The committee met at 1600 in committee room 2.

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015 Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 9, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to require the cessation of coal use to generate electricity at generation facilities / Projet de loi 9, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l’environnement pour exiger la cessation de l’utilisation du charbon pour produire de l’électricité dans les installations de production.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on General Government. Today we’re here to consider clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to require the cessation of coal use to generate electricity at generation facilities.

I’d like to welcome you all here this afternoon and congratulate you on all your good work that you’ve done to get us to this point on this important bill.

At this point, I would just like to remind members of the committee that we are on an order of the House. I’m not so sure that we will be required to comply at this point, because from what I understand, there is only one amendment that has come forward.

Are there any questions or introductory comments? Mr. Thibeault.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Really, no introductory comments. As we’re moving forward, I’d just like to ask that when we get to each motion, if we could actually have a recorded vote on each clause, please and thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you, Mr. Thibeault. There has been a request for a recorded vote on all aspects of the bill.

Any further discussion? There being none, we shall get down to business.

Section 1 of the bill: There were no amendments.

Shall section 1 carry?

Ayes

Berardinetti, Colle, Dickson, Hatfield, Hoggarth, McDonell, Pettapiece, Thibeault.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those opposed? There being none, I declare section 1 carried.

We shall move to section 2. There are no amendments.

Shall section 2 carry?

Ayes

Berardinetti, Colle, Dickson, Hatfield, Hoggarth, McDonell, Pettapiece, Thibeault.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those opposed? There are none. I declare section 2 carried.

Section 3: There is one amendment. I shall ask a member of the official opposition to read the amendment into the record. Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Short title

“3. The short title of this act is the Elizabeth Witmer Act (Ending Coal for Cleaner Air), 2015.”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any further discussion on the motion? I saw Mr. Thibeault first. Mr. Thibeault?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I find it very interesting that we’re having this conversation about an amendment to change the short title to talk about someone who did stuff in the past, but I think it’s important if we look at some of the comments that were made by my friends opposite, some of their comments.

But first, I think, one of them that I’d like to emphasize is a few things that were talked about by Ms. Witmer, that she was only promising to convert—and this is from a news article, I should clarify, from—oh, jeez—back in 2001, that says Ms. Witmer is “only promising to convert the Lakeview generating station to natural gas because it’s the oldest of the coal plants.”

They were only promising to do one. It was this government that moved forward and closed the rest of the coal-burning plants. Mr. Jim Bradley, the Liberal environment critic at that time, said in this article that there were bigger polluters and that more needed to be done.

I don’t think that it’s something we could support, changing the name, especially if you’re looking at comments that were coming from the member from Sarnia–Lambton: “I ... have a coal-fired generating plant in my riding, and we want to see it remain open....”

The member from Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant: “The member for Halton mentioned that shutting down coal plants would be a huge mistake. I concur.”

“I ask that the present government not overlook the fact that coal is both affordable and abundant.”

It was this government, Mr. Chair, that saw the importance of making sure that all coal-fired plants—and the door is closed to ensure that no coal-burning plants come back to Ontario. On this side, I don’t see renaming this short title as anything relevant to the bill.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I saw Mr. Hatfield with his hand up.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon. I was wondering if it would be in order to ask the mover of the motion to explain the background or the purpose behind the motion, because I’m not familiar with why it’s being moved.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much. Any further discussion? Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Of course, as the record shows, the minister at the time, Elizabeth Witmer, kicked off the closing of the coal plants. There’s no question you started off, I’m sure, with the worst case, which was Lakeview. That really was the realization under the former government, that these plants had to be closed.

We might have taken a different tack. We might have replaced the energy with clean energy versus this government, which shut down business, which allowed them to close it. We don’t think that was the way Ontario wanted to go. Basically, we’ve lost our manufacturing sector in this province, which certainly allows the closing.

I know that they promised in 2003 to do it by 2007, and in 2007 they promised to do it by 2011, and it was only done last year. It wasn’t an easy task to start; it wasn’t a cheap one. There are better ways of doing it, I would think, and I think history shows that. But you can’t change history. Elizabeth Witmer was the person who kicked this program off.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any further discussion? Ms. Hoggarth.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Well, there’s also the fact that while the PCs were in office, the use of dirty coal grew by 127%. In 2003, coal still accounted for 25% of generation.

Also, a former member of the opposition—and this is a quote: “Shutting down the coal-fired plants is going to be a huge mistake.” That was in December 2003; it’s from Hansard.

I do believe my colleague made it very clear that Ms. Witmer’s idea was only to convert the Lakeview generating station. I don’t think that she, by the looks of it, intended on doing any more. So I agree with my colleagues that renaming this bill would not be the way to go.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Mr. Colle.

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes, I was here during those years and I can recall the members of the then Tory government day after day after day saying how wonderful coal was, that there was clean coal technology that was available, that we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars to bring in these coal scrubbers that supposedly were going to make coal clean. They opposed every initiative to close down those coal plants all across this province.

The only reference here is that there was a promise to look at closing Lakeview. It was our government that closed Lakeview down, closed the rest of them down and got rid of them.

I wouldn’t mind if you paid respect to Elizabeth Witmer for that idea; she was a fine member. But it’s kind of rich to hear this party that was in power that opposed every initiative to close the coal power plants. It was going to be the end of the economy. You couldn’t replace them. There were going to be blackouts. Day after day after day they sat in this Legislature. Just look at the Hansard and see what they said, what their position was on coal closures.

That’s why we need this act, because we know that many of the members of the official opposition still believe that you can have such a thing as this oxymoron “clean coal.” They still believe in buying scrubbers and having coal plants. That’s why we need this legislation: to shut the door forever, permanently, because many in this province on the Conservative side still believe in that. They talked about it day after day after day, and then all of sudden, to claim now they were the great leaders in this movement to close down our coal—well, this is rich by 10 and a half times. I can’t stay quiet on this and cannot support it, as fine a member as Elizabeth Witmer was.

1610

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Yes. I find it rather interesting, if you want to go back in history, back a few years, and start talking about who said what. We have certainly gone through that recently with the Hydro One sale and what members of the Liberal caucus said at that time. We have quotes upon quotes from Hansard about opposing that sale of Hydro One. So I think it’s a little bit rich that the government side would be bringing up these points.

We all do know that Elizabeth Witmer was the one who started this process, and I think it’s only fitting that she should be recognized. If we had formed government at the time that you did, back in 2003, we would have continued on with this process to close these plants. To go back in history, quoting things that were said back then—I think you just have to look in the mirror and see what your caucus was saying about the Hydro One sale. That’s a totally ridiculous argument, in my opinion.

I am certainly in support of this change.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any further discussion?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I think I’ll have to vote against the motion, only because—and I have nothing against Elizabeth Witmer; I know her as a fine person—at no point did any member of the official opposition approach me or, as far as I know, my party to seek support for this bill, and I’ve had no opportunity to hold that discussion.

It’s only a name change, but to me it’s a substantive issue, because you’re actually putting the name of a former member on the official document. I think we should do that at times when it’s appropriate, but I haven’t yet been convinced. As minister, she may have launched the process, but a good period of time followed the initial launch of closing down one station, for the term of office that she was there, and I haven’t heard that other stations were closed after that.

For that simple matter—that we hadn’t been approached or lobbied or in any way tried to be convinced that this was a good step—I’ll have to vote against it.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any further discussion? There being none, I shall call for the vote on PC amendment 1.

Ayes

McDonell, Pettapiece.

Nays

Berardinetti, Colle, Dickson, Hatfield, Hoggarth, Thibeault.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare PC motion number 1 defeated.

As a result of the defeat of PC motion number 1, there are no amendments to section 3.

Is there any discussion on section 3? There being none, shall section 3 carry?

Ayes

Berardinetti, Colle, Dickson, Hatfield, Hoggarth, Thibeault.

Nays

McDonell, Pettapiece.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare section 3 carried.

We shall move to the title of the bill. Any discussion on the title of the bill? There being none, shall the title of the bill carry?

Ayes

Berardinetti, Colle, Dickson, Hatfield, Hoggarth, Thibeault.

Nays

McDonell, Pettapiece.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare the title of the bill carried.

Shall Bill 9 carry?

Ayes

Berardinetti, Colle, Dickson, Hatfield, Hoggarth, McDonell, Pettapiece, Thibeault.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those opposed? There being none, I declare Bill 9 carried.

To the members of the committee: Shall I report the bill, not amended, to the House?

Ayes

Berardinetti, Colle, Dickson, Hatfield, Hoggarth, McDonell, Pettapiece, Thibeault.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those opposed? There being none, I shall report the bill to the House—carried.

That is it for clause-by-clause consideration, ladies and gentlemen. I would just like to inform members of the committee that prior to the House rising last spring, there was consideration of bills, particularly Bill 30, so I’m just asking that we have a meeting next week. Perhaps the subcommittee could meet, or we could get some type of direction on where we go in the future. I’m just throwing that out to members of the committee.

Any further discussion? There being none, we will wait to hear back from members of the committee or from an order from the House on how we proceed in the general government committee in the future.

Thank you very much, everyone, for your hard work this afternoon. I wish you a great evening. This meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1616.

CONTENTS

Wednesday 21 October 2015

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015, Bill 9, Mr. Murray / Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre, projet de loi 9, M. Murray G-721

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Joe Dickson (Ajax–Pickering L)

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton–Lawrence L)

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Mr. Joe Dickson (Ajax–Pickering L)

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky (Windsor West / Windsor-Ouest ND)

Ms. Ann Hoggarth (Barrie L)

Ms. Sophie Kiwala (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)

Mr. Jim McDonell (Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry PC)

Ms. Eleanor McMahon (Burlington L)

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson (Huron–Bruce PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

Mr. Percy Hatfield (Windsor–Tecumseh ND)

Mr. Randy Pettapiece (Perth–Wellington PC)

Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury L)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Tara Partington, legislative counsel