Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The committee met at 1601 in committee room 1.

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

Consideration of the following bill:

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Good afternoon, everybody. We’re calling to order the committee to address Bill 151.

Last we broke, we were at motion 26.7, which is dealing with schedule 1, section 17. It’s a PC motion, so I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Chair, through you, I’ll move that section 17 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“No obligation

“(7) For greater certainty, paragraph 2 of subsection (5) does not require the person or entity to carry out the proposed steps submitted to the director.”

Chair, through you, I defer to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: We just want to recognize that under Bill 151, persons or entities are required to ensure that their actions are consistent with policy statements. If they are not, the director can require them to submit a report outlining how they will become consistent with policy statements.

This amendment, in particular, would ensure that the person or entity is not legally obligated to carry out the steps outlined in its report. We feel that this is pretty significant in the sense that, under Bill 151, brand holders, service providers and municipalities will be obligated to submit a report to a director if this particular director believes that their actions are not consistent with the policy statement.

Just for the benefit of everyone, I would just like to remind them that, yesterday, one of our motions was defeated whereby we were hoping that the director could be, at least, an expert in waste management. That particular motion was defeated.

Again, this motion today, under Bill 151, would allow a little bit of cover, if you will, for brand holders, service providers and municipalities that will be obligated to submit a report to a director if the director believes that their actions are not consistent with the policy statement. We want to ensure that the person or entity is not legally obligated to carry out the steps outlined in the report.

This amendment would ensure, as I said, brand holders, service providers and municipalities are not legally obligated to carry out the steps that have been outlined in a report by a director who may or may not have the waste management expertise that we were hoping to develop within our earlier amendments.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Mr. Hatfield.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I would like to have started the day off on a more positive note; however, I can’t support the motion because I see it as undermining enforcement.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The government doesn’t support this motion as it would allow persons to avoid compliance.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional comments, questions, discussion? Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Just a brief comment; I made this yesterday. I talked, at the time, about the already excessive administrative burden that municipalities have with some of the interaction that they have with the province in general, but more specifically related to larger pieces of legislation. It’s the administrative burden in the context of the work that the staff have to conduct. We have 440 municipalities at the present time. You take the corollary of that and you look at the financial implications as well. It is a challenge, already, in many municipalities, to keep the tax rate low.

Coupled with what my colleague to my left had to say, I know that all members of this committee have a keen appreciation of the demands that municipalities have on a day-to-day basis and the struggles they have in trying to keep the tax rates low overall. I would hope that in the course of factoring a particular motion, you would weigh that carefully, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional comments? Seeing none, are you prepared to vote? Yes. Shall motion 26.7 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is lost.

The next motion is motion 27. It’s a government motion. I recognize Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I move that subsections 17(5) and (6) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Failure to ensure consistency

“(5) If, in the director’s opinion, a person or entity described in subsection (2) fails to act in accordance with the person’s or entity’s obligation under section 12 to ensure that it performs its duties and carries out its activities in a manner that is consistent with all applicable resource recovery and waste reduction policy statements, the director may do one or both of the following:

“1. Require the person or entity to provide information the director specifies with respect to the person’s or entity’s efforts to meet the obligation and the reasons for the failure to do so.

“2. Require the person or entity to prepare and submit to the director a report describing the proposed steps to be taken to meet the obligation and the proposed timelines for doing so.

“Manner

“(6) The person or entity shall comply with a requirement under subsection (5) in accordance with the director’s directions and any prescribed requirements.

“Opportunity for comment

“(7) Before taking any action under subsection (5), the director shall give the person or entity an opportunity to provide the director with comments on the performance of their duties and the carrying out of their activities.

“Limitation

“(8) Subsection (7) does not apply to the extent that the person or entity has provided a report on the duties and activities in question in response to a director’s direction under subsection (1).”

The Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any explanation? I recognize Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion ensures that the director has the ability to review both the performance of duties as well as the carrying out of activities as part of a review of consistency with policy statements. The government supports this motion.

The Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional comments? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s interesting because, upon reflecting on this government motion, it essentially makes the changes we’re attempting to do ourselves in motions 26.6 and 26.7. We’re going to be supporting this.

The Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay, sounds good. Any additional comments? Mr. Hatfield?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I would say it’s going to be unanimous, sir.

The Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay; excellent. Looks good. Let’s move to the vote. All those in favour of motion 27? All those opposed? The motion carries.

We’re in a position to deal with schedule 1, section 17, as amended. Is there any debate on schedule 1—

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I’ve been given conflicting information, for which the information provider is sorry, I’ve been advised. I will not be in a position to deal with this schedule section yet.

1610

We’ll move now to motion 27.1. It’s dealing with schedule 1, section 18. It’s a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m going to need my glasses here.

I move that section 18 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “any of the information provided under subsection 17(5)” and substituting “any information provided under subsection 17(5) that is not commercially sensitive, as defined in the regulations”.

Chair, through you, I defer to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I believe this motion speaks for itself, Chair. Number 27.1 essentially would protect commercially sensitive information. This is something that we heard as a concern from the stakeholders we consulted with. Really and truly, we all should be mindful of protecting our business that drives our economy in this province. I’d be surprised if it was voted against, quite frankly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any other comments? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Freedom-of-information and privacy-protection requirements already apply to records and information in the custody and control of government ministries, so this motion is not necessary. The government doesn’t support it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any further debate or discussion? Seeing none, are we prepared to vote? Yes. Shall motion 27.1 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Excuse me, Chair—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Yes?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Can the speakers just move their microphones a little bit closer, please?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Yes, certainly. Just to ensure that everyone can hear, I think that’s a fair request.

Okay: 27.2, a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 18 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“Notice

“(2) The director shall provide 10 days’ notice to the person or entity who provided the information under subsection 17(5) before disclosing it.”

Through you, Chair, I defer to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, this amendment is straightforward. It would provide companies with notice that information is going to be disclosed. If it’s going to be made available, at least the companies affected should be paid the regard and given notice that this information is going to be made available.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate or comment? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I think this would be better addressed through operational policy in the implementation of the act rather than in the legislation, so the government doesn’t support this legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate or discussion? Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: The intent of this amendment, supplementary to what my colleague had to say, is to—

Interjection.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’ll move it closer to me. There we go.

Supplementary to my colleague—is to reduce red tape and to try—and I know that the members opposite strive to do that as well. I think we all agree that what we want to work towards, including my colleague from Windsor—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Tecumseh.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Tecumseh; sorry—is also to put the right conditions in place for business to succeed. That’s the premise of this particular amendment.

Chair, through you, we’re prepared to vote when you’re ready.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Mr. Hatfield.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I wasn’t going to say anything. I’ll just say that it would undermine enforcement, so I’ll be opposing it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Are we in a position to vote on the bill? Let’s begin with the vote.

Shall motion 27.2 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Interruption.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Someone was upset by that, I think. They protested through the microphone.

We are now in a position to deal with schedule 1, section 18. It has not been amended. First, is there any debate on schedule 1, section 18?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Can I ask a question first?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Yes, you can.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Are we going to vote on section 17?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Seventeen, yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Sorry? Are we going to vote on—

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): On 17, yes. What happened in section 17 is that two other motions that were presented by the PC Party were stood down, and so once the connected motions are dealt with, then we’ll return to section 17.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): No problem, Mr. Hatfield.

Debate on schedule 1, section 18? Any debate? Yes, Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: From the loyal opposition, the PC Party of Ontario, we just reinforce the position that we feel that policy statements are an unnecessary addition to the bill. We just want to revisit that because they will simply create regulatory burden and overlap that really and truly Ontario businesses, working hard to reduce waste, should not have to be subjected to.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The government doesn’t support the PCs’ voting recommendation. The government votes to carry this section.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay. Thank you for that, Ms. Mangat. Any additional debate? Seeing none, let’s vote now on this section.

Shall schedule 1, section 18, carry? I heard a no. All those in favour of schedule 1, section 18? All those opposed? The section carries.

Now we’re dealing with motion 27.3: schedule 1, section 19. It’s a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 19 of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Form or format

“19. The minister may establish guidelines to specify the form or format in which the information to be provided under section 17 must be submitted.”

Thank you, Chair, and through you to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Simply put, this particular amendment would reserve the power for the minister and stop the director from determining the form or format of the information.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional comments? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion would interfere with the ability of the ministry to conduct reviews as needed, so the government doesn’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate or comments? Seeing none, shall we vote on this motion? Okay.

All those in favour of motion 27.3? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

We’re now in a position to deal with schedule 1, section 19. Before we begin with the vote, are there any comments or debate with respect to this section? Seeing none, are we now in a position to vote on this section? Yes?

Shall schedule 1, section 19, carry? Did I hear a no? Okay. All those in favour? All those opposed? The section carries.

Next is motion 27.4. It’s a PC motion addressing schedule 1, subsection 20. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 20(3) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Notice

“(3) The minister shall give notice to the public at least 10 days before issuing a declaration.”

To my colleague, through you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Essentially, it’s all about accountability and transparency. I feel strongly that this amendment would build more credibility into Bill 151 because it would require the minister to actually provide a declaration to the public before actually issuing it. It makes sense.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The provision, as drafted, already provides parties to the affected hearing a minimum of 30 days to take steps to respond to the effect of the declaration on the hearing. So the government doesn’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Are we in a position to vote on this motion? Oh, yes. Sorry, Mr. Hatfield. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I agree with the government on this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay. Thank you very much for that, Mr. Hatfield.

Are we in a position to vote on motion 27.4?

Shall 27.4 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Moving now to motion 27.5, also a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 20(4) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “the tribunal’s or board’s decision is not final or binding with respect to the issues identified in the declaration” at the end and substituting “the tribunal or board shall have regard for the declaration.”

1620

Through you to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: This is all about democracy—this particular amendment—in the sense that people are chosen based on their merit and their expertise to sit on a tribunal. They have an honour and a duty to perform accordingly. This amendment would remove the minister’s power to nullify a tribunal’s or board’s decision.

We worry that from time to time decisions could be political or perhaps a favour to a particular stakeholder and the minister could feel compelled, for various reasons like funding donations or things like that, to do a particular stakeholder’s bidding. We just want to make sure that the minister doesn’t have the power to overturn the genuine goodwill of people sitting around a tribunal table. That’s why we came forward with this particular amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The declaration of provincial interest is a key tool for the government to maintain a level of oversight in the application of the provincial interest and policy statements. This motion would undermine the effect of the minister’s declaration on a matter of provincial interest, so the government doesn’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, shall we vote on the motion? Okay.

Shall motion 27.5 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Now PC motion 27.6: I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 20(4) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out.

To my colleague, through you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, we feel very strongly that democracy is being supported with this particular amendment. We recognize and value the hard work and the willingness of people to come forward and sit at a tribunal table or on a board, and we would hate for their best efforts to be turned over or tinkered with in regard to a minister maybe having to give in to some external pressures, if you will.

This particular amendment would remove the minister’s power to nullify a tribunal’s or board’s decision. Just as we have stated earlier, we want to prevent the minister, who could be experiencing external pressures, from interfering in any way with the decision-making process of a board or tribunal.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: As I said earlier, and I’m going to reiterate it, the motion would undermine the effect of the minister’s declaration on a matter of provincial interest, so we don’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate or comments? Mr. Hatfield.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Me neither.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Sounds good, Mr. Hatfield. Thank you. Always succinct and to the point.

Shall we vote on motion 27.6? Excellent. Shall motion 27.6 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

The next motion is PC motion 27.7. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 20(5) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Power of Lieutenant Governor in Council

“(5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may require the tribunal or board to have regard for the declaration when they decide the issue.”

Through you, Chair, to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, there’s a common theme happening here and it’s because we in the PC Party of Ontario want to stand up for democracy and allow tribunals and boards to work in the manner in which they’ve been appointed. This particular amendment would stop the government from rescinding a tribunal or board decision.

Again, in working with our stakeholders, we heard time and again concern over the exact authority and opportunity for a minister to have direct influence on an outcome, and we’re trying to do our best in standing up for stakeholders we value. We would instead give the board and the tribunal the due respect that they deserve, and therefore stop the government from rescinding any decision made.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional comments? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion would undermine the Lieutenant Governor’s power to confirm, vary or rescind a decision of the tribunal and board, so the government doesn’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional comments? Mr. Hatfield.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I keep hearing my friends to the right wrap the flag around democracy when they make this presentation. I do not believe that democracy is threatened in any way by the original motion, so I won’t be supporting their amendments. I just want it on the record that I don’t agree with their argument that democracy is in danger if these amendments are not supported.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional comments or debate? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on the motion? Yes? Okay.

Shall motion 27.7 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

The next motion is PC motion 27.8. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 20(5) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out.

To my colleague, through you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): We recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Essentially, this amendment, as well as protecting the decision-making of any board or tribunal, in particular will prevent the minister from interfering in the decision-making process.

I can’t stress enough that people who get appointed to the boards or tribunals go through a rigorous selection process and they should be allowed to do the job that they feel they’ve been appointed to do. Quite frankly, I must say that we have been given just cause to not trust this government based on the manner in which they have conducted themselves, be it the gas plants scandal etc. Therefore, we feel we need to do what we can to protect the decision-making process associated with boards and tribunals.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion is related to a series of motions aimed at restricting the implementation of the bill, so we will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional comments or discussion?

We should recognize Mr. Tabuns, who has entered the committee.

Just in case Mr. Hatfield was distracted, any additional comments? Mr. Hatfield, would you perhaps like a brief recess? Would that benefit you?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: No, we’re fine.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Chair, are we ready for the vote?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I think we are. Is everybody ready for a vote at this point?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I think yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay, sounds good.

Shall motion 27.8 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Now we are at motion number 27.9. It’s a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Actually, Chair, we would like to withdraw this particular motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson. I have noted it as withdrawn.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Those complete the motions for section 20.

We are now in a position to vote on schedule 1, section 20. Before we do that, is there any debate on schedule 1, section 20? No debate? Yes, I recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, again, we stand firmly. We heard from stakeholders time and again that creating policy statements is just an effort to add to the regulatory burden and there’s the threat of duplication, then, as well as conflict. We stand for reducing red tape for businesses. We should be inspiring and encouraging innovations and efficiencies as opposed to laying more red tape down on businesses’ shoulders.

1630

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate on schedule 1, section 20? Seeing none, are we now in a position to vote on schedule 1, section 20? Yes.

Shall schedule 1, section 20, carry? I heard a no. All those in favour? All those opposed? The section carries.

Moving to motion 27.10—this is seeking to amend subsection 21: I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 21(1) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Corporation dissolved

“(1) The corporation without share capital established under section 3 of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 under the name Waste Diversion Ontario in English and Réacheminement des déchets Ontario in French is dissolved on the day this subsection comes into force.

“Authority established

“(1.1) A corporation without share capital is hereby established under the name Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority in English and Office de la productivité et de la récupération des ressources in French.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I just have to make note, Mr. Coe: Well done on the French.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Well, thank you. I’m from Montreal.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Très bien, mon ami.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Excellent surprise.

Ms. Thompson, would you like to provide an explanation?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Sure. I think nobody should be caught by surprise here when I say that the PC Party of Ontario has been very clear that we would scrap WDO, Waste Diversion Ontario, because it has failed to provide proper oversight. We shouldn’t be rewarding this agency because of their failure with new powers. Again, simply, we should be abolishing WDO and start with a new authority.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion would undermine the government policy advanced by the bill, so we will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on this motion? Yes.

Shall motion 27.10 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

We’re now in a position to deal with schedule 1, section 21. Before we do so, is there any debate on this section?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: It’s not debate, but I was wondering if there’s agreement that we could bundle 21, 22 and 23 since there are no amendments.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): That’s a great suggestion, Ms. Hoggarth. We’re just going to deal with this vote that we’re in right now. Once that’s dealt with, we can address your concern, which is a great suggestion, and we can ask everyone if they’re in agreement.

Back to schedule 1, section 21: Is there any debate on this section? No? Okay. Are we in a position to vote on this section? Okay.

Shall schedule 1, section 21, carry? I heard a no. All those in favour? All those opposed? The section carries.

We’ve now dealt with schedule 1, section 21, which puts us in a position to deal with PC motion 0.1, which was stood down before. What is your position, Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Chair, we’ll withdraw it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Motion 0.1 is withdrawn. Now to address—yes?

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Now we are able to deal with schedule—if you can all flip back to schedule 1, section 1. It has been amended, and that was one of the motions that was left. We’ve now dealt with motion 0.1, so we’re in a position to vote on schedule 1, section 1, as amended.

Is everyone with me? We’re back to schedule 1, section 1. There was one motion that was stood down. It has been dealt with, so now we’re able to deal with it. The question is: Before we begin, is there any debate on schedule 1, section 1—

Interjection: As amended.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): As amended, of course. Any debate? I don’t see any debate. Are we in a position to vote on schedule 1, section 1? Yes.

So shall schedule 1, section 1, as amended, carry? I heard a no. All those in favour of schedule 1, section 1? All those opposed? The section carries, as amended.

Members of the committee, we’re now in a position to deal with sections 22 and 23. Since these two sections don’t have any amendments, we can deal with them in a bundled fashion if the committee chooses to do so. Is there an agreement? As Ms. Hoggarth has raised this issue, it’s something that’s appropriate to do, if you would like. If not, there’s no issue with dealing with each section separately.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Bundle, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): So we have bundling here. Do we have bundling on the other side? Yes. Everyone is okay with bundling. Okay. So we’re bundling the two together.

Shall schedule 1, section 22, and schedule 1, section 23, carry? I heard a no. All those in favour of schedule 1, section 22, and schedule 1, section 23? All those opposed? The sections carry.

Now we are on schedule 1, section 24. The motion is 27.11. It’s a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 24 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause (a), by adding “and” at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clause:

“(c) to maintain a cost-effective budget.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Thompson for an explanation.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Simply put, the authorities shouldn’t have a blank cheque to operate. If they have a blank cheque, they could be spending it on whatever they so choose. We’ve seen proof-points over the last decade of how this hasn’t worked. I think of Ornge as a perfect example. We can’t trust this government to get it right.

So this amendment is really, really important, because we should require the authority to run a cost-effective budget, which is accountable, to ensure that excessive costs are not passed on to Ontario’s taxpayers or, in this particular case, consumers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The government carefully designed the authority’s mandate to minimize costs for the regulated community and to foster accountability and transparency regarding the authority’s fees and charges. So we will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: We’d like a recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote noted.

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is defeated.

We are now in a position to deal with section 24. There have been no amendments that have passed, so just as it is. Before we begin with the vote, is there any debate on section 24? I don’t see any debate. Are we in a position to vote on section 24? Yes, okay. Shall schedule 1, section 24 carry? I hear a no. All those in favour? All those opposed? The section carries.

If I could just have your brief indulgence, I have a question I want to ask.

Interjections.

1640

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Thank you very much for that indulgence.

We’re now moving to motion 27.12. It’s a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 25(3) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “five” at the end and substituting “three”.

Thank you, Chair. Through you, to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: This is all about being very careful and not allowing, again, perhaps, bending to outside pressures and the minister’s ability to stack the deck, so to speak.

Currently, the manner in which this bill, Bill 151, is written, the minister can appoint five people to the authority. We feel very strongly that this should be, in the spirit of proper democracy, a situation whereby we need to be very careful with how much power gets held by one person.

Therefore, we feel strongly that—and I think that it’s something that could be worked with—the number of ministerial appointees to the authority, who are facilitated by the minister, be reduced from five to three. Again, it’s all in the spirit of accountability.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The government already has the flexibility to change the number of ministerial appointments by regulation, so we don’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: You know, it’s really easy to say that the flexibility is there to tweak the numbers, so to speak. But with all due respect to the members opposite, past behaviour gives us reason not to trust that this particular initiative would be facilitated in an upfront, honest manner.

We’ve seen just today the National Post coming out with another exposé in terms of the type of fundraising that the Liberal Party has benefited from and how the funders, in return, have received special consideration.

We think it’s very important that we, on behalf of stakeholders, businesses, Ontario taxpayers and municipalities affected by this particular bill, be protected. We need to limit the minister’s authority and reduce the number of appointees that person is responsible for from five to three.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate and discussion? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on motion 27.12?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: We are.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Excellent. Now, the vote: Shall motion 27.12 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

The next motion is 27.13. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 25(4) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Same

“(4) The maximum number of members that may be elected under paragraph 2 of subsection (2) is six.”

Through you, Chair, to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, it’s about being very careful about the amount of power an individual minister can have on the outcome of the decisions made at the authority.

Let’s be real: If somebody is appointed to a board, there is going to some type of gratitude and some type of quid pro quo. We believe that in terms of protecting a straightforward, upfront process, we need to change, as well, the number of elected members on the board of this particular authority. To take that further, the number of elected members should not be changed at the whim of the minister. Again, minister’s appointees—five, as it’s defined by this particular bill—are already going to have too much sway, possibly, over the board.

This was a genuine concern that we heard on a regular basis from stakeholders. The consensus was that the minister should not have additional powers to limit or control the composition of the authority. Again, we have seen too many examples over the last decade or more as to how particular boards and organizations have failed and totally wasted Ontario tax dollars. It gives us concern, and the right to have concern, over this composition. Therefore, we feel strongly that the makeup of this particular authority with regard to elected members should not be tinkered with at the whim of the minister.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any addition? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The current proposed legislation before committee requires the minister to ensure that his or her appointments do not constitute a majority of the board. So this motion is unnecessary; we will not support it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? I don’t see any at this point. Are we ready to vote on the motion? Shall motion 27.13 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

The next motion is 27.14, a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 25(6) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Qualifications

“(6) A person must have expertise in recovered resources or waste management systems to be eligible to be appointed or elected under subsection (2).

“Other prescribed qualifications

“(6.1) The minister may make a regulation prescribing other qualifications or eligibility criteria for persons appointed or elected under subsection (2), and if the minister makes such a regulation only persons meeting those qualifications or eligibility criteria may be appointed or elected.”

Through you, Chair, to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: This particular amendment would require appointed and elected members of the authority to have expertise, to have a specialization in waste management or recovered resources. It’s important to recognize that, particularly in subsection 26(2), we also see provisions whereby appointees’ qualifications have been identified. This particular amendment, however, would limit the minister’s authority, again, to create new criteria for board members through regulation, by ensuring that any regulations must require members to specialize. Again, we need people coming forward that have proper professional judgment with regard to their experience in waste management or resource recovery.

We’ve seen the disaster that has taken place at WDO, Waste Diversion Ontario, with its so-called skills-based board. So we justifiably just don’t trust this government to get the appointees right in terms of this particular set of board members. Going forward, we’d like to ensure that board members are truly experts, as I’ve said before. The only way to ensure that the board has the right members is to set the requirements out in law.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I agree with the member that it’s very important to have skills-based members on the board; however, the minister also has the ability to make a regulation that establishes qualifications and eligibility criteria for the board member. So we will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would just like to remind everyone, and I’m sure a number of people in this committee room will agree, that WDO has been an absolute failure. We have to do everything we can to ensure that, going forward, the right people with the right expertise are around the table to guide forward.

1650

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate on this? Are we prepared to vote on this motion? Moving to the vote, shall motion 27.14 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Moving now to motion 27.15.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I apologize, Mr. Coe. We’re in a position to deal with section 25 now. Before we move to the next motion, let’s deal with section 25. Any debate on schedule 1, section 25? Yes, Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, we can’t stress enough that Ontario has been subjected to a complete failure at WDO. We’ve been very steadfast in our position, going back to 2012, in pointing out how Waste Diversion Ontario has failed Ontario, and this government needs to be held somewhat accountable for that. To that end, you would think that they would want to do better. You know what they say about repeating past mistakes. I am just surprised that they don’t want to ensure that they’re taking the most sincere proper steps forward to avoid this type of failure again.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate on this section? Seeing none, are we in a position now to vote? Yes. The question is, shall schedule 1, section 25 carry? I heard a no. All those in favour of schedule 1, section 25? All those opposed? The section carries.

Moving now to motion 27.15, dealing with section 26, a PC motion: I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that paragraph 1 of subsection 26(2) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “waste reduction” at the end and substituting “waste management systems”.

And through you, to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, I need to take a moment to share some sincere thoughts. I used to be a general manager of a dairy organization—a dairy co-operative, to be exact. I had the burden and honour—actually, the two go hand in hand—of growing the industry I represented. It wasn’t always easy, but what allowed me to excel was the fact that I was absolutely confident that every single person sitting around my board table had the expertise required to help grow the co-operative that I managed. I know how important this can be. Therefore, it’s so frustrating to hear, time and again, a government voting against thoughtful amendments that just make sense.

WDO, as it is today, as we’ve known it—dating back to 2012, we’ve called it out for the failure that it has been. For this government to perhaps not listen to thoughtful amendments is just mind-boggling, but then again it’s an example of where they have a majority and it’s their way or the highway, unfortunately. At the end of the day, it’s unfortunate in terms of the dent in democracy that happens because of that.

I think that the government and the members opposite would be very mindful and be taking a proper step to remove the reference to “waste reduction” and replace it with “waste management systems” to ensure that appointees have the expertise in waste management systems. Again, the point is to ensure that they have the specialization in waste management systems.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion would undermine the government’s policy, including reducing waste, advanced by the bill. So the government doesn’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on motion 27.15? Yes. Shall motion 27.15 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Now moving to motion 28: It’s an NDP motion. I recognize Mr. Tabuns.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity.

I move that paragraph 5 of subsection 26(2) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out.

Chair, as you may be aware, we have a number of interests in this bill. One of the interests is retaining the ability of the ministry to ensure compliance and carry out enforcement. There are a number of motions that we’ve put forward to that end. This is one of them.

I think that it has been pretty clear, from the presentations by environmental stakeholders, that retention of enforcement and compliance powers with the ministry are critical to ensure that this whole operation is run in a way that is democratically responsive. We’ve had difficulties in the past with designated authorities like the TSSA. There’s no need to repeat that experience.

This motion is one of a number to retain those powers with the ministry itself.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The authority is an oversight body, and it’s very important to give compliance and enforcement tools towards its success in this regard. We will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: We absolutely concur with the member of the third party with regard to the example he used, the TSSA. It has been an absolute burden and unnecessary. Actually, I’d be hard-pressed to come up with anything good about TSSA when I think about the conversations I’ve had with stakeholders. Using that as an example, it has just proven to be red tape and regulatory burden that bogs down advancements.

It’s an interesting motion the NDP have put forward. They certainly have listened to stakeholders. I agree with that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on this motion?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Recorded vote.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote is noted, Mr. Tabuns.

Recorded vote noted, and we’re now in a position to vote.

Ayes

Coe, Tabuns, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is lost.

We now move to motion 28.1. It’s PC: Mr. Coe?

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 26 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“Same

“(9.1) In appointing a member under subsection (9), the minister shall, to the extent possible, ensure that the board continues to be composed of individuals who collectively have experience and expertise in the areas listed in subsection (2).”

Now, Chair, through you, this amendment—and members of the committee—is largely legal cleanup. I know that you’ve gone through all the amendments, so you’ll know that.

It would require the minister to ensure that any individuals that are appointed to fill a vacancy on the board have expertise in areas listed under subsection (2)—for example, resource recovery, finance, etc.—as it’s laid out already in the legislation.

I stress, again, members of the committee, that this is just, largely, legal cleanup. My hope would be that you could see your way to support this amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The government doesn’t support this motion as we think it is duplicated through the provisions in the current proposed legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would just like to remind everyone of the deputation we heard from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. I don’t believe any words were mixed during that deputation. It was pointed out to all of us that it was felt by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce that Bill 151 was poorly drafted.

Bill 172 was a rushed piece of legislation. Again, it’s unfortunate that we have to do this type of cleanup in committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: If there are any vacancies on the authority’s initial board, it expected that any replacement members would meet the qualifications outlined in that, so we will not support it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate or discussion? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote? Yes. Shall motion 28.1 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is lost.

We’re now in a position to deal with schedule 1, section 26. Before we do so, any debate on this section? Seeing none, are we in position to vote on this section? Yes. Shall schedule 1, section 26, carry? I heard a no. All those in favour? All those opposed? The section carries.

1700

Now moving to PC motion 28.2: I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 27 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

“Designated waste subcommittees

“(2.1) The board of directors may establish a subcommittee for each class of designated waste”—

Interjections.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m on the wrong one? Okay, sorry. Motion 28.2—sorry about that.

I move that subsection 27(1) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

“(e) establishing a plan for the authority to maintain a cost-effective budget.”

Through you, I defer to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, again, this is about accountability, transparency and making the authority responsible. Looking back through the years, there are so many examples of lack of oversight and, as a result, a total waste of taxpayer dollars. We could talk about SAMS, we could talk about Ornge or we could talk about eHealth. It gives us absolute footing to caution everyone about how important it is to make authorities responsible. It only makes sense that this particular motion go through so that the authority will have to maintain a cost-effective budget.

Again, Chair, we can never give another organization a blank cheque on the backs of Ontario taxpayers. We’ve seen, time and again—I’ve mentioned different examples—how organizations and authorities set up under this government absolutely wasted valuable Ontario taxpayer dollars that could have gone toward front-line health care and that could have supported families with autistic children. The list could go on and on, but instead we saw hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions if you think about the gas plant, squandered and wasted because of the mismanagement of this government.

Enough is enough, Chair. We need and should require the authority to run a cost-effective budget. That’s just common sense. Anyone running a family budget or household, anyone running a small business or running a corporation would agree that no one should have a blank cheque. We hope the government will support the proper management of Ontarians’ money.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you, Chair. Let me just be clear: When it comes to transparency and accountability, our government has always shown leadership, and it’s very important to note that the proposed legislation has included a combination of measures to ensure the authority operates in a most cost-effective matter. We will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I think this is going to be a case where we’re going to have to respectfully agree to disagree because even in the last four years, we’ve seen money wasted on decadent meals and we’ve seen organization and arm’s-length authorities from the Liberal government waste dollars—Ornge, SAMS, eHealth; the list goes on and on.

Again, on behalf of Ontario taxpayers, I look across the room and I ask every member representing the government today to say, “You know what? We never, ever want to have another Ornge. We never, ever want to have another SAMS. We never, ever want to have another eHealth.” Do right and support this particular motion in support of the proper management of Ontario tax dollars.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Mr. Dhillon?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Oh, he wanted me to explain something.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Oh. Anyone else? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion is related to a number of PC motions related to the authority to maintain a cost-effective budget. We will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, unfortunately, again, this is just another reason why this government is proving itself to be out of touch and why it can’t be trusted. Probably, I would dare say, Ontario taxpayers will have the final say in 2018.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate or questions on this motion? Shall we vote on this motion, motion 28.2? Shall motion 28.2 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Moving to 28.3—it is a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 27 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

“Designated waste subcommittees

“(2.1) The board of directors may establish a subcommittee for each class of designated waste.

“Subcommittee composition

“(2.2) A subcommittee established under subsection (2.1) shall be composed of,

“(a) representatives of brand holders, as defined in section 59;

“(b) representatives of owners or operators of waste management systems; and

“(c) representatives of municipalities.

“Subcommittee duties

“(2.3) A subcommittee established under subsection (2.1) shall provide advice to the board of directors on improving waste diversion for the designated waste and minimizing costs for consumers and taxpayers.”

Now, Chair, this motion would give the board of directors the ability to create a subcommittee based on each designated waste and would require that the membership of each committee consist of brand holders, service providers and municipalities.

It’s our hope that the government would consider this amendment and vote in favour of what, when you look at it in its totality, is a very important change to assure that the authority has the advice it needs for brand holders, service providers and municipalities.

I spoke earlier in our discussion today about the impacts of this legislation on municipalities. I don’t want to lose sight of that as we consider and move through the balance of these amendments, because they’re significant.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The authority’s bylaws already allow the authority to establish subcommittees, which could be made up of industry representatives, including producers, waste service providers or municipalities, so we will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Yes, Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, again, this is a very important change. We need to make sure we have the right people around the table making the informed decisions that should be expected of an authority of this particular nature. It just stands to reason that an authority, overall, would be well informed and benefit from subcommittees that provide expert advice specifically on electronics, tires, packaging and other materials.

This is a common-sense amendment that really should be supported.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, shall we move to the vote? Shall motion 28.3 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

The next motion is 28.4. It is a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 27(3) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Consultation

“(3) Despite subsection (1), the board of directors shall not pass a bylaw unless the proposed text was made available for public comment on the registry for a period of at least 30 days.

“Availability to public

“(3.1) The authority shall make each of its bylaws available to the public on the registry within five days after the bylaw is made.”

Now, Chair, we have some new members on the government side today. I know that the parliamentary assistant was here, and one of the continual themes we talked about at that time—I know they appreciate the context of that—was accountability and transparency. This particular amendment speaks to that. For now, I’ll leave it at that. I know that my colleague will have some added comments as well, but stay with that for a moment—the accountability and transparency in this is the spirit of this particular amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The proposed legislation already requires the authority to publicly post its bylaws on its registry within 30 days of being made, so we will not support this motion.

1710

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Does anyone else want to add to the debate? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: You know, a lot can happen in 30 days. I think the public and Ontario taxpayers deserve to feel trust in the manner in which this authority has been established. Five days: I’m thinking and reflecting on how municipalities publish their bylaws and come forward in an efficient time manner—organizations, as well.

I think that it would be easy to do. If this government truly was committed to accountability and transparency, they would be voting for this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, are we prepared to vote on this motion? Yes, okay. Shall motion 28.4 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is lost.

Motion 28.5, PC motion: I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 27(4) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out.

Chair, this amendment would remove subsection (4), which continues Waste Diversion Ontario’s bylaws under the authority. In previous conversations, committee members, we’ve been very clear as a caucus that we want to scrap Waste Diversion Ontario. We don’t simply want to continue this agency under a new name, and this legislation does that. That’s the basis for this particular motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion could also jeopardize the seamless transition of the existing programs into a new responsibility model, so we will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, the fact of the matter is that WDO was an absolute failure. You’re just folding one failure into a potential second failure. We feel this particular motion would strengthen the approach.

I’d ask for a recorded vote.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote is noted.

Additional debate? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on this motion? Yes.

Shall motion 28.5 carry?

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is lost.

That completes all the amendments for section 27. We’re now in a position to deal with schedule 1, section 27. Is there any debate on this section? Yes, Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, it’s all about accountability. We can’t repeat the dismal failures that cost Ontario taxpayers in the past. Again, Ornge, SAMS, eHealth—the list could go on and on. We need to actually move forward in a proper manner.

We’ve been very consistent about this since 2012. We were optimistic when we saw a lot of our suggestions that date back to 2012 embraced and somewhat embedded into Bill 151. But, quite frankly, it doesn’t go far enough.

We feel very strongly that one aspect that would build more integrity into what this government is trying to achieve through Bill 151 would be scrapping WDO. If that’s not the case, for goodness’ sake, let’s set up the authority in a manner in which people feel good about the minister’s appointees, as well as the elected board, and that there is cost-effectiveness built in in terms of transparency and accountability. We should do right, as opposed to just following talking points.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate on section 27? Seeing none, are we now in a position to vote on section 27? Yes.

Shall schedule 1, section 27, carry? I heard a no. On this section: All those in favour of schedule 1, section 27? All those opposed? The section carries.

Just a moment’s indulgence.

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Thank you very much for that indulgence.

We’re now in a position to deal with motion 28.6, a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 28(2) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Same, transition

“(2) The authority shall enter into an initial transitional operating agreement with the minister and may, for this purpose, adopt the operating agreement between the minister and Waste Diversion Ontario that is in force under the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 immediately before this section comes into force.

“Same, transition

“(2.1) The initial transitional operating agreement referred to in subsection (2) is in force until the day it is replaced under subsection (4) or until 180 days after it was adopted, whichever is earlier.”

I’ll defer to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s important to develop a new operating agreement as soon as possible because, simply, we don’t want the authority to become another Waste Diversion Ontario, just with a different name. We feel that this amendment makes sense in that it would require the board to put a new operating agreement in place within 180 days of the bill being passed.

I would ask that we have a recorded vote as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote is noted.

Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This motion would make legislation unworkable so we will not support it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on this motion? Yes.

Shall motion 28.6 carry?

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is defeated.

We now move to PC motion 28.7. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 28 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“Exception

“(3.1) Despite subsection (3), the operating agreement shall not set out,

“(a) any new powers for the authority;

“(b) any new duties for brand holders, as defined in section 59;

“(c) any new duties for owners or operators of waste management systems; or

“(d) any new duties for municipalities.”

Chair, this amendment would ensure that the authority remains limited in size and scope—again, relating back to our earlier discussion and comments—by prohibiting the operating agreement to set out any new powers for the authority and any new duties for brand holders, service providers and municipalities. We don’t want the authority to impose any new duties on the stakeholders that I just referred to.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The authority is already required by law to follow its objects as outlined in the current proposed legislation, so we will not support this legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I hope we don’t have short memories because we can never, ever have another runaway agency like the Ontario Power Authority. This particular motion will keep the authority limited in size and scope. It is about ensuring that there’s no scope creep, so to speak.

This is a very sensible amendment that we hope the government agrees with and will vote in favour of. It’s just about keeping things straightforward. We don’t want the authority to take on any new powers that are not set out in the bill because we’ve been voted down. We worry about the makeup in terms of the appointees and the elected members already. If there’s a certain person that gets placed on this board by design, who knows where the scope and the authority and direction of this authority could go?

Again, we want to caution: We can’t afford another OPA. This is a sensible amendment that should be supported by everyone in this room.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on motion 28.7?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

1720

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote is noted.

Shall motion 28.7 carry?

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is defeated.

Next is motion 28.8, a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 28 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

“Publication of proposed agreement

“(4.1) The minister shall publish the proposed transitional operating agreement referred to in subsection (4) for public comment on the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 before it is entered into.

“Publication of agreement

“(4.2) The minister shall publish the transitional operating agreement referred to in subsection (4) on the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 after it is entered into.”

Chair, the context here would be to require the transitional operating agreement and the final transitional operating agreement on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry for public comment. If you subscribe, as I know the members do in this committee, to accountability, access and transparency, my hope would be that the members of the committee can see their way to support this particular amendment because underpinning it is simply that: access, transparency and accountability.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: This requirement is already included in the proposed legislation, under subsection 28(9) in schedule 1, so this is redundant. We will not support it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Recorded vote.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote is noted.

Are we in a position to vote on this motion? Yes? Excellent.

Shall motion 28.8 carry?

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is defeated.

We now move to motion 28.9, a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 28 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“Publication of notice

“(6.1) The minister shall publish a notice referred to in subsection (6) on the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 on the day it is served on the authority.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional comments?

Mr. Lorne Coe: The basis for this particular amendment is to improve the transparency of government decision-making. I think it’s what we as elected representatives describe ourselves to try to do. That’s the basis for this particular amendment. My colleague to my left will have some additional comments on this as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Chair, as you know, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is a prescribed ministry under the Environmental Bill of Rights. The ministry will determine to what extent that act will apply to the proposed legislation. So we are not favouring this amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate on this motion?

Mr. Lorne Coe: A recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote is noted. Thank you, sir.

Are we prepared to vote on this motion? Yes?

Shall motion 28.9 carry?

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is lost.

Moving now to motion 28.10, a PC motion: Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 28 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

“Publication of proposed agreement

“(7.1) The minister shall publish a proposed amendment referred to in subsection (7) for public comment on the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 before it takes effect.

“Publication of agreement

“(7.2) The minister shall publish an updated version of the operating agreement on the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 on the day that an amendment referred to in subsection (7) takes effect.”

And through you, to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Simply put, this is a sincere attempt to improve the transparency associated with the government decision-making.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Chair, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is a prescribed ministry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, and the ministry will determine to what extent that act will apply to the proposed legislation. We will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote is noted.

Is there any additional debate? Are we prepared to vote on this motion?

Shall 28.10 carry?

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is lost.

We move now to motion 28.11. This is a PC motion. Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 28(8) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding “on and after the day it is entered into” at the end.

Chair, through you, to my colleague.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: This amendment is simply going to make it clear that the operating agreement shall be posted on the registry on or after the day it is entered into. Again, it’s all in the spirit of transparency.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The authority is already required to make the operating agreement available to the public on its registry, so we will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, are we prepared to vote on this motion?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote is noted.

Shall motion 28.11 carry?

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is lost.

We are now in a position to deal with section 28. Before we do so, is there any debate on schedule 1, section 28? Yes, Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, we stand firmly on the side of accountability and transparency and we would have hoped that this government, given its past blunders over the last decade or so, would have actually wanted to take an opportunity to show that they have learned from their mistakes. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing here today does not give us any sense of confidence in that regard.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none, are we in the position now to vote on schedule 1, section 28? Was there a recorded vote on this?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay. Recorded vote on schedule 1, section 28.

Ayes

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

Nays

Coe, Thompson.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The section carries.

We now move to section 29 and motion 28.12, a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 29 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“Publication

“(1.1) The minister shall publish the policy direction on the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 on the day it is issued to the authority.”

Through you, Chair, to my colleague.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: You know, I have to share a comment at this time with regard to the EBR.

Constituents are very astute. They use connectivity very well. I can tell you it doesn’t matter whether it’s the Green Energy Act or Bill 151, they are looking to give comment. In the past, it would be safe to say government consultation has left a little bit to be desired. It just stands to reason—it’s an effort to support democracy with regard to posting to the EBR to allow people to see it and to comment on it.

Again, what are they afraid of? In terms of improving on past mistakes, you would think this government would do everything they could to improve transparency and allow people a view into their decision-making.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Chair, the government already has the ability to require the authority to do so. We will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote is noted.

No additional debate being seen, we’re now in a position to vote on the motion.

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is lost.

We move now to motion 29.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Chair?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Yes?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Can we just have a five-minute break?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Absolutely. There are two ways to do it—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Would people be amenable just for a quick restroom break?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Yes, we can ask everyone if everyone is okay with it. Should we just make it 10 minutes, then?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: No, five minutes.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: No, five is fine, I think.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Five is fine.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Five is fine. Everyone is okay with five.

Okay, fine. A five-minute break. We’ll be back in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1731 to 1737.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The committee is now resumed. I call to order the committee. Thank you so much. You’re all so lovely. Thank you for coming to order. I appreciate that. It’s a great thing to see.

We begin with government motion 29. I recognize Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I move that section 29 of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Policy directions

“29(1) If the minister considers it advisable in the public interest to do so, the minister may issue public directions to the authority relating to the authority’s carrying out of its objects.

“Notice

“(2) The minister shall give the authority the notice that the minister considers reasonable in the circumstances before issuing a policy direction.

“Implementation

“(3) The authority shall carry out its objects in a manner that is consistent with any policy directions issued by the minister.

“Policies under Waste Diversion Act, 2002

“(4) A policy established under section 7 of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 that was in effect immediately before this section comes into force continues in effect as a policy direction under this section until it is revoked.”

Chair, I support this recommendation because it’s very critical for the continuation of existing waste diversion programs until they are wound up.

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Sorry, Ms. Mangat. I guess there was an issue with the reading of subsection (1). If you could just reread that subsection (1) component—subsection 29(1).

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Okay.

“29(1) If the minister considers it advisable in the public interest to do so, the minister may issue policy directions to the authority relating to the authority’s carrying out of its objects.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Thank you very much.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I did read it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Pardon me?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I did read it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I think you did. There was just an issue that counsel brought up.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I think it has now been addressed. Thank you very much. Would you like to provide an explanation to this motion?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Yes, Chair. I said that continuation—no, what did I say?—that this motion is very important because of the continuation of existing waste diversion programs until they are wound up. So we favour it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Do you know what? I think it’s important that we recognize this amendment for what it really is: It’s setting up the opportunity to extend policies set for Waste Diversion Ontario. We’ve been very clear, again, dating back to 2012, that Waste Diversion Ontario has proven to be a failed initiative. Because of that, we would scrap it completely.

We oppose the government’s attempt to sneak in a provision that would keep WDO’s policies alive because, again, we’re very clear on our position: We, the PC Party of Ontario, would scrap WDO and start over with a new authority—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Thank you, Ms. Thompson. Sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: No, plain and simple, that’s it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Seeing no additional debate, are we prepared to vote on this motion? Yes.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote is noted.

Shall motion 28.12 carry? All those in favour—

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: No, no, no.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: No, no, no.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: No, no, no.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): You’re all paying attention. Well done. You guys are ready. I got you on your toes.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It was a listening test.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I’ll keep that going. I can’t slide anything by you. You folks are too sharp. Good to know.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: We may not look it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): No, no; it definitely looks like it, too. No disrespect to anybody.

Back to the motion: Shall motion 29 carry?

Ayes

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

Nays

Coe, Thompson.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is carried.

Now we move to section 29, as amended. Is there any debate on section 29, as amended? I recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, you know what? I feel compelled to have to speak about this because WDO has been an absolute failure. The fact that they’re sneaking in provisions to carry on policies and they’re not taking into consideration the importance of accountability and transparency is baffling.

The fact of the matter is that we should be working together to improve this bill. By opposing so many of our amendments, clearly this government has no intention of doing just that. They’re content with their mismanaged ways and they have no interest in improving.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? No, I don’t see any. Are we prepared to vote on schedule 1, section 29?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote is requested on this vote, and it will be honoured.

Shall schedule 1, section 29 carry—

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): As amended.

Let me say that again, then: Shall schedule 1, section 29, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

Nays

Coe, Thompson.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The section carries—

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): —as amended.

It’s important to always say “as amended” if it’s amended. Some people like to forget to say that. I don’t know who those people are. But some people are reminded, and I appreciate the reminders.

We’re on motion 29.1. It’s a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that section 30 of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Consultations, etc.

“30. The minister may do any of the following:

“1. Conduct consultations with the public, with persons who have relevant experience or knowledge, or with both, on any matter related to resource recovery or waste reduction.

“2. Establish one or more advisory councils to provide advice to the authority on matters related to carrying out its objects.”

This amendment clearly removes the authority from the consultation process and ties back to our earlier narrative on that aspect. Instead, it allows the minister, which I hope my colleagues opposite will support, to conduct consultations on resource recovery and waste reduction, as well as establish advisory councils.

Clearly, what we’ve been advocating through this process yesterday and today as well is that the minister should manage consultations on waste diversion policy, not the authority.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): I recognize Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The government doesn’t support this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, we just have to reiterate the fact that the policy development needs to be dealt with in the proper forum. We should not ever see or allow the authority to become a policy shop.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional debate? Seeing none, are we in a position to vote on this motion? Yes? Okay.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote is noted.

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Motion 29.1 fails.

Motion 29.2: a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that paragraph 1 of section 30 of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out.

I defer, though you, to my colleague, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, simply, we’re disappointed that the previous motion was voted against, but we stand firmly. The authority should not become a policy shop. This amendment reinforces that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Mangat?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: We don’t support this, Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Seeing none—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote noted.

Are we in a position to vote on this motion? Yes.

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion, very surprisingly, fails.

Motion 29.3: a PC motion. I recognize Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Actually, Chair, we’re going to withdraw this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay. The motion is withdrawn.

We are now moving to motion 30. It’s a government motion. I recognize Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I move that paragraphs 1 and 2 of section 30 of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“1. Conduct consultations with the public, or with persons or entities that have relevant experience or knowledge, on any matter that the minister specifies related to resource recovery, waste reduction or the circular economy.

“2. Advise or report to the minister on any matter related to,

“i. resource recovery, waste reduction or the circular economy, or

“ii. the authority’s objects.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Chair, this motion enhances the public consultation and transparency, so I will vote in favour of this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate? Mr. Coe?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Obviously, we have a fundamental philosophical difference here in terms of who should be doing the consultation. Our belief is that the environment ministry should be responsible for policy development, not the authority. That’s our premise on this. We don’t want the authority to become a policy shop. My colleague talked about it.

The problem we have with the authority, of course, is that it’s fundamentally broken. Now we see a direction that they will be having a more significant role in policy development, and we won’t support that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote has been requested. Government motion 30: Are we in a position to vote? Yes?

Ayes

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat, Tabuns.

Nays

Coe, Thompson.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion carries.

Next, we have—on this motion, Mr. Tabuns—

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Yes, I’m well aware of that. The municipal advisory body motion that had been proposed earlier was defeated. This is now redundant. I’m not moving it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is not being moved.

We are now in a position to deal with section 30, as amended. Before we go to the vote, is there any debate on section 30, as amended? No debate on section 30, as amended? Okay. Are we now in a position to vote on section 30, as amended? Yes? Okay. Shall schedule 1, section 30, as amended, carry? I heard a no.

1750

Mr. Lorne Coe: Recorded vote, please, Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The vote has already begun.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Very well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Next time, please give me a heads-up in advance.

All those in favour of section 30, as amended? All those opposed? It’s carried, as amended.

We now move to motion 31.1, dealing with section 31, a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 31(1) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “financial matters” at the end and substituting “financial matters, including the maintenance of a cost-effective budget”.

And I’d like a recorded vote on it, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Certainly.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Here again we have a situation where our expectation is a requirement that the authority run a cost-effective budget to ensure that successive costs are not passed on to consumers. We hope that the government will support the proper management of taxpayers’ money. I’ll defer to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, we’re not going to stop our position and stop our attempts to make this particular bill and, ultimately, the authority more accountable. We can’t stress enough—we’ve seen how OPA has grown out of control. We’ve seen the absolute failures of Ornge, eHealth, SAMS.

We’re very concerned that this government is using the same old recipe and they’re going to get the same old results. So we’re going to do our job as the loyal opposition and put forward thoughtful amendments that will build in accountability. There is no way we should be just offering, as I mentioned before, a blank cheque. We feel that it’s only common sense. It’s the way anyone should run a business: that a cost-effective budget is in place to ensure that excessive costs are not passed on to consumers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Chair, we don’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, I guess that says a lot. The Liberal government just doesn’t believe in supporting proper management of Ontarians’ dollars.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: None.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: The 407 wasn’t good management.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Hoggarth?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: No, it’s okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): No additional debate? Are we in a position to vote—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote? Yes, noted. Are we in a position to vote on this motion? Yes.

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The motion is lost.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Chair?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Yes, Ms. Hoggarth?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Can we bundle the next two?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Yes. We’re just going to vote on this one and then we can deal with bundling—we can only bundle the one, I think.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Oh.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): We can’t bundle any, actually, because the other ones have amendments.

We’re now in a position to deal with schedule 1, section 31. First of all, is there any debate on this section? Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, I believe it’s very disheartening that this government will not support any amendments that bring in accountability to this particular authority. We have seen other entities created by this government run away with ill-conceived ideas and no caution as to responsibility for properly spending Ontario’s taxpayer dollars. We think this government is making a mistake in turning a blind eye to the importance of a cost-effective budget, and we’re just wanting to go on record that we’re very disappointed in that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Additional debate?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Chair, the government doesn’t support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Thank you, Ms. Mangat.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Recorded vote.

We are dealing with schedule 1, section 31. We’ve had debate.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Oh, sorry, Chair. Yes. It is to carry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): We’re just debating on schedule 1, section 31.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Oh, okay. Carry on.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay. It’s a recorded vote. We are going to vote now on schedule 1, section 31.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Not amended?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): It’s not amended.

Ayes

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

Nays

Coe, Thompson.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): The section carries.

We now can deal with schedule 1, section 32. There are no amendments. Any debate on schedule 1, section 32? No debate? Shall we move to a vote? Yes? Shall schedule 1, section 32 carry?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Not amended?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): If I don’t say “amended,” then it’s not amended. It’s only if I say the word “amended”—I think that’s the only time it’s amended, as far as I understand. Shall schedule 1, section 32 carry? Carried.

We can now move to the next motion, which is motion 31.2, dealing with section 33. It’s a PC motion. I recognize Mr. Coe.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I move that subsection 33(2) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

“(c.1) a description of any measures the authority intends to take in the fiscal year to adhere to a cost-effective budget;”

Chair, this amendment would require the authority to include in his business plan to the minister a description of how it intends to adhere to a cost-effective budget. That’s not out of line with what is the current practice within the civil service to begin with, in terms of accountability of how money is spent.

It’s not out of line with what you would see as a practice within the private sector: When you have a business plan, you have measures that are built into it that demonstrate on a quarterly basis the extent to which you’re meeting your financial goals. We’re taking an approach on this that is business-like. But, at the end of the day, it allows a degree of transparency and accountability that’s already in practice within the civil service, and it demonstrates very clearly how well money is spent or is not spent.

That’s not an unreasonable expectation that not only committee members should have in this particular room, but it’s an expectation of the people that we serve have. It’s how their tax dollars are spent, and, if there’s transparency, they can see how well that’s been done or not. It’s not about being partisan one way or the other; it’s just a reasonable business expectation, Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Any additional comments? Any debate?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: None. We will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Ms. Mangat.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: We will not support this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Okay.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): A recorded vote is noted. We are dealing with motion 31.2 in section 33.

Ayes

Coe, Thompson.

Nays

Anderson, Dhillon, Hoggarth, Lalonde, Mangat.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): Motion 31.2 fails.

We are getting near—well, it’s a minute away from the end of our time here, but there are a couple of housekeeping matters that we need to address.

These are the only two days that we have scheduled to deal with clause-by-clause. As you can see before you, we have a thick package still, and we need to schedule some more days. I’ve instructed the Clerk to arrange for scheduling those additional days and having a subcommittee meeting to do so.

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): We just need to schedule it so it can be done. The next days are going to be May 9, 2 to 6 p.m. and May 10, 4 to 6 p.m.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Very well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jagmeet Singh): All right. We will adjourn to our next sitting day. Thank you all. The committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1800.

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016, Bill 151, Mr. Murray / Loi de 2016 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets, projet de loi 151, M. Murray SP-989

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY

Chair / Président

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto–Danforth ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Bramalea–Gore–Malton ND)

Mr. Granville Anderson (Durham L)

Mr. Lorne Coe (Whitby–Oshawa PC)

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest L)

Mr. John Fraser (Ottawa South L)

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Ottawa–Orléans L)

Mrs. Gila Martow (Thornhill PC)

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry (Cambridge L)

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Bramalea–Gore–Malton ND)

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto–Danforth ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms. Ann Hoggarth (Barrie L)

Mrs. Amrit Mangat (Mississauga–Brampton South / Mississauga–Brampton-Sud L)

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson (Huron–Bruce PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Katch Koch

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Pauline Rosenbaum, legislative counsel