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

October 31, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Oct-31 (PDF)

L080 - Thu 31 Oct 2013 / Jeu 31 oct 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 31 October 2013 Jeudi 31 octobre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

POWER PLANTS

HYDRO RATES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

SMALL BUSINESS

DRIVE CLEAN

BEAR CONTROL

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

PENSION PLANS

CANCER TREATMENT

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

SNOWMOBILING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

KIMM FLETCHER

SOCIAL INNOVATION SHARED SPACE

DENTURISTS

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM AWARDS

HALLOWEEN

COLTEN AND LUKE RYBUCK

ALLAN STANLEY

SHERIDAN COLLEGE

WIND TURBINES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LINCOLN ALEXANDER DAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE JOUR

DE LINCOLN ALEXANDER

PETITIONS

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

TAXATION

WASTE REDUCTION

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

MINIMUM WAGE

WASTE REDUCTION

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

SMALL BUSINESS

SHALE BEACH

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

SMALL BUSINESS

WIND TURBINES

VISITOR

MURRAY CARDIFF

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MANORANJANA

KANAGASABAPATHY ACT

(HAND-HELD DEVICES PENALTY), 2013 /

LOI MANORANJANA

KANAGASABAPATHY DE 2013

(PEINE POUR CONDUITE

AVEC APPAREIL PORTATIF)

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT

(CARBON MONOXIDE SAFETY), 2013 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2013

(PROTECTION CONTRE

LE MONOXYDE DE CARBONE)

BEAR CONTROL

MANORANJANA

KANAGASABAPATHY ACT

(HAND-HELD DEVICES PENALTY), 2013 /

LOI MANORANJANA

KANAGASABAPATHY DE 2013

(PEINE POUR CONDUITE

AVEC APPAREIL PORTATIF)

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT

(CARBON MONOXIDE SAFETY), 2013 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2013

(PROTECTION CONTRE

LE MONOXYDE DE CARBONE)

BEAR CONTROL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Orders of the day.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Good morning, Speaker. On this morning of Halloween, when we hope that all our children will be safe and sound tonight, the government is pleased to call government order G91.

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 29, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

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

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

Mr. Frank Klees: On this Halloween day, it’s my pleasure to speak to this bill, which is full of tricks on the part of the government; not a treat here in Bill 91. On behalf of my constituents in Newmarket and Aurora, I want to register my concerns regarding this legislation.

The bill is entitled

An Act to establish a new regime for the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste and to repeal the Waste Diversion Act, 2002. It should be entitled

An Act to establish a new regime of taxation, to shift eco fees from receipts to price tags and supersize Waste Diversion Ontario into a tax creation machine called the waste diversion authority. That’s what the title of the bill should be.

Let’s start with this so-called supersized Waste Reduction Authority. Speaker, what will it be empowered to do? Well, a lot of things that, quite frankly, if the people of this province fully understood the implications of this new mandate and the new empowerment of this authority, I believe they would have reason to be concerned.

It has the authority to impose new taxes, to levy fines and arbitrarily decide how much Ontario businesses will pay for the blue box program—all consistent with this Liberal government’s agenda of tax and spend, but the absolute wrong thing to do for consumers in this province and for businesses who, quite frankly, are still struggling and are doing their best to cope with the burden of red tape and the over-taxation initiated by this government.

How many more rogue agencies and authorities does this government want to unleash on the citizens of this province? Not only are they creating another tax machine, they’ll have no control over how high those taxes go or how much more businesses will have to pay into what I predict will become yet another hole, a black hole, compliments of this government.

As it stands now, Ontario businesses and municipalities split the cost of the blue box program. Property owners across this province are paying for the municipality’s share of the cost of the blue box program. Under this bill, the government will empower this supersized Waste Reduction Authority to increase the amount that businesses will have to pay by hundreds of millions of dollars a year, without any offset to the property taxes.

It would be one thing if there was an offset and we could justify that on perhaps a revenue-neutral basis, but here’s the clue: the fact that there is no offset on the one side, the fact that this new authority is going to be empowered to increase by hundreds of millions of dollars—now, the siphoning of money from businesses into this new authority indicates that this is yet simply another tax grab.

The result is that Ontario consumers will see the price of the products that they purchase increase because businesses will simply pass through the cost of this to their product. In the final analysis, it’s the consumer who pays. Given the fact that consumer prices will increase and there is no offset on the property taxes, it is yet another double hit on the consumers and property owners in this province.

Why am I compelled to vote against this legislation? If for no other reason, it’s the fact that I can’t justify having anything to do with adding one more dollar of tax onto the backs of people who are already having a hard time making ends meet in this province or further putting up hurdles and increasing the cost to businesses struggling already in this province.

Beyond raising taxes and fees, both for consumers and businesses, is the fact that this legislation would spawn a legion of bureaucrats that will multiply and reach into every corner of this province. The last thing we need is more government, larger government, because we know where that ends: with higher costs yet far beyond the initial costs of this program.

We hear the minister tell us all of the supposed treats that are in this bill. What he fails to tell us is that he is creating yet another bureaucracy that will far, far outweigh the benefits that he’s telling us are in this bill.

So who can we expect in that bureaucracy? Well, let’s start with the registrar. Of course, if you have a registrar, you have to have a deputy registrar, and I have no doubt that those deputies will feel that they’ll need assistant registrars; and so we start the growth.

Of course, along with the compliance aspect of this bill, guess what we are going to hire? We’re going to hire a host of inspectors who will be empowered with seizure responsibilities. They will actually have seizure powers. If you have that, of course what you need is another bureaucracy so that people can appeal on the actions of the inspectors, and so what the bill will do is give us another appeal mechanism, and that appeal mechanism is referred to as a tribunal.

We’re all familiar with tribunals. It’s a bureaucratic process. It’s expensive. People will spend a great deal of time—first of all, trying to figure out what the access is. But in order for any tribunal to do its work, guess what we need? We need more staff. So it doesn’t take long for us, as we consider what we have in front of us here—it’s the making of another massive bureaucracy that will bring with it a mountain of regulations, that will carry with it new provisions for penalties and fines and, in the end, make environmental criminals of innocent people right across this province, because the waste police are going to be chasing them.

Speaker, this boondoggle—we have to give thanks to the Liberal-NDP coalition government of this province. I have no doubt that the New Democrats will be supporting this bill, as they have been supporting most other bills. I believe the people of this province are waking up to the fact that we do not have a Liberal minority government; we have a Liberal-NDP coalition government in this province. That’s what we have. If they would only be willing to tell us that. The truth of the matter is that there isn’t—

Interjections.

Mr. Frank Klees: You know, it’s ironic that the member from Essex stood up in the House just the other day and eloquently boasted about how incredibly proud he is to be a member of the NDP. God bless you for having that pride. But what he doesn’t tell us is that he has to also take along with that pride the shame of being part of a caucus that boosts and has propped up this government that, in our opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the vast majority of Ontarians, has lost the moral authority to be the government in this province.

So when the people of this province start to look at the cost of this bill, let alone all of the other legislation and regulations that we have to pay for, when they start to go to the cash register and when they start to see the increasing bills and when they find it difficult, even more difficult, to make ends meet at the end of the day, I want to remind them that that will be compliments of the Liberal-NDP coalition government that we have in this province today. I believe that the day of reckoning will come.

It’s not just about this waste management bill; it’s about the waste that people have seen of their tax dollars, thanks to the Liberal-NDP coalition government of the province of Ontario.

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

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s quite interesting how you can—oh, I forgot to wish you a happy Halloween. You forgot to wear your costume, though, but we’ll forgive you this time.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’m going out as a Speaker tonight.

M me France Gélinas: The member for—I always forget your riding—

Mr. Frank Klees: Newmarket–Aurora.

M me France Gélinas: —Newmarket–Aurora says he’s going out as a Speaker tonight for Halloween. This could be scary, actually.

So here we are discussing the Waste Reduction Act. There’s a word in there that piques all of our interest: waste. Since I’ve been here and followed the government more closely, you realize that this is a word that applies to this government quite nicely, actually. We can lay out on page after page waste in our government. I guess this is what the member was trying to draw attention to, rather than the actual bill, which is the Waste Reduction Act, which has to do with recycling.

Has there been waste in the government? Absolutely. We just had a constituency week. I travelled throughout the 33 beautiful communities of Nickel Belt, and everywhere I went people waited for me with their hydro bills, with all of the new fees that have been added to their hydro bills, and then the total, which sometimes represents as much as a third of their pension income in northern Ontario, which is being spent on hydro. And the winter months are not here yet. It’s going to get worse before it gets better, because you will be turning that light on way earlier than you were in September.

And then we know about the $1.1 billion wasted on moving gas plants. It’s rather a good title for that bill.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Good morning, Speaker, and thank you for allowing me to enter this debate as well.

We have to go back a little bit. Ten years ago, in 2002—11 years ago—the former government passed a waste reduction act, which worked to some extent but not to the full extent that it was intended to. People are doing great with respect to household recycling, green boxes, blue boxes, grey boxes etc., but where we aren’t doing so well is with respect to industrial and commercial waste. As a matter of fact, only about 12% of the waste that’s created that way is being recycled right now.

The essence of this bill is to allow the government to take much greater control of our waste reduction processes in the province of Ontario. What the bill really says in its very essence is that when you, the producer or manufacturer, make an item and that item has outlived its usefulness, then you have to pay for the proper disposition or reuse of that item, or put it into new material so that other products can be created.

We simply cannot go on by just opening dumps all over this province like we have for the last 150 years. We now call them landfill sites or we give them some other environmental name etc., but at the end of the day, we are putting stuff in landfills that is polluting our land, polluting our waterways, and the ultimate cost of getting rid of the pollution and the toxic material that’s in these landfill sites is going to be megatons more than the amount of money for which we can do it right in the first place.

So we’re saying to the producers, “You’re responsible for the ultimate disposal of this item in the same way that you’re responsible for the cost of material and labour in that product.” That’s what this bill is all about. That’s the way to go. That’s the way the modern world, the western world, is going out there, and we should join that.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I was listening intently to the member from Newmarket–Aurora. When he started, the phrase I think he used was “trick-or-treat,” and that’s very appropriate for Bill 91, because it’s more trick than treat. There’s no question about it.

Not to be playing fun on words, but he also used the reference of supersizing. I’ve heard from—for instance, I have one here. This is from the president and COO of Sony Canada, Mr. Doug Wilson. He’s totally opposed to the bill. The industry itself—if they’d only work with them—made a suggestion here of the EPRA, which is the Electronic Products Recycling Association.

I can tell you this, with the bill itself, the trick part of it is this: They’re not cancelling any of the fees, and they’re outsourcing any responsibility. The fact is, the eco fees are not going away; they’re increasing. I think the member from Newmarket–Aurora said that. But here’s the trick: They’re actually buried in the price now. For a government that talks continuously about accountability, now they’re hiding the tax. Today it shows on your receipt at the cash register, that you’re paying so much for batteries, chlorine, tires, whatever it is. It’s shameful, actually. Now you won’t be able to find out what you’re paying; it’s going to be buried in the price.

They’re not doing a single thing in this bill. It’s tragic. The member who just spoke in response to the member from—Mr. Klees, I mean—he was at one time the minister. I remember the day he did a press conference on the eco fees and the whole conference went sideways on him. It was tragic. I’m not saying that—because he’s a great, great guy. I like Mr. Gerretsen very much.

Here’s the deal, though: It really is a shame. This bill is another example of the government hiding from the truth.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a treat to add to the comments of the member from Newmarket–Aurora. He’s a veteran member in this Legislature, and I’m always pleased when I have the opportunity to sit down in here and listen to his—I’ll even go as far as saying “his wise words.”

But I feel your pain. I feel your pain when it comes to waste reduction, because maybe there’s an amendment that we might put to this bill which is the wasted amount of time that you have not benefited from by maybe participating in this discussion about what we can accomplish.

I looked at your theme and I heard you as far as what the Conservative caucus perspective is in regard to a government-NDP coalition. Quite frankly, I just think it’s an NDP government, who is in a third opposition, that’s getting things accomplished here.

Under Bill 91, there’s a theme: using the three Rs, which are reduce, reuse and recycle. Well, we’ve got our own three Rs that we’ve been using, and those are results, results and results. We’ve been doing what we’re supposed to do.

My good friend here, my good friend from Essex, a very proud member, a very good working member from Essex—and I have my other colleagues who are here with me this morning. We practise those three Rs. We go out and we actually get and achieve results for our communities.

But I’ve got to get back to you, to Bill 91, and the treat of following my esteemed colleague from Newmarket.

We’ve stalled on this initiative for the last 20 years; we haven’t done anything. From my perspective, from my northern communities’ perspective, we have a lot of communities that do want to participate but don’t have the programs in place to participate. This will maybe give them an opportunity to participate.

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

Interjection: No.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Oh, sorry. Two-minute response from the member for Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: In response to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, I would suggest that we need a fourth R, and the fourth R would be recovery—recovery from the mess that this government has put us into, thanks to the support of the NDP.

I want to just say this: It’s interesting how this government can take a good idea and bungle it through implementation. What we’re concerned about is the massive bureaucracy that is being constructed under the guise of a good intention. This government could not find a file that it couldn’t bungle up, so with something as well-intentioned as recycling, they’ve done it again, and it will be a multi-million-dollar, if not a billion-dollar, boondoggle.

Why did the government not take the proposal put forward more than a year ago by the PC caucus? That plan has, as a starting point, the scrapping of each and every eco fee foisted on the people of Ontario by this government. We would get rid of the out-of-control, costly bureaucracies that have been established by this government and put control back into the Ministry of the Environment where it should be, where there is also accountability. We would treat recyclable material as a valuable resource and allow business to actually turn those recyclable materials into products that have a benefit.

This government couldn’t get it right if we tried to show them how, because they wouldn’t understand common sense. What I am saying to the people of Ontario is don’t be fooled by the trick-or-treat on this Halloween day by this government.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Good morning.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Good morning, my esteemed colleagues, and good morning to the member from Newmarket–Aurora. I will use a couple of brief moments at the beginning of my 10-minute hit here, just to address his comments.

I listened intently. I respect the member. He’s tempered, and I think his ideas come well nuanced in everything that he says, so I certainly respect him. He is the quintessential Conservative, as I see it. You can rely on where he’s coming from: lesser government—you heard that—smaller government or almost no government. He would like no government, I would imagine, no revenue stream to fund some of the most important social programs or policy programs that people want out there.

But I didn’t hear, in his 10-minute speech, any reference to what the Conservatives would do to reduce the amount of waste that our regions and our communities are faced with, and that our municipalities are faced with, in terms of the increased cost. Not only did I not hear from him specifically, but I haven’t seen anything in the dozen or so white papers they’ve put out that spoke about the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle.

I would say that the only way they do address some of the pressing problems in terms of waste reduction, or the three Rs, would be that they reuse old principles and old policies from the Mike Harris era, they recycle their talking points and they reduce any comprehensive dialogue—or any true public policy discussions that we should have—to absolutely the most basic, fundamental bottom line here: Throw your hands up and let the free market deal with it. Well, that hasn’t worked, and I think this is what the bill attempts to do.

Of course, I’ll speak a little bit about the mechanics of the bill. At the beginning, it sets diversion targets and enforceable standards for producers to meet. So it gives them benchmarks, it gives them goals, it gives them qualified targets. Anybody in business will tell you that what they want is certainty. They want to know that there is a certain policy and process to fulfill, to manage in their daily business activity.

One of the things we know is that this province has failed miserably when it comes to achieving its waste reduction targets, and the burden of that has typically fallen on municipalities. We see it in each and every one of our regions, where landfill and tipping fees and waste management fees have really gone through the roof.

We know as well that the industry-funded Stewardship Ontario organization has been a failure in terms of its ability to address waste reduction targets and address the, I guess, producer responsibility aspect of waste reduction. By and large, that burden has again been left on consumers. We see it in eco fees. When you go and buy a television, you see that fee as a supplement to what the actual price tag would be. It’s fair for consumers to say, “Well, what’s happening here? Are we really achieving our targets?”

I don’t think anyone would argue that people in our communities don’t want to see landfills around their regions growing exponentially. We’re a developed province and a developed nation. It’s certain we can find the technological means and policy means to effectively deal with waste reduction.

What this bill aims to do, I guess, is remedy some of the failures within the Stewardship Ontario program. One of the main planks is that it does initiate somewhat of a producer-pay methodology, one that makes sense to me. The member from Newmarket–Aurora mentioned that once we lump the cost of waste reduction into the final price tag, those fees, those costs, will simply be passed on to the consumer.

I would say it would be an abject failure by industry to not find the means, not find the incentive, to reduce their costs so that that price tag, on a competitive basis—that final bill you get, whether it would be on a television or a microwave or any other product that might be encompassed under the waste reduction targets—I think they would be hard pressed to do nothing about it.

You would think they could find mechanisms and efficiencies, and indeed that is the incentive. If they so choose, they won’t have to pass the bulk of their costs on to consumers, in terms of hitting these targets; they can certainly find those efficiencies within their product, within their supply chain. And they are to be found, Mr. Speaker. I would say that one of the closest links we have to waste in this province is packaging—over-packaging.

Some days, when I buy something from a store, I feel it’s like a Russian nesting doll. I’ve got to take the package out of the package to get to the package of the product that I finally want, and that final product is just a small little thing, but yet I’ve got a pound of packaging that comes along with it. You know, it seems simple economics that we can find a better way to distribute our goods and services to people of the province.

Again, there are ways to address this encompassing other industries. I have a great friend in the Chatham-Kent area. His name is Joe Dama. Joe Dama has developed a process to supplement or to use soybeans to produce the little kernels that you see, the Styrofoam kernels that go inside of packaging. So, instead of seeing Styrofoam chips inside of a box, Joe Dama has developed a natural, organic process that fills that gap, that is biodegradable, that is cost-effective, that has triple net benefit when it encompasses other aspects of our economy, mainly agriculture.

Yet he can’t compete with the massive packaging companies that are able to certainly cut their costs on Styrofoam—I guess it wouldn’t be cheaper.

But if we as a government were able to recognize that there are other areas, that there are ways that we can hit our targets and incentivize and stimulate our economy here, we should be doing that, and I think it is expected of us. It is our responsibility. We also know that waste reduction and resource conservation, as I had mentioned, is a huge economic sector, contributing over $3.2 billion in revenue and 14,000 direct jobs in Ontario, but it could be much more. This bill, I think, is attempting to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be any expert on waste reduction. I would like to hear from experts, and that’s why I think this bill should go to committee, because there’s a lot of technical and policy information that I think we need to hear about. There are best practices around the world from jurisdictions that have gotten their waste reduction targets under hand, under wraps. I see no valid reason for us not to address this issue and attack this issue in earnest because, in fact, our communities are demanding it. Our municipalities are demanding it. We believe that it’s good public policy.

It can be effective and it can set the stage for generations to come in terms of doing it a different way and not simply the old way of waste. I think the time has come for us to actually put some effort into this and make it happen.

Again, this comes about because previous programs have failed. It was outlined by the Environmental Commissioner, who stated quite clearly that we are not reducing our targets. And Ontario has the worst record; this province has the worst record in Confederation. So, you know, it’s our responsibility, as the worst province when it comes to waste reduction targets and meeting them, to do something about it.

For the members of the Conservative caucus to simply throw up their hands I guess is indicative of the way that they’ve addressed other legislation in this building, without putting any effort into it and any real, tangible, comprehensive policy. I expect that from them, but I’m going to take my job seriously in this House and do my due diligence on this bill, work it through, and actually deliver good public policy and results for the people of Ontario. They expect nothing less.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I want to thank the member for Essex for what he has said. It’s very close to what this bill is trying to do. I agree with him. We should get this bill into committee, where we can hear from the industry, hear from various experts and improve the bill. It’s the right direction to go in.

Producer responsibility: I think the third party and ourselves agree that that’s where the responsibility should be. We know that when dealing with this and when dealing with these products when they’re no longer useful to the consumer—that dollar can be shown very clearly as another of the costs that the retailer has for that product. It’s very important that we do this. I think enough people here have said that the existing system is not working.

This is from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and I think we have to listen: “The Legislature is currently debating if Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act, will move beyond second reading. It reflects municipal perspectives on producers’ responsibility for their products and packages. It would offer relief to property taxpayers by providing more industry funding for waste diversion.”

I have something here from the city of Ottawa. It’s from the mayor but it includes the thoughts of Maria McRae, and the chair of the planning committee, Peter Hume, who is eagerly following this, following his long record with AMO: “I understand that Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act, is scheduled for further debate at second reading this week. Copied on this email are the chair ... Maria McRae, and the chair of our planning committee, Peter Hume....

“I am writing to encourage your support of Bill 91, at the very least to move it to committee, as it is something that is important to municipalities across Ontario, including the city of Ottawa. I believe there have been seven or eight days of debate at second reading and there can be virtually nothing left to say ‘on principle.’ It should now move on to committee for in-depth review.”

I like this letter from the mayor. I think that’s what we should do: We should vote on this legislation and get it into committee.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like the opportunity to quickly introduce a few visitors who are here today in our members’ gallery: Shelagh Kerr, from Electronics Product Stewardship Canada, and Rob Cook and Peter Hargreave from the OWMA. I know they’re listening intently to this debate, as I was this morning from my office.

I couldn’t help but come down and add my two minutes to the debate, after listening to the Attorney General speak, because we all know that he and the former Premier were really the godfathers of the eco tax scheme here in Ontario. He actually had the opportunity to introduce true reform when he was the environment minister. But what did he do? He worked to create hundreds of millions of dollars in eco taxes with the godfather of eco tax himself, the then Premier, Dalton McGuinty, in a rush to nickel and dime Ontario consumers.

The now Attorney General and the Liberals spent five years constructing elaborate eco taxation schemes for just 3% of the waste stream—that’s right, just 3%. That means Ontarians are paying hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year to recycle just a fraction of Ontario’s total waste stream.

What I find truly tragic is that the Liberals ignored the largest part of the waste stream, that of the ICI, or the industrial, commercial and institutional sector. In fact, the ICI sector makes up 60% of the total waste stream, yet the Liberals have ignored it for the last 10 years.

Speaker, I know you want to know a little bit more about what was going on behind the scenes, so I couldn’t help but pull out an old Toronto Star

article by Robert Benzie. It reads: “McGuinty Led Eco Fee Push Over Cabinet Objections.” It goes on to talk about a senior minister who led the charge but warned the Premier that the policy could spark a backlash. Well, that’s an understatement, perhaps, in July 2010, and I’m sure I’ll have more opportunity to bring this

article to light in the future.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, it’s a pleasure to be able to stand in this House and add my comments on the Waste Reduction Act and follow up on my colleague from Essex.

I think, for those people involved in this debate—and I speak more to the people like the people in the gallery and the people who are really intently involved, the stewards, the municipalities—it’s a very, very important debate.

The member from Essex talked about packaging. You know, we do have too much packaging, but in some cases the stewards can’t control that. It’s an issue.

The municipalities and the stewards are worried. Let’s put it in simple language: The stewards are worried because they feel the municipalities have the control but they have to foot the bill.

There are pretty basic things we’re talking about here. I think one thing that we’re all worried about, given some of the past experiences with this government, is the waste management authority because, although it sounds very authoritative, it will conceivably be another authority like Ornge. That’s what we’re all worried about.

But our goal here—where we are isn’t good at all. Let’s move this bill to committee and try to make the best of it, because we can make a lot of changes in this bill that will make it better. Let’s understand where the problems are, and let’s try to work to actually improve what we have.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: The toughest job in this House is to be the critic for the environment in the Tory party. There is no tougher job, because let’s face it: They basically don’t care about the environment.

The other thing that I have absolutely no use for are personal attacks. I’ll tell you what happened four or five years ago when I was environment minister: We were undermined by a significant sector of the manufacturing and retail industry. Items that they darned well knew should have cost a penny more for the so-called eco fee all of a sudden were sold in stores for a dollar more. They did not like the scheme in which we wanted to make the producers responsible to keep toxic materials out of our landfill sites. That’s what it was all about.

They didn’t like the government’s plan, and a majority—not everybody, not all the retailers out there, but there were a significant number of retailers that had been well in the know, because they had been consulted six or seven months before that as to what we intended to implement on July 1, and some of them, purposely, as far as I’m concerned, undermined the system by charging a dollar on a tube that cost nine bucks when they darned well knew that what the fee structure set out was a penny.

What we’re trying to do in this bill is to make the government more responsible and more accountable, and also give them greater control over the whole recycling and reduction of waste issue.

The bottom line is this: We cannot keep continuing to put toxic materials in our landfills or our waterways. The cost of cleaning that up in the long run is mega, mega times more than to do it right in the first place.

Mr. Michael Harris: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): A point of order from the member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, quickly: For the Liberals, it’s not about protecting the environment; it’s all about the money.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): That’s not a point of order.

The member for Essex, you have two minutes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thanks to the members from Ottawa–Orléans, Kitchener–Conestoga, Timiskaming–Cochrane and the Attorney General.

I have two small kids; my son is six and my daughter is nine. I envision, I look forward to a day, 20 or 30 years from now, when we set a target and there is zero waste, when they can walk on a beach and not see a plastic container or a hypodermic needle or a six-pack container. I look forward to a day when they can take a walk in a park and not see refuse thrown randomly. I look forward to a time when they can buy a product at a store and know that there is some environmental responsibility there. It’s incumbent upon us to do that.

To stand here and listen to the PC caucus throw their hands up, absolutely take no responsibility, placate industry, backstop industry, protect industry and not indicate that they have any responsibility to protect the environment—it’s an abject failure on their part. It shows that they’re too out of touch with 21st-century thinking and our responsibility as members of this Legislature to actually do something.

If they want to stand and defend primary producers of goods, that’s fine. But sometimes you’ve got to make tough decisions. Sometimes you’ve got to actually bring people to the table and say, “The process is wrong. Let’s come together and fix this, and let’s do it so it has a triple or quadruple net benefit for the people of our province.” That’s what our job is.

You can stick to your speaking points and the message wheel, as the member from Newmarket–Aurora did, but it doesn’t help the conversation, and it abdicates our responsibility here in the House.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity this morning to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the people of Wellington–Halton Hills to this Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act. It has been said, of course, given the date today—Halloween—that this bill is more Liberal trick than treat.

I first of all want to express my appreciation to the Ontario egg farmers, who served us breakfast this morning. I know many of the members were there, and we all enjoyed our time with the egg producers of Ontario, an important agriculture group in our province. They do a great job on behalf of their members. We’re obviously delighted when they come once a year to update us on the issues, and we were very fortunate to have a delicious breakfast in the members’ dining room.

Now, Mr. Speaker, someone tuning in to watch this session of the Legislature this morning might think that we’d be talking about jobs and the economy. They might think we’d be talking about the gas plant scandal, where $1.1 billion of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money was wasted on a shameless Liberal plan to eliminate two gas plants to save a small number of Liberal seats—nervous Liberal members who were afraid of the electorate in their ridings. They might think that we’d be talking about the deficit and the debt. Of course, as you know, Mr.

Speaker, the provincial debt is going from $253 billion to $273 billion this year alone, and the debt has doubled under this Liberal government over the last 10 years. The deficit is unacceptably high, notwithstanding the government’s claims that they’ve actually reduced it somewhat with their accounting tricks.

They might think that we’d be talking about agriculture and small business, with of course this month of October being Small Business Month in the province of Ontario. We celebrate their achievements; we know and understand how important agriculture is. People would expect us to be talking about that.

People would expect us to be talking about infrastructure needs. Of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, there are a significant number of infrastructure needs in all of our ridings in the province. I have a whole list of things that need provincial government partnership to support.

They might expect us to be talking about research and innovation, that important field of the government’s responsibility, and I’m pleased that the Minister of Research and Innovation is in the House today. The fact is, research and innovation represents the future opportunities in our economy and in our health care system and in many sectors, and it should be a greater focus of the provincial government.

They might expect that we would be talking about how we’re going to work together with the other orders of government to ensure that decisions are made in the public interest and that we’re working together and not just pointing fingers.

However, we are talking about another important issue, which is Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act. I want to express my appreciation and congratulations, really, to our critic for the Ministry of the Environment, Michael Harris, who is the member for Kitchener–Conestoga. I was privileged to represent the riding of Waterloo–Wellington from 1999 to 2007, and when redistribution created a new riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, much of my old riding went into that riding.

I think Michael Harris, the member for Kitchener–Conestoga, has done an outstanding job representing the constituents that I was privileged to represent for those years. He has really gotten into this responsibility in the Legislature and jumped in with both feet and hit the ground running, to mix my metaphors. Certainly, he has done an outstanding job as minister—as critic to the Minister of the Environment, and possibly a future Minister of the Environment, if the Progressive Conservatives are privileged to form the government in the future.

Let’s get to the bill. This Waste Reduction Act would repeal the Waste Diversion Act, 2002, yet it would continue every recycling program, agency and fee created under the old act. That bill, the Waste Diversion Act, was a bill that was passed by the Progressive Conservative government of Ernie Eves, I think, in 2002, and we’ve been living under it for the last 10 years. I wouldn’t say that it was perfect; I wouldn’t say that anything is perfect in government. Over time, these things need to be evaluated and reviewed. But certainly we don’t see Bill 91 as the solution to the problems that are out there today.

We know that Bill 91 would give the government the opportunity to require, through regulation, that producers meet these yet-to-be-determined standards for designated materials. Under the bill, the producers would include manufacturers, importers and brand owners, as well as e-tailers, as they’re called, which is mentioned only in the accompanying Waste Reduction Strategy. So, for example, companies such as Canadian Tire, Coca-Cola, Goodyear tires, Panasonic, Samsung, Target, Tim Hortons and Walmart would all be considered to be producers.

We know that Bill 91, as it stands now, continues Waste Diversion Ontario and gives this unaccountable organization enforcement powers, a bigger multi-million-dollar budget and a new name, the Waste Reduction Authority. Similar to the College of Trades, this authority would have the power to set and collect fees or taxes to fund its operations, and we know that this regulatory agency would be headed up by a registrar, or what we call a “waste czar,” whose job it would be to register producers in the authority’s registry.

The registrar would then appoint deputies to help seek out producers who would be forced to pay a tax to fund the operation of the authority. This tax, of course, would then be passed on to consumers as an eco tax. The registrar would then assemble an army of inspectors—or waste cops, as our critic has called them—to fan out across the province, looking for violators to fine for not meeting its standards. The revenue generated from these fines would then be funneled back into the authority.

The authority would also be in charge of resolving disputes between municipalities, who would collect recyclable materials, and producers, who are financially responsible for recycling these materials. The strategy states: “The Waste Reduction Authority will need to acquire the human resources skills and expertise necessary to perform this important function.”

We also know that the authority is disconnected from the Legislature, and it is not subject to the freedom-of-information act and can only be reviewed by the Auditor General if the minister feels it’s necessary. We believe that’s a significant weakness in the bill, and it doesn’t provide the necessary accountability that should be built into it.

We also say that the Liberals claim that their bill holds individual producers responsible for recycling. These businesses may join an intermediary, which we call cartels, which would also be required to register with the authority. This cartel would then be required to follow the recycling and service standards established by the minister and would be fined if found in violation.

We know that right now under the Waste Diversion Act in the province of Ontario, municipalities and producers split the cost of the Blue Box Program about 50-50. Bill 91 creates a new framework that the government could use to increase the amount industry must pay for this recycling program; however, this transition would, again, be left to regulation. If the minister chooses to proceed, there are three ways to establish the amount the authority pays: municipalities and industry can strike an agreement; the authority can create a funding formula; or cabinet can set the amount. Obviously, this represents some concerns for industry, which could be strong-armed into paying more.

Our caucus has been clear on this bill. We say that the Waste Reduction Act is a Liberal shell game or, as I said earlier, a Liberal trick more so than a treat that shifts eco taxes from consumers’ receipts to price tags on store shelves. This bill not only fails to meet the Ontario PC Party’s demand to scrap eco taxes, but it also fails to eliminate the Liberals’ recycling cartels and the government’s unaccountable oversight agency Waste Diversion Ontario.

We have a better plan. We suggest that the Waste Reduction Act fails to meet the Ontario PC Party’s two biggest demands: that they scrap eco taxes and eliminate the useless bureaucracy. That’s why we can’t support this Bill 91. In November of last year, the Ontario PC Party presented a better way forward to protect our environment, to lower costs for businesses and to treat recyclable materials not as waste but as valuable resources that could be recovered and recycled into new products.

The Ontario PC Party would scrap eco taxes, get rid of Liberal recycling cartels and return all oversight back to the Ministry of the Environment where it truly and justly belongs. Under our plan, government would set measurable and achievable recycling targets, establish environmental standards and measure outcomes.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate about the environment, and there are a number of environmental issues that are of concern to my constituents in Wellington–Halton Hills. I have been meeting with residents of the town of Erin, and they are very concerned about unregulated fill being brought into their community and dumped on farmland. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Minister of the Environment, and I know the member for Durham has expressed his concerns as well, as it affects his constituents.

Going back to February 13, 2012, I wrote to the Minister of the Environment asking that an inter-ministerial committee be established to establish a provincial policy for the effective regulation of the dumping of fill. I would suggest that all the relevant ministries should be involved: the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministries of Agriculture and Food, Finance, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Natural Resources, Transportation and perhaps others. I know that the minister is aware of this issue because I have discussed it with him.

He has responded to me in writing indicating that they have a guide for best management practices for soil management, and they look to municipalities to establish proper bylaws, but at the same time, we believe that these best practice guidelines do not have the force of law, and greater steps need to be taken on this issue to ensure that the fill that is going into our communities is safe and that the groundwater is not going to be polluted and property values are going to be respected.

I also would suggest that there’s a big environmental problem in the community of Morriston, south of Guelph, an air pollution issue, because of traffic jams resulting from the bottleneck on Highway 6. The Morriston bypass project that I have put forward as a private members’ resolution, which is the first resolution on the order paper today—

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

M me France Gélinas: It was rather interesting listening to the members. You can really see the Conservatives’ train of thought that if we trust the industry and we give them standards, somehow they will comply.

How I wish they were right. How I wish that over the 20 years where we have set standards, where we have told the industry, where the entire planet has been shouting out that we want the three Rs and we’re not happy with what’s happening—the industry has not lived up to their end of the bargain.

Why is the government setting up new laws? It’s because when we left it up to the industry to do their corporate responsibility as a corporate citizen and participate in the recycling, reducing and reusing, they failed us. We wouldn’t be here today debating a new bill if the industry had stepped up to the plate and said, “We understand the environmental damage that some of those products are doing. We’re going to be a good corporate citizen and we’re going to do what’s best for the environment, for the people, for our air, for our water, for our ground.” But for the last 20 years that the industry has spoken those words, they have not delivered.

So we stand here today debating Bill 91, which is far from perfect, as far as the NDP is concerned. I’m way more interested in zero waste than I’m interested in debating Bill 91. But we are here today because, for the last 20 years, the industry has not been a good corporate citizen when it came to recycling the material that they use, the material that they overproduce.

Am I happy with the turn of affairs? Absolutely not. Do I think that I want to trust the industry for another 20 years? Absolutely not.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I have a lot of respect for the member for Wellington–Halton Hills, a lot of respect, so I couldn’t believe that he was following the script that was written, from the Conservatives.

Like my colleague the member from Nickel Belt, we have been waiting for the industry to be more responsible. We have been waiting for them.

Years ago, when I was going to buy new tires, I bought new tires and I had to pay extra because of the disposal of my old ones, not knowing that I was paying for my old ones to go into the garbage—le site d’enfouissement.

When you trust the industry to monitor themselves, it’s not working. That’s why, on this side of the House—and I’m also glad that the third party is in line with us. The bill may not be perfect. Let’s move it to committee and improve it.

I applaud the comments from the member from Essex. Yes, what do we want to leave behind to our children? You know who are the best ones to make the people from my generation more conscious about the environment? The kids; the kids are telling you, “Don’t put that in the garbage. Let’s recycle it.”

We need to take advice but not from that party, because they don’t want any rules. “Let it go in the garbage, and you, the consumer, you’re not paying anything”—that’s not true, because you’re paying through your taxes. You’re paying three, four, five times what you should pay if there are rules and regulations around recycling.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: It was a real pleasure to listen to the member from Wellington–Halton Hills. I know just how effectively he has represented his riding for over 20 years. He’s been here, and he’s seen what the NDP did and what the Liberals have done. In fact, I can’t believe it: The fees that they brought in on agricultural tires were absolutely disgusting, a 200%, 300% increase.

Here’s what this bill does, and this is what the people of Ontario should know. First of all, you heard, from both of the people who talked from the NDP and the Liberals, that they don’t trust business, even small business—the father-knows-best attitude that is so pathetic, technically. They’ve had 10 years. Ask yourself: Is it any better in Ontario? Just ask yourself.

The waste, just in the gas plants alone: a billion dollars that could have gone to children’s mental health and other programs.

They have no respect for the taxpayer. They have no respect for business. It’s tragic, quite honestly.

There’s a word that’s missing in their vocabulary, which I think the member from Wellington–Halton Hills said in his thing—it’s the “recover” component. The industry has put forward ideas. I spoke this morning to Shelagh Kerr, one of the people with Electronics Product Stewardship Canada, who’s here listening, and other people from the industry side who are listening. They want the authority to do the right thing, not to be taxed.

Here’s what this government is doing. They’re hiding the eco fee in the price. You’ll no longer know how much revenue you’re collecting from those products for the end management of the product packaging etc., and it’s just a tax grab. That’s all it really is, a tax grab by this government.

It’s just pathetic, what they’ve done to Ontario. We’re paying more taxes and we have less health care. We’re paying more for everything, and we have less of energy and everything else in Ontario. It’s sad, and this member—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d just like to say that I’ve been involved in heavy industry most of my life, and the by-products of heavy industry are very damaging to the environment, and can be—in recent years, we’ve moved in a direction where we’re trying to recycle some of these things, but my big thing here is innovation and research. We have to come up with better and better things to get rid of this waste.

The bottom line is, we could start right here in downtown Toronto. The building I live in and rent doesn’t recycle. Everything from all those floors goes into one bin, and this is all over Toronto’s downtown. If you don’t start in your own backyard to clean up the mess, where are you going to start? I thought that Toronto would be miles ahead of the rest of the province. Hamilton does a better job at recycling than downtown Toronto does. It’s bad. They’ve got to do something about it.

If you look at the expansion into the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of our province, the recycling rate is only at 13%. I would like to see this up to a minimum of 50%, between 50% and 75%, in the next five years, in recycling. Why? Because we’re leaving a big mess for our grandchildren and their children. It’s going to get to a point—we all know, with global warming and the things that are going on on our planet, that if we don’t do something heavy-duty with the help of municipalities, with provincial, federal and all of North America, our lovely planet is in big trouble.

I want to see things done faster. I want innovation to move ahead. We need to save this planet for our future generations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Wellington–Halton Hills, you have two minutes.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m glad to respond to the member for Nickel Belt, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the member for Durham and the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek. I thank the New Democrats for their comments and I think that, obviously, they are sincerely put and they believe in their ideas and their principles. But as the member for Durham indicated, it seems that the Liberals and the New Democrats, together, do not trust business.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend the Halton Hills Chamber of Commerce Business Achievement Awards, where we celebrated the business community. Again, this is the month of October, this is Small Business Month, and I think that we can look to our business community for solutions. The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke suggested to me just a minute ago, of course, and reminded us that business responds to consumers, and that is absolutely true.

The late management theorist Peter Drucker said that business exists to serve a customer, and the fact is that businesses will respond to customer demands in a competitive market economy. That’s a good thing. I think we have to look at it from that perspective as well.

The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services: I want to say that I certainly appreciate the work that she does here, and I want to thank her as well for her work to assist us in achieving the community safety zone for the community of Morriston, south of Guelph, a few weeks ago. We unveiled the signs. Of course, that’s part of the solution to the environmental problem that exists in Morriston because of air quality, the challenges we’re facing because of the traffic jams, where we need to build the Morriston bypass, the Highway 6 bypass, around the community of Morriston.

I continue to raise that issue and ask the government to put it on its five-year plan for future construction. It is, as I said earlier, the number one resolution on the order paper right now, and I would continue to call attention to it and urge the provincial—

Mr. Rob Leone: I support it.

Mr. Ted Arnott: The member for Cambridge has written and expressed support for the Morriston bypass. I thank him for that as well, because I think it’s an important issue for the entire part of the province. The bottleneck happens to be in my riding, but it affects the whole province in terms of the movement of goods and traffic.

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

M me France Gélinas: Happy Halloween, everybody.

Well, we are here today debating Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act, and frankly, I wish we were not. I wish that during the last 20 years, Ontario had not fallen to the bottom of the heap when it comes to waste reduction. I wish that during the last 20 years, when people clued in that the environment had a direct effect on our health, on the survival of our species, that things would have been done.

But all is not bleak. Many things were done. Wonderful programs were put into place, the blue box programs and the grey box, where individual households started to sort out their garbage and started to put everything that could be composted into a green box, and everything that could be recycled. Then the Blue Box Program expanded and we could put more and more of our waste in there. And it worked: Families really participate well in this, no matter where you live in Ontario. If the program is available, they do.

But there are some outliers in there that are not holding up their end of the bargain, and that is why we are standing here today. It’s called the ICI. I didn’t know what it stands for. It stands for “institutional, commercial and industrial sector.”

Institutional: Think long-term-care homes, hospitals, prisons, any institutions. Commercial is pretty easy too: anything from the pizza shop to the tailor shop. Industrial: Whether you think about a steel town or you think about a mining town anywhere, they produce a lot of waste. All of them together, over the 20 years where we have set targets after targets of what we wanted them to reduce, reuse and recycle—waste reduction—they have failed us. Altogether, this sector, after years and years and years of telling us that they were getting better and they were on it and they understand the importance of recycling and reducing, they’re at 13%.

The goal back in 2004, almost 10 years ago now, was that we were to be at 60% in 2008. The industry and the commercial and all of this, they promised, “Yes, we can do this. We don’t need legislation. We are good corporate citizens, and we will deliver on our own.” The target was 60%; the target was 2008. We’re at 2013, and we are at 13%. Would you call that a success? I don’t. I don’t.

I come from a heavy industrial environment. I come from a mining town where what comes out of those processing plants, whether you talk about the tailings or whether you talk about the smelter or about the mills, has a profound, unhealthy effect on humans, on animals, on our environment and all of this. There are environmental guidelines specifically for the mines.

When it comes to waste, we trust the industry will do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Man, I wish they would have delivered. I wish that in 2004, when we set that target of 60% by 2008, they would have done what we all know was the right thing to do. But we are in 2013 and we have missed deadline after deadline. We now have a record of failures, nothing to be proud of, nothing to be bragging about, and here we are saying that we will now move forward with the full cost of goods.

I come from northern Ontario. When I buy a product, I pay the same price that you guys pay down south, although it may be down in Essex someplace or in the States or whatever. When they advertise a sale price of a television for $399 at Future Shop, I pay the same price in Sudbury that you guys do down south. Does anybody think that the transportation cost to bring stuff to Thunder Bay—the member from Thunder Bay is here—or to bring stuff to Sudbury is not taken into account in the price of the goods? Some people will say, “Oh, this is an extra tax on buying a television.” No, it is not.

It is part of doing business. If you’re going to bring your products to market in northern Ontario, you take into account the fact that you’re going to have to pay to transport those goods to wherever you want to sell them.

Industry has adapted to this. We are asking them to take the next step. That’s all we are asking them to do. We are not putting a new tax on; we are asking them to be responsible for what they do. So not only do they pay for the goods, to assemble whatever it is that they want to sell, pay for the labour for the good people who put it together, pay for the transportation costs, pay for the packaging, for getting it safely to market; we also want them to pay for the disposal of whatever it is they put together. To me, it couldn’t be further away from a tax. It is the price of doing business.

Now that we know what waste costs us, now that we know that there is a real human and financial cost associated with waste, when you do a product, not only will you pay for it to be assembled and the staff to put it together and the packaging to be able to move it and the gas to be able to ship it, you will also pay into the price of your goods to have it disposed of. This is the price of doing business.

Will it drive innovation? Absolutely, because now that they will have to take into account the price of disposing of the goods before they actually sell them to me and you and everybody else, I’m sure some very intelligent people will put their bright minds together and start to look at ways to decrease those costs so that they can bring their products to market at a cheaper cost so that they sell more—like they did with transportation, like they did with automation, like they did with everything else.

I can tell you—and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is here in the House this morning—that when a new mine is put together, they have to pay ahead of time for what it will cost to clean up the site. For years and years and years, they didn’t have to do this. A new mine would open up, and then the good people of Nickel Belt were stuck with billions of dollars of cleanup of mining companies that merged, that failed, that disappeared, but the mess stayed behind.

We learned from that. Now, if you are going to open up a new mine in Ontario, you are going to pay upfront and tell us exactly how you are going to go about cleaning it up and—

Hon. Michael Gravelle: A mine closure plan.

M me France Gélinas: The mine closure plan. Thank you, Minister.

So the mining is a very viable industrial part of our economy, and they take full cost of their production. Not only do they pay for the exploration, but they pay for the closure plan ahead of time, so that the good people who live there are not stuck with a mess when they leave the place.

The same principle will now apply to other parts of our economy. That’s all we’re doing. We’re saying that when you bring your products to market, you will have to take into account the value of the goods to put it together—the value of the staff, the automation, the packaging, the transportation—and of disposal. That’s all.

When people want to label this as a tax—I realize this is a dividing issue, and in here we like to fight and divide, but that’s not what this bill is about. This bill is about making sure that the full cost of goods is included in the price you pay, so that the price to dispose of them—it’s like what mining companies do when they open a mine. They pay the price to dispose, and to rehabilitate the site to its original state. It’s included in the price. That’s all that this bill is about to do. Could it be doing more? Yes. I want to talk about zero waste. We’re not talking about that at all. We’re talking about bringing goods to market—that are responsible for their full cost. That’s all.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): This House now stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It’s my pleasure to welcome the members of the 1st Ingersoll Girl Guides to Queen’s Park today. They are Ara Sackrider, Kaytlin Matthews, Julia Widmer-Bailey, Nikole Daltrey, Kelly Byers, Nancy Matthews, Stacey Hanlon and Amy Boddy.

Last year, while on a group trip, their cabin was filled with carbon monoxide. Luckily, they inspected the detector beforehand and no one was hurt. They are now here to support my private member’s bill this afternoon that we will be debating. I commend them for being prepared and welcome them to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was a nice introduction.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to introduce two of my constituent assistants. They are Jessie Huang and Roderick Tom-Ying. They are part of a very hard-working team that proudly serves the people of Markham–Unionville. Jessie and Roderick, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I know this guest was introduced earlier by my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga, but it’s my pleasure to introduce Shelagh Kerr, visiting the Legislature today. Shelagh is from the Coalition for Effective Waste Reduction in Ontario.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to welcome the people from Egg Farmers of Ontario here this morning. We had a very great breakfast courtesy of them. I’d especially like to welcome two very close friends, Donna Lange and Bill Mitchell.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d also like to welcome the egg producers of Ontario this morning, particularly Scott Crawford, Harry Pelissero and Vance Drain from my riding of Peterborough. All members had a very egg-citing time this morning.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’d like to welcome my very dear friend Derrick Tuyl and his beautiful daughter Karlee, who is here today with the John Knox Christian School. She made me this beautiful bracelet this morning. We’d like to welcome all of them today.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: On behalf of Etobicoke North, I would like to acknowledge Mr. and Mrs. Patel and brother Prey Patel, and Mr. and Mrs. Hull. Mr. and Mrs. Hull are teachers of Anal Patel, one of the legislative pages. Welcome to the Legislature and enjoy this morning’s session.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s a pleasure to welcome to the House today Brian Miller. He’s the provincial director for the Egg Farmers of Ontario. He does a wonderful job representing my riding of Huron–Bruce.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We’re joined in the west public gallery and the east public gallery by 81 students from the John Knox Christian School in Oakville. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Scott Helps from the Egg Farmers of Ontario, a district director from the county of Lambton representing Sarnia–Lambton.

M. Taras Natyshak: Ça me donne plaisir d’introduire à l’Assemblée aujourd’hui M. Gérard Malo, qui est l’ex-directeur national des affaires francophones de la Guilde canadienne des médias et aussi un journaliste de la CBC à la retraite. Bienvenue, monsieur Malo.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I too want to thank the Egg Farmers of Ontario for the lovely breakfast we got this morning, and to introduce Dan Veldman, who represents the great riding of Oxford.

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

With us, in the Speaker’s gallery today, we have a delegation from the federal Parliament of the Republic of Kenya, led by Senator David Musila. They are accompanied today by Her Excellency Ms. Lily Sambu, Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Kenya to Canada. Welcome to our delegation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: I guess, Speaker, I’ll ask a question to the House leader today. I will say as I lead off, I want to talk about the fall economic statement next Thursday. I will say to the House leader that I do feel let down; I guess it’s partially my own fault. When I met with Premier Wynne over a number of bills, including Bill 74, she said she’d support it. She did. Then she abstained. Then she voted against it, or fled. I guess the next time I want to cut a deal with the Liberals, I’ll just go directly to Pat Dillon and find out how you’re going to vote. That’s what I’m going to do.

As you are House leader, you’ll be deciding what legislation comes forward. You’ll consult with Pat Dillon and the Working Families Coalition, I guess.

But let me ask you this: In the fall economic statement, you’ve been given a heads-up. Will we actually see some bold ideas to get spending under control, or are we going to see a lot more Liberal fluff?

Hon. John Milloy: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the interest the third party now has and what it is that Ontario will be doing going forward for the long term.

Our fall economic statement is going to talk about how we’re going to continue to invest in our people, what we’re going to do to continue investing strategically in infrastructure so that we build and create more jobs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m hearing the noises from both sides while a question is being put and an answer is being put. It stops.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker—and of course, how we’re going to continue to maintain a very dynamic business climate to encourage that investment. This is what’s important for Ontario—not only for Ontario but for Canada. We’re doing a number of initiatives in this fall economic statement which I’ll address in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t know how to respond to that. Respectfully, Finance Minister, every day I’m asking you questions or the Premier about jobs and the economy, getting spending under control. I’ve asked probably a dozen questions about the economic statement. I’ve not had answers yet, so let me give it a try, to you.

As I pointed out yesterday, we passed the four-year anniversary of Ontario’s credit downgrade. Next week we’ll hit the fifth anniversary of Ontario becoming a have-not province, all under the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals. We have 300,000 lost manufacturing jobs and almost a million people who want to work who can’t in the province of Ontario. Quite frankly, we helped clear the decks so you could put a plan forward, but all I’ve seen since that time is legislation on restaurant menus and 24/7 dispatch for pets, when you can’t even run Ornge air ambulance for human beings in the province of Ontario.

Minister, with all due respect, enough of the fluff, enough of the clutter: Are we actually going to see a plan come Thursday to put Ontario back—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do not get quiet for somebody to poke—carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, smiled and smirked at the hard work that Ontarians have been doing over these last many years, including the work that we’ve done on this side of the House without their support. That includes reducing spending on a per capita basis on this side. As a government, we are the lowest-cost government anywhere in Canada as a result of the work that we’ve done. For four years in a row, we’ve controlled our spending at less than 1% growth year over year. Last year, as audited by the Auditor General, our spending actually went down, and that’s the first time in over a decade.

But apart from all the control measures that we’ve put in place, it’s the stimulus and the strategic investments that we’re making to support our economy that has mattered, and that has created more than 475,000 net new jobs since the recession.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, I guess Thursday will be a watershed moment. We’ll see if the finance minister acts like a finance minister or just a parrot for tired, old talking points.

I mean, truth be told, Finance Minister, you can torture statistics and get them to confess to anything, but the reality is there are a lot of people who are out of work in the province of Ontario. There are a lot of people who are losing hope in this great province, and they’re losing hope in you because, quite frankly, they don’t trust a word you say anymore.

What’s frustrating too is why the third party, the NDP, see their role to be the defense attorneys for the Liberals, as apologists for the Liberals, whenever you have to get off the hook. I know why you put the fluff forward: because they’ll support it. They’ll keep this plan going. They’ll bail you out no matter what you do.

I’m saying enough is enough—enough with your fluff, enough with the baubles and trinkets. I want to see a real plan. I want to see Ontario working again, and if you’re not going to do it, we’re prepared to do the job for you.

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order.

Answer, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Talk about fluff. The opposition has no plan, and the only plan that they have put forward is one of destruction, and it’s going to harm our economic recovery.

The members opposite should stand in this House and support our employer health tax program to help small business. It’s being stalled by that side of the House. We need to pass that now to support those small businesses. Sixty thousand more small businesses would be exempt from paying that tax. They’re holding it up. They should be supporting businesses and supporting all those families that are working hard.

We’re taking leadership. We’re supporting them by way of pension reform. We’re introducing new forms of raising capital so when we renew our capital and our debt, we’re doing it at better rates. They’re stalling us. They should stand up for Ontario.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Today, the committee investigating the gas plants scandal was cancelled. The Premier is refusing to be called as a witness to respond to the Auditor General’s report, and as consistently reported by the CP this week, the Premier is holding off-site press conferences during question period so journalists can’t cover both. That pattern of behaviour reflects something very seriously wrong with her leadership. It shows she is hiding something. She would make Rose Mary Woods, President Nixon’s secretary, blush by her behaviour.

Will the minister explain why the Premier continues to put obstacles in our place and why she told the House and committee that the cancellation would only be $33 million to $40 million when she knew over two years ago it would be well over $700 million?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Although I’d like the opportunity to answer that question, I’m referring it to the government House leader.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The convention is simply to move it to another minister and that’s all.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the member is simply wrong. The Premier has not refused to appear in front of committee. She has indicated to the committee that her office will work with the committee to find a date in the coming weeks. I would remind that when the Leader of the Opposition was called in front of the committee, it took three tries before he went in front of the committee.

I would also point out, in terms of—if they want to talk about timing, why will they not allow their candidates to come before the committee to talk about the spending analysis that was done by the Conservative Party before it made the very aggressive promise in the last election to cancel these plants, to talk about the type of work that was done by the Conservative Party and to bring their costing to the table? We’ve called them over and over again, and they are being blocked by the opposition.

Will the member commit today that she will allow the candidates to come forward?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Yes, I’m going to go back to the energy minister. I do notice he has a pattern of only answering the last question I have so I have no opportunity for rebuttal. I’d really like to go back to him. You have been withholding information. Your Premier is hiding from questioning, and you are denying debates in this House. They are not tactics of an honest broker, Minister. The Premier would not get away with not telling the truth if it were not for the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not acceptable. Withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn, Speaker, but we wouldn’t be in this position—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Simply a quick withdrawal and then you proceed.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn, Speaker.

So let’s review the facts. In the last two weeks, the Deputy Minister of Energy and the head of the OPA told us in the justice committee that the government knew the cost of the Oakville plant exceeded the $40 million the Premier cited repeatedly for over two years. She continued to use that number in the House, and now she refuses to come before us under oath.

Will the minister tell me what the Premier is hiding and what she is afraid of?

Hon. John Milloy: The member is simply wrong. The Premier has indicated that she will go before the committee again, and they were working out a schedule, just as the Leader of the Opposition did with the three tries it took for us to get him before it.

I think we understand where the member is coming from. I’d like to quote from a press scrum that she had just this morning. A reporter said to the member who’s asking the question, “You’ve got an AG report on both plants. You’ve had former leader McGuinty twice. We’ve had Premier Wynne there once. We’ve had Colin Andersen at least twice, maybe three times. I mean, at what point are you going to wrap this up?” And the member who just asked the question said, “Well, when we get the answers that we want.”

We have been forthcoming. We have brought forward tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of documents. The Premier has stood in the House day after day and answered the questions. I can’t help it if the truth doesn’t fit her reality, Mr. Speaker. The simple fact is that we have co-operated—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Maybe the third time is the charm.

Back to the energy minister, because I won’t have an opportunity for a rebuttal: Let’s be perfectly clear. The reality of the facts is this: Your government wasted $1 billion. Your leader told us it only cost $40 million. And then yesterday you had the gall to stand in this House and deny a dying woman the cancer drug she needs because you are too busy wasting money, and that is not what the priorities of your government are. If this government’s priorities weren’t all wrong before, I don’t know, Speaker, how much more they could go wrong.

No wonder the Premier wants the press gallery off-site during question period. No wonder—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. She has a right to put the question.

Continue, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: No wonder the Premier wants the press gallery off-site during question period. No wonder she won’t appear under oath. No wonder she cancelled the gas plants investigation for today.

Will the government House leader or the Minister of Energy stand in this place and commit to the people of Ontario that the Premier will testify—

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

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: April 16: Four opposition candidates were invited to testify at the justice committee, including PC candidates Geoff Janoscik and Zoran Churchin; they all declined.

April 30: On the same day the Premier of this province appeared, the Leader of the Opposition is asked to testify; he declines. Backup witnesses Janoscik and Churchin also decline. We then invite PC candidate Mary Anne DeMonte-Whelan; she accepts and is scheduled to testify, then mysteriously calls back a few hours later to cancel.

May 2: Janoscik, Churchin and DeMonte-Whelan are called to testify. Janoscik tells the Clerk to stop calling, and the other two do not respond.

May 7: The Leader of the Opposition is once again invited to testify; he declines, even though he had written a letter to the committee saying that he would try to work for that date. Since he refuses, the Liberals call on Janoscik, Churchin, DeMonte-Whelan and the member from Halton, but none of them agree to testify—

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

Hon. John Milloy: May 23: Janoscik, Churchin and DeMonte-Whelan all refuse to testify—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. That’s it.

Interjection.

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

New question.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Ontario households and businesses are paying the highest electricity prices in Canada, and they’re tired of being kept in the dark about electricity decisions. We’ve been pushing to get some answers, but despite promises of transparency and openness by this government, we’re not getting them.

I’ll start with a simple question. The Premier was not available to take questions at today’s hearings on the cancelled gas plants. When will she be available, or is she refusing to attend?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: We’ve been very clear that the Premier, who has appeared in front of the committee before and who was asked over 200 questions in this House, has indicated her willingness to appear in front of the committee, and her office is working with the Clerk of the Committee to find a date.

Mr. Speaker, again, when we invited the Leader of the Opposition to appear in front of the committee, it took several tries before he would agree. We’ve asked the member from Halton to appear in front of the committee; he has refused. We have asked Conservative candidates to appear in front of the committee; they have refused.

Mr. Speaker, we have been forthcoming. It was this Premier who asked the Auditor General to look into the Oakville situation. It was this Premier who asked me, as House leader, to work to set up the committee, with a broad scope and broad powers, to undertake the examination that’s going on. As I think I’ve mentioned already, she has answered over 200 questions in this Legislature, and she will be forthcoming in front of the committee in the near future when a date can be arranged with her office.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, that wasn’t the straightest answer I’ve ever gotten.

People hear the government talk about transparency and openness, but they see the Premier scrambling to avoid testifying in her role in the cancellation of private power plants and refusing to let the auditor look at the $180 million or more that they spent on nuclear plans that aren’t going ahead.

People paying the bills think they deserve some answers, so I’ll try an easier question. The minister insists that he’s moving ahead with plans to refurbish nuclear plants. In fact, the government has already signed contracts worth nearly a billion dollars. Has the minister done any cost-benefit analysis, and, if so, will he table that analysis today?

Hon. John Milloy: Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: There were several issues raised in the question, and I’m going to answer the question by asking a question, Mr. Speaker.

The New Democratic Party, both on transit and on energy issues, have no program; they have no policy. They stand up and ask questions. They are not accountable to their own base. They are not accountable to the public in Ontario. They have no answers for energy; they have no answers for transit.

I would like the critic who is responsible for creating alternative policy to the government’s to come forward with a platform on energy, transit and transportation that makes sense.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: So I take that as a no.

Again to the Minister of Energy: Households and businesses are paying the highest electricity bills in the country, and they see a Premier refusing to answer basic questions about a billion dollars handed to private power interests for gas plants that won’t be built, a government that refuses to answer questions about hundreds of millions spent on abandoned nuclear plans and a minister who is signing nuclear power contracts worth hundreds of millions but can’t produce a business case to justify the expenditure. Does that minister think that’s acceptable to people who are paying more and more?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the questions have been asked on a number of occasions, and they have been answered, and I’ll answer them again.

Expenditures to date on nuclear refurbishment are for definition phase activities such as the establishment of project organization, scope finalization, engineering, planning, procurement and contracting. In fact, the project itself is going to create 25,000 jobs for the province of Ontario, particularly here in the GTA.

We also have an independent oversight adviser who will provide regular updates on the progress of the Darlington nuclear refurbishing project to the Ministry of Energy.

We are moving forward responsibly. We are moving forward on the basis of not building new nuclear in the foreseeable future, a decision which that critic has agreed with. He said yes to no new nuclear.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Somebody should tell him not to point all the time. It’s not polite.

My question is to the Acting Premier. People are concerned about the cost of everyday life. Families across Ontario haven’t seen a real raise in years. The cost of everyday life is going up, and instead of making life more affordable, your government is letting people fall further and further behind.

New Democrats and Andrea Horwath have worked hard to deliver results that will make life affordable so that people can stop treading water and start getting ahead, like people getting a 15% reduction in their auto insurance rates. Can the Acting Premier tell us why people’s auto insurance rates are still going up?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Well, I’m pleased to say that as a result of the hard work that this side of the House has been doing, we’ve been fighting to reduce the cost of the claims, trying to ensure that the degree of fraud and other circumstances that are creating those premiums to have gone up over these past number of years—that we start to get them going down.

As a result of the legislation that we’ve passed with your support—and I appreciate the work of the third party in these endeavours. But I am pleased that rates have, in fact, on average, been reduced to a point. We are anticipating greater reductions in the next release, in January, as a result of the work that we’ve done to give FSCO more control, more teeth and more oversight. As a result of those initiatives, we are confident that that work will enable us to have better premiums overall.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, Minister, I’m going to quote my good friend the member from Trinity–Spadina and say that drivers are being whacked. We’re seeing people’s insurance rates go up. We have an email from William, who says his auto insurance in Durham has gone up 16%. Lena from Hamilton writes in and says her auto insurance has gone up 11%. So as people are getting squeezed, they’re falling further and further behind.

Many of these same drivers who are seeing their auto insurance going up are getting hit when it comes to the Drive Clean program, having to pay twice for tests that they’ve actually passed, but the machinery says that they failed.

So I ask you: Can the Acting Premier explain to me, and to those people, why people are falling further behind under this government’s watch?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell the public, who may be watching, to call this hotline if they wish to issue a complaint to FSCO. It’s 1-855-584-7669. Now, you can call that number or you can call the Ombudsman to create or at least explain some of the difficulties that may be arising.

But I can say this: Rates, for the third quarter in a row, have been dropping on average. I can cite issues where people have actually received more than 15% reductions on their renewals as a result of making those calls and shopping around. So I encourage people to do just that.

We are fighting fraud. We’re looking at what happens with regard to the tow trucks, the collision repairs, the health clinics. We’re providing greater rates for safe drivers. We’re implementing new dispute resolution reviews. All of these, and the watchdog that’s going to be implemented, will enable us to champion and fight on behalf of our consumers.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Acting Premier: It’s clear that people back home are feeling squeezed, and what’s clearer is that it would appear this government is dragging its feet when it comes to dealing with auto insurance rates going down, or dealing with the Drive Clean program.

People under Drive Clean are having to pay more than they should in order to make sure that they meet the standards. Why? Because the program doesn’t work effectively, as they are failing, even though their cars are safe because of the equipment.

So I say to you, whether it’s big costs like auto insurance or lots of smaller costs like multiple Drive Clean tests for cars that aren’t big polluters, people are feeling like they’re falling further and further behind.

Why is the Premier, and the Acting Premier, letting people fall further and further behind in this province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has been fighting hard to find jobs and create stimulus so those people could be working, and that’s the issue. There is a lot of concern still as a result of our global recession that continues to exist. But here in Ontario, our fundamentals are strong. People are working, and there is greater confidence in where we’re going.

We’re fighting auto insurance rates. We’re doing everything necessary to protect individuals with their pensions, Mr. Speaker. No one on that side of the House is even looking forward. We’re doing that here. We’ll continue to fight for the people of Ontario.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Speaker, following the Premier’s announcement last week of a new era of transparency for her government, I asked her to table the Metrolinx-Bombardier $770-million contract. That’s a contract that was sole-sourced, is costing taxpayers millions in penalties today and is another indication of the mismanagement of her government.

I received a letter this morning from Metrolinx. Not surprisingly, this letter confirms that the government will be dealing with this document in the same way that it dealt with the gas plant documents. From Mr. Bruce McCuaig: We’re working on it, but “parts of the contract may be redacted.” Why is that not surprising?

I’m going to ask the minister to ensure that we get that contract into our hands unredacted so that we know what the—

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

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Be seated, please.

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m getting to feel a great, great amount of empathy for the member from Newmarket–Aurora. He just seems to have trouble getting any position which the facts will support.

First he was proffering that there was a $70-million penalty. Bombardier told him it wasn’t true; Metrolinx told him it wasn’t true. I told him it wasn’t true, but he keeps on repeating it. So let me say again, it’s not true. The contract is proceeding.

This is a party that seems to have something against not just public transit, but Bombardier. They want to cancel all the projects, freeze GO, cancel LRT. That would destroy Bombardier. I have never seen a Conservative Party attack business the way they did. Bombardier provides excellent service and gives us great value.

The Premier and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities were out doing a partnership with Centennial College to increase job creation.

Bombardier is one of our biggest employers and fastest-growing companies—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I have no problem with Bombardier. It’s the government that’s bungling millions and millions of dollars through contracts that are, quite frankly, a bungling on his part. Why doesn’t the minister know what is in this contract?

The fact of the matter is I now have a letter from Metrolinx that insists that the contract I referred to was, in fact, competitively bid. That is patently false; it is not true. This was an option, under a contract that was signed a year before, under which that contract gave Metrolinx an option. That option should never have been taken out; that option should have been publicly bid and saved the taxpayers some $200 million.

I want to say to the minister now: Get your facts straight. Bring that contract forward. Let us all see what the facts are and then we’ll draw the conclusion about who—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Frank Klees: —wrong.

Will the minister agree to get that contract into this House, unredacted, so we know what they did?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Speaker, if business has friends like that, they don’t need enemies. This is a party that wants to cancel almost every major rapid transit project in Ontario. That would, first of all, cost billions of dollars to that company. It would cost billions of dollars in cancelled projects. This is the party that thinks they can buy gas plants for free at garage sales; I guess that’s where they want to buy their transit projects. They don’t seem to understand that infrastructure costs money. They don’t have any plan to pay for it, but they want to cancel it.

The contracts negotiated between Metrolinx and Bombardier are quite transparent.

As the city council in Kitchener–Waterloo said to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, “You’re dead wrong.” I have to agree with the council in Kitchener.

My dear friend from Newmarket–Aurora is just simply wrong.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week, you announced a land use planning review that specifically excludes OMB operations. This is not what communities were asking for, and this is not what you promised two months ago. It’s another bait and switch, just like Bill 26 in 2004, which was supposed to make OMB decisions consistent with provincial policy, and just like Bill 51 in 2007, which the government said would “make municipal councils the decision-makers with respect to planning.”

Despite these bills, the OMB remains out of control. Earlier this year, the OMB ignored Waterloo region’s official plan and defied the province’s own Places to Grow Act. When will the government finally reform the undemocratic and out-of-control OMB?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I appreciate the member’s passion on this issue. We have spoken about this many times and I think that, certainly at the province, this government believes that we have a strong and modern land use planning system, and we believe we have a well-established development charges system, which is what I announced just last week.

We heard from many municipalities, community groups and developers who want more accountability and more transparency in the system. We believe it’s time for a refresh, and certainly we believe that good land use planning is important to ensuring the long-term prosperity of our province for our environmental health and the social well-being of Ontarians.

When I spoke about the land use planning announcement last week, we talked about including the OMB and development charges to better meet the need of 424 municipalities across Ontario. We need to hear the views of everyone. Certainly, we have conflicting views. I look forward to any input that the member makes going forward, and I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: In 2011, the Minister of Labour promised the people of Ottawa that, if re-elected, he would reform the OMB. He was re-elected, and nothing happened.

In 2012, the Minister of Finance promised the people of Mississauga that he would rein in the OMB—in months, not years, he said. It’s been over one year, and nothing has happened. Instead, we have a bait-and-switch government review that focuses more on the needs of developers than the needs of communities and municipal planners.

When will the government stop making false promises and admit it has no intention of ever reforming the OMB?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I don’t share the negative perception that the member has. Certainly, I understand that everybody has concerns, and the member from Ottawa and many of my colleagues on both sides of the House have expressed concerns about how we can improve the system.

We have a very short-scoped period of time. Before the end of the year, I’m hoping to hear from developers, from municipalities and from community groups. I think we certainly want a more accountable and transparent system, and we believe it’s important to find a balance with all of land use planning across Ontario. Everyone has a stake in making planning work across Ontario, whether it’s community groups, whether it’s municipalities.

From the building and development industry I’ve heard that they want to put in changes that will implement predictability, transparency and cost-effectiveness for communities and for businesses across Ontario because these moves will attract and retain business in Ontario.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the job-creating Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member must use the title or the riding only.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I agree. The member should withdraw.

Mr. Grant Crack: Our government’s economic plan—investing in people, investing in infrastructure and creating the right business climate for job creation in Ontario—is something we are prioritizing. We can’t do this unless we help the small businesses and the people they employ across the province.

On Wednesday, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a body which represents over 42,000 small businesses across Ontario, released an open letter. It was addressed to the minister and also to the Minister of Finance, requesting that this House pass Bill 105, the Supporting Small Businesses Act, and proceed with the next stage of the legislative process. Could the minister please inform the House, along with the members of the CFIB, why this bill has not moved to committee yet, even though it has been debated for 15½ long hours?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s a great question and, yes, small businesses are an integral part of Ontario’s economy. Bill 105 will help to support small business in Ontario and ensure that 60,000 small businesses will pay less employer health tax—in fact, it’ll eliminate that tax altogether for 12,000 small businesses in this province. This legislation is exactly what we need to help drive the economy forward, help small businesses and support the creation of new jobs.

Now, the PCs have stood up in this House time and time again to ask us where our plan is. This is part of our plan. But members of the official opposition continue to denigrate the hard work that Ontarians do for this province and do for Ontario’s economy. Some 42,000 small businesses have voiced their opinions, and we’re trying to do something good here for the small businesses of Ontario.

The fact that this bill has not moved forward to committee despite over 15 hours of debate is disappointing, to say the least. I urge all members of this House to work together, heed the calls from CFIB, do the right thing and push this bill—

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

Weaving in and out of government policy is one thing, but I want to remind both the questioner and the answerer to stay on government policy, please.

Carry on.

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for the update. It’s disappointing to hear that we’re unable to find some common ground on doing the right thing for the economy, and also the right thing for our small businesses in Ontario.

We received another letter on this issue from Tanner Financial, a small business located here in Ontario. It stated, “Our firm provides benefits to financial planning to small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario. We have found that many of our smaller clients are still in a stage of growth where any tax is prohibitive to their success.” It goes on to say, “Increasing the exemption by any amount will have a positive impact.”

The letter goes on to urge this House to work together and pass this important bill.

Can the minister please inform the members of this House how it might implicate small businesses like Tanner Financial, and the small business owners who run them, if this House cannot work together to pass this important bill?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, again, to the member for his question. There are roughly—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There are roughly 400,000 small and medium-sized firms in Ontario. This figure represents 99% of all businesses operating in this province; it’s obviously a significant source of employment. By providing the right kind of support that small businesses need, Bill 105, the Supporting Small Businesses Act, can play a very strong role in the economy. That’s exactly the work that all of us need to do as elected members of this House.

This government’s priority is to create good jobs and grow our economy, and we’re doing this by investing in people, investing in infrastructure and creating a dynamic and innovative climate for businesses to succeed. Bill 105 will do this. By not supporting this important legislation, we’re not supporting organizations like the CFIB and Tanner Financial. Ultimately, we’re not supporting a growing business environment in Ontario which is good for the economy and an integral part of creating good, meaningful jobs.

DRIVE CLEAN

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, the Supreme Court has ruled that profits made off of revenue-neutral programs are illegal and must be paid back, yet you continue to flout the law in order to keep collecting multi-million-dollar surpluses every year using the Drive Clean program. In fact, in just two years, the Liberals have collected an additional $30 million using their illegal Drive Clean tax grab.

Minister, it’s time to show some respect for the law, so will you comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling today by ending this abuse of Ontarians’ hard-earned money and by paying back all of the revenue you’ve collected in your illegal Drive Clean tax grab?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Here we are again with the Conservative Party attacking a program which is designed to improve air—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I guess you might not be getting the message.

Minister of the Environment, please be seated.

The member from Renfrew will come to order, the member for Leeds–Grenville will come to order and the member for Halton will come to order. That’s enough.

Carry on.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member will be aware that, for the first decade, this program was actually in deficit. In other words, it was costing money to provide this program, which was established by the Conservative government a number of years ago, in 1999. I want to tell him, and this may surprise some of the new members in the Conservative Party, that the only increase in price that has come for the Drive Clean program was implemented in 2002 by the Conservative government of Mike Harris—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You ask, you’re going to get it. The member from Prince–Edward Hastings is warned.

Finish your answer: a 10-second wrap-up.

Hon. James J. Bradley: —of which some members sitting on the benches, including your leader, were part. That’s the only increase that we have seen.

I am working at the present time with the Minister of Finance—

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Minister, now that your government is getting advice from former PC environment minister Norm Sterling, I’m wondering if you’re going to be taking his advice on Drive Clean. From your conversations with him, you clearly know that a Progressive Conservative government would have phased this temporary program out long ago. That’s why we’ve been calling on the Liberal government to scrap the program for years.

I’m sure you watched CTV News and saw Mr. Sterling recommend that it’s time to sit down, work together and phase out Drive Clean. Minister, will you accept Mr. Sterling’s advice and start working with us to scrap Drive Clean once and for all?

Hon. James J. Bradley: It’s interesting that you would, in fact, ask me to accept the advice of a member of your party who was thrown under the bus, who was denied the nomination.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order: You spoke to that before, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There’s no point of order right now. Stop the clock, please.

If you would take my advice, maybe we would be able to make sure that these things didn’t happen. I didn’t hear it because I was dealing with somebody heckling over here.

If you need to withdraw, I would ask you to withdraw.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I will withdraw, of course.

But here we go again with the Tories and their inexplicable war on clean air. They won’t be happy until they stoke up the coal plants again, including the Nanticoke plant. It appears they want to rev those up again. They want to put some 36,000 tonnes of smog pollutants in the air we breathe by replacing Drive Clean with their drive dirty program, and ultimately, I can say this is what—

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

New question.

BEAR CONTROL

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last year, the government cut the MNR program for the live trapping and relocation of nuisance bears, and since then there have been several near-fatal bear attacks across the province, the last one in Peterborough. In parts of my riding, human-bear encounters are a daily occurrence, further increasing the risk of attack.

This afternoon, your government will have the chance to support my motion to create a special committee to develop a provincial bear management strategy. Will you?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’m very pleased to have an opportunity to respond.

I think what we can say is that our government certainly supports the spirit of the motion that’s coming forward. We are always interested in having further discussions about important matters such as the one that will be coming forward this afternoon, and I think the member understands that the Ministry of Natural Resources treats this as a very serious issue as well. We maintain that public safety is the number one priority, particularly as it relates to the issue of human-bear conflicts. The ministry is looking at instances of human-bear conflicts across the province, looking at available options to address the issue and evaluating some of the wildlife management options.

I think it’s also important that the member opposite and certainly our members here acknowledge the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, who has brought forward a private member’s bill as well which recognizes the challenges before us. Certainly we thank you for that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Acting Premier: In response to my question on October 3 regarding the Liberal government’s cuts to the bear management program, the Minister of Natural Resources stated, “This is an issue that we take very seriously, and we are developing a plan.” Don’t you think that it’s about time you consulted with the people who actually deal with bears on a daily basis, the people who actually live in bear country? This special committee would travel throughout the province and actually consult with them.

Once again, will your government support my motion to create an all-party committee to actually address the bear management issue in this province?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Well, indeed, when the minister addressed that issue and said we were looking at a plan, that’s indeed the case. He understands very much how this is a very significant issue. It’s a public safety issue, and indeed the wildlife management options are being explored. Again, our colleague from Thunder Bay–Atikokan has a private member’s bill that’s also going to be coming before the House, and I think it’s important to accept the real leadership being shown by him as well.

Again, the spirit of the motion is one that we welcome, and further discussion with northerners is always welcome, but again, the Ministry of Natural Resources is taking this very seriously, evaluating various options, and we want to continue to work with the member opposite and all members in the House to find some solution to this challenge.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Minister, each summer I attend musical, artistic and cultural festivals in western Mississauga. I watch our artists and our performers just pour their hearts out into their music and their choreography, and I appreciate that the musical community in our province of Ontario is passionate about its work.

Earlier this year, you and the Minister of Finance announced the Ontario Music Fund, which focuses on stimulating economic growth, raising the global profile and building a dynamic market for our music companies and performing artists. Much anticipated in the arts community, the Ontario Music Fund was officially launched earlier this week. Would the minister please explain to the House some of the highlights of the Ontario Music Fund?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for asking that wonderful question. I say “wonderful” because the Ontario Music Fund is really a wonderful program. This is a program that contributes a $45-million commitment we made in the 2013 budget. It contributes $15 million over three years to capitalize on the success of our music industry and accelerate Ontario’s economic growth.

The OMF will support sound recording in Ontario, marketing and promotion of Canadian artists, live performances, both in Ontario and abroad, and business development initiatives. This will be accomplished through four streams: music company development, music industry development, music futures and live music. The music company development and music industry development stream will launch October 28.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ontario’s musicians of tomorrow—bands like Nigel and the Senators—need to know how to get their music produced, promoted and protected. Mississauga’s local studios like Metalworks and Sonic Sound need to connect the best musical talent with both world markets and local gigs. Minister, please explain how this funding benefits Ontario’s music industry.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question again. Ontario’s vibrant and diverse music industry is a vital contributor to the province’s cultural and economic prosperity. In 2011, Ontario’s music sector generated over $429 million in revenues, accounting for almost 82% of Canada’s total revenues.

Our province is home to Canada’s largest and one of the world’s most diversified music sectors. The new Ontario Music Fund represents a significant commitment by Ontario to strengthen our music industry. This is why we created a new Ontario Music Fund as part of the 2013 Ontario budget.

PENSION PLANS

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Tomorrow, November 1, is the start of financial planning awareness month. Also, tomorrow, you will meet other provincial finance ministers to discuss enhancing the CPP. Our employees and employers cannot afford any more mandatory deductions that an enhanced CPP or new OPP would entail. They’re already having trouble making ends meet. Why, then, Minister, are you failing Ontarians by not allowing PRPPs, pooled registered pension plans? You adopted our PRPP plan into your 2013 budget; why are you stalling?

Instead of a new Ontario pension plan, why don’t you allow PRPPs for Ontarians to save by themselves, for themselves, with lower costs and greater flexibility? Or don’t you trust Ontario’s workers with their own money?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Well, there you have it. That side of the House feels it’s not important to support the families of Ontario by suggesting that we not give them other opportunities. We are introducing PRPPs, a voluntary program. We said we would, and we’re proceeding to do that. That’s not in question. The point being made, though, is they feel middle-class families can live on $12,000 a year when they retire. We don’t accept that on this side of the House. We’re going to work and champion the cause for them in the years to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Minister, I’m concerned with your inaction on improving the retirement security of Ontarians. In 2016, there will be more people drawing from a public sector pension than paying into one. This is leading to $100 billion in unfunded liabilities. People are living longer, and the return on retirement investments has never been lower. As the tsunami of retirees appears on the Ontario horizon, we need to deal with the reform of the public pension system.

Minister, what is your government doing to reduce the over $100 billion of unfunded liabilities within the public sector?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m not trying to be cute here, I think we all share the concern that the people of Ontario deserve to retire with some decency, with security and with a degree of comfort, knowing that when they do retire, all the hard work and the investments they made will pay off.

The member opposite has been doing some work to that effect with voluntary pooled retirement pension plans. We are proceeding with that. It’s a voluntary program. We’re going to provide more choice. There are a lot of Ontarians who do have flexibility, but we know that more than 50% to 60% do not, and it’s those we’re trying to protect. It’s those middle-class citizens, especially, who need support, and I look to that side of the House to recognize that, to accept that we need to work with all of the provinces across Canada. That’s what I’ll be doing tomorrow with my colleagues, so that we can propose and encourage—

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

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As the minister knows, Windsor hospitals are being threatened with the loss of funding for all cancer surgeries if they do not comply with a Cancer Care Ontario directive to transfer thoracic surgeries to London by December 1.

My question is simple: Is the minister going to allow this dispute to escalate to the point where Windsor patients lose access to vital cancer surgery?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can say is that I am absolutely committed that Windsor-area patients receive the highest possible quality cancer care.

Speaker, I rely on the advice of experts, including experts at Cancer Care Ontario, to ensure that all Ontario patients, including those in Windsor, get the highest-quality care. They are doing a great job. In fact, Ontario cancer patients have among the best survival rates in the world.

As part of their work, Cancer Care Ontario has implemented the thoracic surgical oncology standards that are evidence-based. Within those standards, CCO has set out that hospitals need to meet a minimum volume of surgeries in order to be designated a thoracic centre. That minimum requirement is 150 in 2012-13. There were 49 thoracic surgeries performed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The question is about access to care in our communities in Windsor. Apparently, the minister’s version of the map of Ontario really does end in London.

I understand that the dispute between Cancer Care Ontario and Windsor hospitals has been occurring for the better part of six months, and yet the minister has really done nothing.

Windsor hospitals are also concerned that the loss of thoracic surgeries will have a long list of detrimental effects and impacts on their patients. Now patients fear the loss of all cancer surgeries in the region, and they’re wondering who is going to stand and protect their access to health care.

Can the minister explain how she’s going to solve this problem so that cancer services in Windsor are preserved?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the member opposite, and the member from Windsor West, that Windsor patients will continue to receive cancer care in Windsor.

As a result of Cancer Care Ontario’s work, the 30-day, post-op mortality rate for the removal of a lung has been cut in half. Let me repeat that: The mortality rate has been cut in half, thanks to Cancer Care Ontario’s focus on improving quality of care.

I have been working very hard with the member from Windsor West on this issue. We continue to work to ensure that Windsor-area patients continue to receive the highest-quality care.