tell you a little bit about how he got that way. He entered the Anglican ministry at 30 years of age after having served in the military and with Bell Telephone.

As is customary when you start out in the church, his early parishes were off the beaten track, initially in rural Saskatchewan and then—to my colleague from Nickel Belt—Capreol. Let me tell you a bit about that. When he got to Capreol he found that his new, small, white-frame parish church required renovations. He commissioned one of the finest stained glass artists in the country to create a new, beautiful stained glass window to be installed right over the front door of the parish. Years later, Derwyn took pride in having negotiated on behalf of the church probably the lowest price the artist had ever agreed to in his career.

Later he was called to serve as the parish priest in the church of St. Clement on Jones Avenue in Toronto. The member from Toronto–Danforth nods, knowing the parish and the neighbourhood. The changing demographics of the area at the time had depleted the traditional congregation and Reverend Derwyn Shea had his marching orders. He was to supervise the orderly closure of the church altogether, but those of us who knew Derwyn knew that he would have other plans. He reached out to the newly arrived ethnic communities in the neighbourhood.

He was warm to the existing congregation and he built a new congregation comprised primarily of members who had not been made to feel welcome before. The church became robust and successful. For his achievement, Derwyn received a personal commendation from the Archbishop of Canterbury, confirmed in a personal letter that remained framed and mounted on Derwyn’s wall for the rest of his life.

It was Derwyn’s passion for service to people and his desire to contribute to the well-being of the community that shortly led him into political life, first at the municipal level in Toronto, starting with service as a member of volunteer municipal boards. In 1972, he was appointed to the then city of Toronto planning board as part of a clean sweep by the new mayor at the time, David Crombie. In due course, he was elected to Toronto city council and then Metro council, all the while continuing to lead Sunday services at St. Clement’s church.

In Derwyn’s first municipal election in the early 1990s, he was returned to Metro council, holding off a challenge by an aspiring young politician, actually a law school classmate of the Honourable Tony Clement, a young fellow by the name of David Miller.

At Queen’s Park, Derwyn recognized that he was now playing a team sport. He never lost track of which team he played for but he never lost sight of the important work that we do.

Members who were here at the time will also remember that in 1995 there were actually 82 of us. So while I was in the far back corner, there was a significant group of Conservative MPPs on that side. They called themselves “the rump.” That’s where Derwyn sat. It didn’t take Derwyn long to realize that his seat was caught on camera at the opening of each daily session as the mace was paraded in through the front doors. He saw the benefit that came from that happy circumstance. Whether Derwyn had business before the House or whether he had House duty or not, he made sure that every day he was in his seat as the mace came by. Similarly, he would slip in and slip out as the mace made its exit.

So it’s no surprise to you that I mentioned the rump. It was a matter of time before Derwyn became the leader of the PC rump. He might have even come up with the name; I’m not sure. He would produce a regular rump newsletter that he would post on the wall of the caucus office, and he’d set out the causes of various kinds, political and otherwise, that the members of the rump purported to advance. Members of the Harris cabinet who would have been surviving question period in the day would then get battered back in the caucus room if they had crossed a member of the rump.

My colleague Mr. Bradley mentioned Reverend Canon Shea’s opposition to gambling. When the initial plan was to put VLTs in bars, restaurants and 30-some casinos, he was successful, and not just behind closed doors. He stood up publicly and voiced his opposition. I think he was part of the reason why we pulled that back. Eventually slots at racetracks—on which Derwyn said, “Look, I’m a realist. I know they’re not going to the racetrack on Sunday to go to church.”

The mutual devotion of Derwyn and his wife Julia was an inspiration to all married couples. The two were gracious hosts to guests far and wide, and their annual Boxing Day open house was legendary. Each year they flung their doors open to members of the community, friends and neighbours—a who’s who of all the celebrities, journalists, government officials, politicians and political activists who had crossed Derwyn’s path over his many years of political activity.

Even Liberal and NDP members were known to stop by from time to time with free admission, on the explicit understanding that no one present would rat them out to their caucus colleagues when the Legislature resumed a few weeks later.

This brings me to my last thing I want to recognize for Derwyn on what he did for all members of this House. As my colleagues rightly said, he never allowed political differences to become personal in any way, shape or form. He respected any member regardless of party affiliation who he believed had chosen a political life with a genuine intention to advance a cause of a better world and to share their perspective on how we can best work together to achieve that better world.

He was deeply troubled, Speaker, by the suicide of Hans Daigeler, an MPP from the Ottawa area who tragically committed suicide after having lost office in 1995. With that terrible experience in mind, he set out and formed a group to work across party lines that became the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians. It was formally recognized historically as legislation in the House by being the first bill written by committee. In those days you couldn’t have co-signers for bills, so he had all-party support in committee.

Because he was the Chair at the time, the member for Scarborough East’s name was actually on the bill, but Derwyn brought it forward with support from Liberals and NDP. They continue to work hard and support and create fellowship among former parliamentarians and forge friendships and alliances for alumni of this House, for others across Canada and now internationally.

One of Derwyn’s great ambitions for that is achieved. Former parliamentarians go to university campuses to talk about public policy, to talk about the life and to inspire other young people to join us here one day as MPPs or as staff. There’s no doubt, Speaker, that sadly, over time—I think in my 20 years my more veteran colleagues would probably agree that the role of politicians has been diminished, and I think all of us have, sadly, played a role in that. When you walk out of this universe into the other one out there, it’s not always what you expect. Derwyn knew that; he looked out for us. So my fear dissipated and moved to one of tremendous respect and appreciation.

On behalf of the PC caucus I thank Derwyn for what he did in this chamber. Most importantly, we thank him for what he did outside of it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the member from Niagara West-Glanbrook, I was blessed to be on that committee on the creation of the former parliamentarians. So again I’d say to former parliamentarians: Thank you for being here. It’s a testimony to—I’ll just move on.

To the family, we offer you, as we always do, a DVD of today’s procedures. I thank all members for their very kind and heartfelt thoughts. You will receive a copy of Hansard as well. I want to thank all of you for being here on behalf of the entire House. Thank you very much.

And now the other side of the story: It’s now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. This week, the Liberals will table their ninth straight budget with a multi-billion-dollar deficit.

Applause.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The Premier and the finance minister want to applaud that because they have a history of blaming everyone except themselves. They’ve blamed the federal government; they’ve blamed a recession that was eight years ago.

The Fraser Institute did a recent study that shows that that history of blaming others is not supported by evidence, and that blaming the federal government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): However, I’ll still keep doing my job.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The Fraser Institute study says that blaming the federal government or blaming a recession from eight years ago is not supported in fact.

Given that recent study, when the Liberals table their budget with another multi-billion dollar deficit and a debt of over $300 billion, what I want to know is who you’re going to blame next?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just be clear with the Leader of the Opposition and the people of Ontario that we are implementing our plan and, at the same time, we are eliminating the deficit. We’re doing that in a way that’s fair and we’re doing it in a way that supports economic growth and the creation of jobs.

We are on track to eliminate our deficit by 2017-18, which is the track that we said we were on. We have stayed on it. We have overachieved in terms of deficit reduction every year and, at the same time, we have made—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It goes both ways. I’m inches away from going into individuals and warnings.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —investments in people, in their talent, in their skills and in the infrastructure that we know is needed around the province. At the same time, we are eliminating the deficit, and we’re on track to do that by 2017-18.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: I guess we’ll have to wait until tomorrow to find out who they blame next.

My question is for the Premier. Let’s talk about the facts: Every person in Ontario has a share of this government’s debt. They owe $21,000 because of the Liberals’ mismanagement. As this government’s debt grew—and grow it did—the debt-to-GDP ratio has gone from 27.5% when the government took office to 40% today. That is astonishing.

The interest payments on Ontario’s debt have become the third-largest ministry in this government. The government is spending 22 times more on interest than what it spends on the Ministry of the Environment.

My question for the Premier is this: Will you apologize to the next generation of Ontario families who are going to have to pay for your decade of waste and incompetence?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m happy to look at the facts. We have taken steps to manage and control our spending growth while at the same time delivering the best possible value for every dollar. Ontario has consistently had the lowest per capita program spending among all Canadian provinces. In fact, 2014-15 marked the sixth year in a row that we reported both lower-than-projected program expenses and a lower deficit. We’re doing this in a responsible way. We said that 2017-18 was the year that we would eliminate the deficit, and that is the year that we will eliminate the deficit.

I would remind the member opposite that as soon as he finishes his leadoff questions, his members are going to be standing up asking for more spending. They’re going to be asking for increases in spending, which is entirely inconsistent, not that I would expect consistency from the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Insults don’t hide the truth.

I will be very clear: During your time in office, the debt-to-GDP ratio has gone from 27.5% to 40%. That is your legacy. That is your debt for Ontario.

Now, if it wasn’t for Liberal scandal, waste and mismanagement—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Newmarket–Aurora, come to order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: —this government wouldn’t have to sell Hydro One.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Associate Minister of Finance, come to order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: They wouldn’t have to raise taxes on everything from beer to jet fuel. They wouldn’t have to charge tolls for highways that Ontario families have already paid for.

The Financial Accountability Office, an office that you created, says that your numbers are wrong. They said that Ontario is on pace for a $3.5-billion deficit in 2017-18. All the facts are against what your government is preaching.

Mr. Speaker, as our final budget ask, will the government include in their budget tomorrow a credible plan—not a stretch goal—for a balanced budget and take immediate action to pay down the $300-billion Liberal debt?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. We are on track to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. If you look at the Conference Board of Canada, Ontario will be one of the growth leaders in 2016. BMO said that Ontario’s economy is expected to be among the top performers this year. RBC said, “Ontario is poised to be among the faster-growing provincial economies in 2016.” Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. We’re implementing that plan. We are on track to eliminate the deficit.

The Leader of the Opposition wants us to increase health care beyond what we are already increasing it. He wants electricity prices to go down, either by a subsidy or—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order and the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I can only assume that he wants to either subsidize electricity prices or go back to coal—we’re not doing that—and he wants the deficit eliminated. There are inconsistencies in those arguments that are not compatible with responsible governance.

We have a plan. We’re implementing that plan. We’re on track to eliminate the deficit responsibly and invest in the people of this province.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Later today, we will debate our opposition day motion related to tomorrow’s budget. We’ve presented three basic requests that we believe the government of Ontario should meet, quite frankly, at a bare minimum.

One of those key asks is that the government put forward a credible plan to balance the budget and pay down our debt. The Auditor General, the Financial Accountability Officer and even the CBC said that there are consequences to perpetual deficits and the $300-billion debt this government has amassed. We pay nearly $1 billion a month in interest, which is crowding out key services. We see it every day in our health care cuts.

The Premier has scoffed at our other asks. Will she at least support this one?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, we have a plan. We have a credible plan. The member opposite will see in the budget tomorrow that we are on track. He knows that year after year, we have over-performed on our deficit reduction targets and that we’re on track—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

I have now decided to move to warnings—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to make sure that those who are talking over top of me hear it again: I’m moving to warnings.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows full well that for six years in a row, we have been eliminating the deficit. We are on target to eliminate it completely by 2017-18.

But I will return to the fact that the three requests that the opposition party is putting forward are inconsistent. You cannot increase health care beyond what we are already doing and lower electricity prices, either through a subsidy or going back to coal, and at the same time speed up the elimination—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Nobody believes a word that this government says anymore, and is it any wonder why? They claim to have a path to balance, but the confidential gas plants scandal documents we uncovered showed they have a multi-billion dollar hole in that plan. In fact, the Financial Accountability Officer confirmed what was in those documents in his last report. And the fall economic statement showed, plain as day, that they’re using the money from the sale of Hydro One to make the deficit appear smaller.

My question is to the Premier: Will your budget be simply more word games and sleight of hand, or will you present a truly credible plan to balance the books?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Not only does the Financial Accountability Officer recognize in his scenarios that our government’s return to balance is achievable, he also acknowledged that the government is on track, when he made his statement, to reach our 2015-16 deficit target of $8.5 billion. He also acknowledges that we’re taking a responsible approach to holding spending growth in order to meet our targets.

We are happy to have the scrutiny of the Financial Accountability Officer. We’re happy to have the scrutiny of the opposition party. But I would say to the opposition party and the people of Ontario that we have to have a consistency in the debate. We have to have the opportunity to say, “Well, if you’re asking us to do more in terms of health care and increase spending”—because we continue to increase health care spending but you’re pushing for increased spending in health care—“if you want electricity prices to go down through a subsidy or returning to coal, we’re not going to do that, and we have a plan to eliminate the deficit.”

So on all fronts, we have responses today to what the opposition is asking.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: I had hoped the Premier would treat the concerns of families seriously, Speaker, but apparently that’s not to be. They’re not even concerned with the appearance of consulting with families anymore. They knew full well that the budget was written when all three parties toured the province on pre-budget consultations. They knew that when they sent us out to work.

Last week, the finance minister called our budget a fiscal fantasy. Apparently, it’s a fantasy to ask for affordable hydro. Apparently, adequate staffing in our hospitals is now a fantasy. How arrogant, Speaker, how out of touch has this government become?

So my question is, will the Premier stop her doublespeak and begin to help Ontario families—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish your question.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are very, very concerned with the needs of the people in this province, which is why, if we want to talk about the electricity sector, we have put programs in place specifically to help people who are struggling to pay their bills get some support. The Ontario Electricity Support Program is for low-income families. That is why it has been put in place, Mr. Speaker.

We understand that we need to continue to invest in health care and increase funding. We have been doing that year over year and we will continue to do that.

But at the same time, we recognize that eliminating the deficit is a part of our fiscal responsibility. That’s why we have a plan to do that. The members opposite will see in the budget that we have taken responsible steps on all of those fronts. Given that, I look forward to their support of our budget, Mr. Speaker.

Ontario budget

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. In the last two budgets, the Premier has made deep cuts to education. Will the education cuts continue in Thursday’s budget or will the Premier respect the needs of Ontario students and stop the cuts to education?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just have to say to the leader of the third party that what she has said is just not accurate. In fact, the funding for education has stayed stable, even in the face of fewer students in the system, which means that the per capita expenditure on students has gone up. There is more money per capita for students in the education system now than previously.

The reality is that we understand that having schools that are well-staffed, having school buildings that are in good shape, therefore having capital dollars for school boards to spend on those, is critical, which is why education funding continues to be stable year over year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I don’t know what the Premier defines as stable. On Monday, the Premier said, “We’re not cutting education funding.” But in the 2014 budget, the Liberal government slashed $400 million out of education. In the 2015 budget, they slashed $250 million from education. The Premier’s own documents say that she’s now planning to cut another $250 million in this year’s budget.

Now that’s nearly $1 billion cut in just three years, Speaker, and it means closing more schools and cutting vital supports to students. Will this Premier come clean and tell the people of this province and tell the students of this province if she, in fact, will be cutting another $250 million or more in Thursday’s budget out of the education file?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to answer this question once again. This is actually becoming fairly regular.

To make it perfectly clear, we have not cut the education budget. It is $22.5 billion transferred to school boards this year; it was $22.5 billion transferred to school boards the year before. And, as the Premier has already noted, because the number of students has actually declined fairly dramatically, we have more money per pupil. You would be interested to know, Speaker, that over the length of our mandate, the per pupil funding has actually gone up 59%.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier and her minister seem to think that everything is just fine in education. But tell that to the people who have seen their neighbourhood schools close, like the delegation that’s here today from Harrow, or parents of the most vulnerable students in our province, who are seeing supports like special education slashed, or students who are freezing cold and have to wear their jackets in their classrooms while they are learning just because the heaters are broken and there’s no money to fix them.

The Premier may be in denial about what her cuts mean—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Come to order.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier may be in denial and her minister may be in denial about what their cuts mean, but students and their families and educators see first-hand—first-hand—what’s happening, Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is warned.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: But do you know what, Speaker? The money lost from selling off Hydro One could lead to even deeper cuts in education.

Will Thursday’s budget stop the cuts to education? That is the question that this government needs to answer.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to report that when you look at the record over the past several years, you will find that, in fact, the high school graduation rate in Ontario has gone up. When we came into office, the high school graduation rate in Ontario was 68%. The high school graduation rate in Ontario is now 84%. Not only have we increased student achievement; we have already invested over $13.9 billion in 755 new schools and 700 major additions and retrofits. We’ll continue to invest, with another $11 billion going to new schools, major renovation and school consolidations.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. This Premier might think her health transformation looks good on paper, but for everyday people it is ugly. Nurses are being fired. Home care wait times are months long, even though the Premier committed to the NDP plan for a five-day home care wait time. I guess that was another one of the Premier’s stretch goals. Hospitals are closing beds; surgeries are being cancelled. Will this Premier admit that patients are paying the price for her cutbacks in health care and stop the cuts?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, again, as in the discussion around education, the leader of the third party is just not accurate. The fact is that the information is not accurate. The fact is that we continue to increase health care spending. We are very acutely aware of the need for more supports in things like community care and mental health. There is money going into those sectors.

Again, year over year, health care spending increases. So we recognize, as the demographics change in this province—and, again, this is also related to education, because the demographic shift is very real. The population is aging. People want a different kind of health care and a different delivery. They want it in their homes. They want it in the community. Those are the changes that are happening. Change is challenging for people, but it’s real, and we continue to increase funding in order to make that change happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Either this Premier is not aware or she has her head in the sand. The fundamentals of health care are pretty basic. It’s making sure that the care is there for people when and where they need it.

Instead of strengthening care, people are seeing cuts to the care that they need. Hospital care is facing cuts. People are facing massive home care wait-lists, and finding a long-term-care space for seniors can take years in this province.

Is Thursday’s budget going to reverse the cuts and put the focus on improving health care, or is this Premier going to continue cutting and insisting that everything is just fine?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to comment in the next supplementary, but let me just be very, very clear: It is our responsibility, as government, to make sure that we continue to improve the services for the people in this province, that we continue to work to get the outcomes on surgery wait times, on community care access, and to make sure that young people who need mental health supports and seniors who need supports get those supports.

When the leader of the third party proposes that somehow I am satisfied with the status quo, she is absolutely wrong. Everything about our government is about finding ways to improve services for the people of the province, to build up those services, to make sure that hospitals and health science centres and community services are improved. That’s why—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier might be aware of what her responsibility is, but what she isn’t aware of is that she is failing in that responsibility miserably for the people of Ontario. There is a serious problem when people across Ontario ask for something really basic, like making sure our health care system provides the care that they need, but what they get is a Liberal government that keeps closing beds, putting hospitals into gridlock, firing nurses and keeping people waiting for home care and for long-term care.

The Premier’s job is to work for all Ontarians, but there are more and more people who cannot get the health care that they need in this province. That is the fact. Will this Premier acknowledge that health care is supposed to be about meeting people’s needs and stop any further cuts to health care?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, there aren’t any cuts to health care. We’re continuing to increase, year after year, the budget. We’ve—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s a good thing that I didn’t remind the third party that they fired 3,000 nurses or that they delisted home care from OHIP when they were in government.

Let’s just take one piece of evidence to demonstrate the improvements that have been made: the almost $2 billion that we have invested specifically to help reduce wait times for surgeries and diagnostic imaging. As a result of that investment, we have saved Ontarians 282 million total days that they otherwise would have had to wait for these services. We went from the worst wait times in all of Canada, when we inherited government from the Conservatives—we now have the shortest wait times in Canada.

Ontario budget

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Treasury Board president. Tomorrow, this government will table its ninth consecutive deficit—overachievers, the lot of them—borrowing more money than they take in and paying almost $1 billion in interest payments that should instead be intended for hospitals and classrooms. The Treasury Board president’s mandate letter is very clear. It says, “You will work closely with your fellow cabinet ministers to ensure that our government meets its fiscal targets.” Yet she is not.

Both the Auditor General and the Financial Accountability Officer said that this government has no credible plan to balance the budget. In fact, all we saw today was a plan to increase taxes, and that’s not sustainable on the people of this province. Can the minister explain to the people of this House why she refuses to follow her mandate letter and why she is willing to compromise the fiscal health of this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know we’re all very anxious to see tomorrow’s budget. I’m sure everybody will be here and will listen to the news, and we will confirm that we are in fact on track to meet our commitment to balance the budget by 2017-18. We are doing it in a way that is thoughtful, that is disciplined, that is responsible. We are going through every service, every program and every ministry across government, finding ways to deliver services better for people, sometimes at a lower cost. That work is under way.

We are on track to balance, and we will all look forward to tomorrow where you will actually see further details on our plan to achieve balance while protecting the services that people rely on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, the fact is, the only thing they’re on track to do is change our licence plate to “Ontario, Yours to Recover.”

Back to the President of the Treasury Board. She has one job: to find savings right across the province—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: She has one job: to put the province back to balance. That’s not going to happen, according to the Auditor General and the Financial Accountability Office, as well as their own internal documents, as my colleague stated earlier, that we recovered during the gas plant scandal. The only accomplishment, in fact, that she had last year was an across-the-board salary increase in the public sector.

I need to remind the minister that every single dollar that we spend servicing the debt and the deficit is a dollar taken away from a child in a classroom or a patient in a hospital bed. Without a credible plan to return to surplus or balance, financing Ontario’s public services will be compromised.

So I ask her again, wWill the President of the Treasury Board commit to this House for a long-term, realistic, credible plan—not a stretch goal, not an aspirational goal, but a real credible plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In the first question, we are on track to balance our budget by 2017-18, and tomorrow we’ll reveal more details about that.

But I have to say, Speaker, that this is actually a refreshing day in question period, because for the first time the member from Nipissing has a question and the member from Nepean–Carleton has a question about fiscal responsibility. Until today, all we’ve been hearing is, “Spend more, spend more, spend more. Pay doctors more. Spend more on this, spend more on that.”

Today, we are reminded there is still this notion within the Conservative Party that fiscal responsibility is important. We are delivering on the promise to get to balance. We are doing it in a thoughtful, responsible way that protects the services and enhances the services that people—

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

New question.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. We all know that everyone is going to have to do their part to take on climate change. We also know that some are in a stronger position to help than others. In British Columbia, low-income families receive assistance from the government dealing with their carbon tax. In Alberta, the government’s proposing