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

February 19, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Feb-19 (PDF)

L102 - Wed 19 Feb 2014 / Mer 19 fév 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 19 February 2014 Mercredi 19 février 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

YOUTH SMOKING

PREVENTION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU TABAGISME CHEZ LES JEUNES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

TAXATION

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

MINING INDUSTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

FIRE SAFETY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

MINING INDUSTRY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GREEN ENERGY ACT

STEEL INDUSTRY

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

DARA HOWELL

EVENTS IN UKRAINE

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

VAUGHAN IN MOTION

TO CURE CANCER

OLYMPICS TRIBUTE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR

LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

ONTARIO IMMIGRATION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’IMMIGRATION

EN ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

IMMIGRATION POLICY

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

PETITIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TENANT PROTECTION

FAMILY SAFETY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AIR QUALITY

SHALE BEACH

AIR QUALITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER WORKPLACES

FOR A STRONGER ECONOMY ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’AMÉLIORATION

DU LIEU DE TRAVAIL AU SERVICE

D’UNE ÉCONOMIE PLUS FORTE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

YOUTH SMOKING

PREVENTION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU TABAGISME CHEZ LES JEUNES

Mr. Milloy, on behalf of Ms. Matthews, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 131,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 131, Loi modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Milloy moves second reading of Bill 131.

The Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to do this because he introduced it, and he’ll share.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, how do you know I will share?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a sense that you will.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was my pleasure to move second reading of this important bill,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. This is a bill that is being shepherded by the Minister of Health and today I wish to just welcome the debate here in this Legislature, and as you surmised, share my time with the Minister of Health. So with that, I will ask if I can turn it over to her.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good speech.

The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, good morning, Speaker. I rise today to talk further about Bill 131, the proposed Youth Smoking Prevention Act that I introduced on November 18, 2013. It would amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. I will also be speaking about proposed amendments to Ontario regulation 48/06, made under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Before I go any further, I really want to recognize the many officials in the ministry, in the health promotion division. Their hard work has brought this bill to us. I would also like to sincerely thank our partners, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, and the Ontario Lung Association. Their passionate advocacy on behalf of many Ontario families impacted by tobacco smoke has been instrumental in bringing forth this proposed legislation today.

We all know about the harmful effects of tobacco smoking. We all know about the lives it harms and the lives it takes every single day in this province and across the country. I think every one of us in this House understands our shared responsibility to protect Ontarians, particularly the youngest Ontarians, from the harmful effects of smoking. That means protecting our children from exposure to second-hand smoke. It also means preventing young Ontarians from taking up smoking in the first place.

I’m proud of our government’s record in this area. We have worked hard to toughen tobacco laws, ban smoking in public places and encourage more Ontarians to quit altogether, and I’m pleased that Ontario’s smoking rate has dropped as a result of our efforts. According to the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, 6% of grade 11 and 12 students had smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days, down from 12% in 2005—so half. In 2005, twice as many students in grades 11 and 12 had smoked. For the general population, smoking rates have declined by five percentage points since 2000, now at 18%.

But there is still more we can and I would say we must do. The first pillar of our action plan for health care is keeping Ontarians healthy. To make that happen, we’re determined to have the lowest smoking rate in Canada, a distinction currently held by British Columbia at 15%. The legislation we’re debating today would take the vital next step in ensuring that comes to pass. Bill 131, if passed, would take strong action to protect Ontarians from the harmful effects of exposure to tobacco smoke. It would help prevent young people from starting to use tobacco, and it would move us further along the path toward having the lowest smoking rate in Canada.

Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death, preventable disease and premature death in Ontario. Tobacco use accounts for about 13,000 deaths in our province every year. Speaker, I wager to say that if something else was causing 13,000 deaths in our province, we would all be supportive of efforts to reduce that. So 13,000 deaths—that’s enough to populate many of our communities—gone, every year; their families left behind to grieve their loss.

There is no question that the toll on individuals, on families and on communities is huge, as is the cost to our health care system; and that’s a heavy burden we all have to bear. Tobacco-related illnesses account for more than 10% of acute hospital days. Smoking also causes 80% of lung cancers and 80% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Every year, tobacco-related diseases cost the province about $1.9 billion, almost $2 billion, in direct health care expenses and an additional $5.8 billion in indirect costs such as lost productivity.

When we introduced our Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy in 2005, the serious harm to health that smoking tobacco could cause was already well known and well documented. However, new research shows that the health implications of tobacco use go beyond what was known when the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy was first implemented. For example, we now know that smoking can cause cancer not just in the lungs but in at least 18 different sites in our bodies. It can lead to increased post-surgical complications, and it can result in heart disease and stroke.

Knowing all this, our government is taking further measures to achieve our goal of making Ontario the healthiest place in North America to grow up and to grow old. Our proposed Youth Smoking Prevention Act is a logical next step in our efforts to promote the health of Ontarians and protect them, especially our young people, from tobacco use.

The first step, as I have said, was the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy, launched in 2005. We created that strategy in order to meet the challenge of reducing tobacco use in the province. It made Ontario a national and international leader in tobacco control. The strategy takes action on three fronts: The first is helping people to quit; the second is preventing people from taking up tobacco use, especially young people; and the third is protecting children and adults from exposure to tobacco use and tobacco smoke. We knew then that a comprehensive approach would be the most effective in reducing tobacco use.

The strategy initially focused on enforcing the Smoke-Free Ontario Act’s groundbreaking protections from second-hand smoke in bars, restaurants and other enclosed workplaces. To help stop young people from starting to smoke, and to protect youth from exposure to cigarette displays in stores, we later prohibited tobacco marketing displays in convenience stores—so-called “power walls.”

Subsequent amendments created even stronger protections for the young people of Ontario. In 2009, we protected kids from exposure to second-hand smoke in motor vehicles. In 2011, we announced our commitment to renew the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy through new investments to help more people quit smoking, and to work with young people and educators to keep schools smoke-free. We also introduced initiatives to cut off the supply of contraband tobacco. With this new direction, the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy’s focus shifted to cessation and prevention activities. The Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group, whose members include leaders in tobacco control, have identified these as key actions.

On the cessation front, our government introduced new initiatives aimed at engaging workplaces and more health care professionals and institutions in supporting the cessation needs of their employees and patients, as well as supporting youth prevention efforts in school communities. As part of our plan to help smokers who want to quit, community health centres across the province now provide over-the-counter nicotine cessation aids, nicotine replacement therapy and counselling at no cost to smokers.

In collaboration with community, workplace and health care partners, Ontario has launched two more innovative smoking cessation initiatives, partnering with workplaces and 11 public health units to reduce smoking among workers in the industrial and service sectors, and helping patients in hospitals and regional cancer centres quit smoking.

These new initiatives built on the success of the other supports we offer smokers in Ontario, including free nicotine replacement therapy at 128 family health teams across the province. In October 2012, we announced that Ontario’s pharmacists will now have an expanded role, with the ability to prescribe medication to help people quit smoking. Now that they can access this service from their local pharmacist, more Ontarians will receive the help they need to quit smoking safely, more quickly and closer to home.

This is all part of our ongoing work with our partners to create a “no wrong door” system for smokers to get help to quit smoking. That includes government investments through the strategy to assist smokers in getting the help they need to stop smoking from post-secondary campuses, some public health units, addiction agencies, primary care settings, hospitals, workplaces, family health teams, community health centres, regional cancer centres and aboriginal health access centres.

In partnership with public health units, non-governmental organizations, health professionals and institutions, my ministry employs a mix of tools and programs to support the aim of the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy. These organizations deliver programs and services. They train smoke-free Ontario partners and support research on the impact of tobacco on the lives of the people of Ontario. Our government also ensures that Ontario drug benefit recipients who smoke are eligible for smoking cessation counselling offered through community pharmacists and for cessation medications.

The strategy funds the Smokers’ Helpline, which provides cessation counselling online and by telephone. Organizational change in cessation practices has been achieved in clinical settings by changing practices within hospitals, embedding cessation into care pathways and other related patient care processes.

Speaker, these are the right investments for Ontario. Other jurisdictions have shown that, for every dollar we invest in a comprehensive tobacco control program, we save as much as $50 in health care expenditures.

Since most people start smoking when they’re young, preventing young people from taking up tobacco use is a particularly effective way to achieve savings. Our proposed amendments also focus on protecting Ontarians from exposure to second-hand smoke, which could yield significant savings to the health care system and, more importantly, to help save lives. As we all know, a healthy Ontario is more productive and helps grow our economy.

These compelling facts form the backdrop against which we need to consider the proposed amendments. With this proposed legislation, our intent is to focus once again on protecting Ontarians from second-hand smoke, or preventing people from starting to smoke in the first place. The legislation aligns with our platform commitments and our action plan for health care.

We have decided to take such an activist role because research shows that when government is highly involved in tobacco control, with strong legislation and programs that ensure people have the right information and supports, fewer people end up smoking. That benefits all of us and helps protect the health care system we all share and cherish.

Speaker, the protections included in our proposed legislation reflect input from stakeholders and the Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group; they address emerging trends in tobacco manufacturing; they respond to enforcement challenges identified by inspectors; they reflect increased public support for action; and they help Ontario maintain its role as a leader in tobacco control.

I should point out that since the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy was created in 2005, many public and private institutions and organizations have taken action on tobacco control beyond the rules laid out in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. These organizations are taking action voluntarily, including establishing smoke-free hospital grounds, smoke-free campuses and smoke-free playgrounds and sports fields, because they recognize the value of decreasing tobacco use.

I do want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all of the dedicated Ontarians who have demonstrated their support for our actions to date, and have contributed to reduce smoking in the province. We’re proposing to build on these voluntary efforts to encourage more organizations to take similar action so that healthier environments and workplaces can be experienced by people wherever they live, work and study in Ontario.

With our determined efforts and the help of our dedicated partners, Ontario now boasts 255,000 fewer smokers.

Despite its successes, the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy’s interventions to reduce smoking rates are being undermined on a number of fronts. For example, young smokers are particularly vulnerable to temptation with the ready availability of flavoured tobacco products. Kids are routinely exposed to tobacco use and tobacco smoke on sports fields, and seeing adults smoke on restaurant and bar patios leads young people to believe that smoking is socially acceptable, which increases the likelihood of them starting to smoke.

So even though I’m proud of how far we’ve come and the terrific results we’ve achieved, I am more determined than ever to reach our ambitious goal of having the lowest smoking rate in Canada.

With this proposed legislation, we intend to do all we can to make smoking less visible and less socially acceptable. Our proposed legislative and regulatory amendments, if passed, would implement our government’s commitment to increase fines, focus on protecting kids and youth, and move us closer to our goal of reducing tobacco use in Ontario to the lowest in the country.

Let me now discuss some of the highlights of the proposed legislation and regulatory amendments. First, to prevent children and youth from accessing tobacco products and protect them from the harmful effects of smoking, the proposed legislative and regulatory amendments would, if passed, double fines for those who sell tobacco to kids, making them the highest in Canada. Right now, compared to other provinces, Ontario has one of the lowest set fines for offences related to youth access to tobacco. Higher fines would have a strong deterrent effect, making people think twice before selling tobacco to kids.

More importantly, I’m convinced that higher fines would help to reduce kids’ access to tobacco.

Second, we would prohibit the sale of tobacco products containing flavouring—flavouring, Speaker, like bubble gum or strawberry. There would be certain exemptions. This is not the first time our government has taken action on flavoured tobacco. In 2010, an amendment to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act prohibited persons from selling, offering to sell, distributing and offering to distribute flavoured cigarillos. That same year, the federal government amended its Tobacco Act to prohibit the sale of cigarettes, cigarillos and rolling papers containing specified flavours, with an exemption for menthol.

However, flavoured tobacco products are still available and remain particularly appealing to youth because of their taste and their appearance. We know that tobacco manufacturers use flavoured tobacco to entice youth to use tobacco, and we know that kids are much more likely to use flavoured products than are adults. Bill 131 would ensure that these products cannot be sold in Ontario. The ban would apply to all flavoured tobacco products, including cigarettes, blunt wraps, cigars, pipe tobacco, smokeless tobacco and water pipe tobacco.

Because the focus of the ban is on flavoured tobacco products that appeal to youth for their distinctive fruity, sweet or candy flavours, we are proposing to exempt menthol, tobacco-enhancing flavours and flavours used to reduce the harsh tastes of certain types of tobacco.

The third element of this legislation, these proposed amendments, would authorize inspectors appointed under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to seize improperly packaged tobacco and tobacco products that are prohibited for sale under the act. Expanding seizure authority would support the enforcement of the act and ensure that products prohibited for sale under the act are removed from point of sale.

As well, the proposed amendments would authorize inspectors to take a sample of a substance for the purpose of determining compliance with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act’s prohibition on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces. Finally, it would also enable the ministry to determine the extent to which tobacco is being used by water pipe bar operators.

Fourth, we would amend the legislation to prohibit the sale of tobacco on specific government of Ontario properties. We would also amend the regulation to prohibit tobacco sales on post-secondary education campuses. The Smoke-Free Ontario Act already prohibits the sale of tobacco in vending machines, hospitals, psychiatric facilities, long-term-care homes, pharmacies and facilities licensed under the Independent Health Facilities Act. Our proposed amendments would extend these prohibitions.

We’re taking action in post-secondary education settings because young adulthood is a critical period when smoking habits become established. This would build on the work being done by our partner Leave the Pack Behind to provide more on-campus supports to students trying to quit their tobacco use. Our proposals would provide supportive environments to prevent people from starting to smoke and make it easier for them to cut down and quit smoking.

In addition to these legislative amendments through Bill 131, we’re proposing a number of regulatory amendments to further protect the people of Ontario from exposure to tobacco use. To protect workers and patrons, especially kids, from exposure to second-hand smoke, our proposed amendments to Ontario regulation 48/06 would ban smoking on all restaurant and bar patios, including those that are uncovered. As well, amendments would ban smoking on playgrounds and sports fields, and further restrict smoking on the grounds of hospitals and specified provincial government properties.

Banning smoking on patios, playgrounds and sports fields would make smoking less visible to young adults, who have a high risk of taking up smoking, and de-normalize social smoking among young adults.

Many municipalities have already taken action on similar fronts. In fact, 58 municipalities representing 61% of the population have already banned smoking on playgrounds; 45 municipalities representing 37% of the population have already banned smoking on sports and recreation fields and facilities; and nine Ontario municipalities currently have a full smoking ban in place on patios. A province-wide patio ban would make it easier for businesses and patrons to comply with the law and would provide complete protection for workers, patrons and kids everywhere in Ontario.

There is strong support for these initiatives. Our partners, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Lung Association and the Ontario Medical Association, do support these initiatives.

But I know that engaging the public is crucial to our success. We’ve worked hard to get our message out. For example, we launched a highly successful social marketing campaign last spring that focuses on cessation among young adults, a population with the highest smoking rate among all age groups. More recently, we posted a

summary of the draft regulatory measures on the government of Ontario’s Regulatory Registry for public review and comment for 45 days. The feedback we received was overwhelmingly supportive, including many submissions from young people in Ontario applauding these initiatives. We will consider all of the input and suggestions we’ve received through this process as we continue to draft the regulations.

Speaker, I believe every member in this House understands and shares our commitment to protecting young Ontarians from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. It places a heavy burden on our health care system, and most importantly, it takes a heavy toll on too many lives. These amendments, if passed, would strengthen our ability to reduce kids’ exposure to tobacco smoke in their daily lives and help prevent our young people from using any tobacco products. Selling flavoured tobacco is one of the few remaining ways that tobacco companies have of marketing to our kids, and we have a responsibility to act.

These amendments would also protect more Ontarians from the harms of second-hand smoke and make smoking less visible and de-normalize tobacco use.

Again, Speaker, I’d like to thank our valued health system partners, as well as everyday Ontarians, for their support of this proposed legislation, and for their dedication and commitment to the health of the people of Ontario.

I call upon members of all three parties in this House to come together in support of this vital piece of legislation. Together, we can take this strong action to invest in the health and well-being of our people so they can live healthier lives and contribute to a healthier economy. Thank you, Speaker.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I take some great pleasure in standing here today to talk about anti-smoking in action and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

I was very proud to have had my father, Dan MacLeod—Daniel James MacLeod—bring in one of the first anti-smoking bylaws in Canada, actually in North America. This would be well over a decade ago. He was bringing it forward and at the time, I remember, my uncle was dying of lung cancer. He was 42 when he passed. His name was Cedric MacLeod—Cedric Nelson MacLeod. My father had to miss a council meeting in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, when he was bringing in this important bylaw, and was it ever divisive at the time. There were smokers’ rights groups.

They were vowing to defeat my father in the next election because he was bringing this forward, but he believed it was the right thing to do. When you look back at 2000—that’s 14 years ago—that legislation, or that bylaw, at the time in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, a small town of 10,000 people, was that divisive. Today, we stand here as legislators and we all know it’s the right thing to do to curb smoking. We know because of the health effects.

We know that people who become addicted to nicotine later in life want to quit because of some of the ill effects and its approach on cancer and what it does to young people as they age.

I think it’s important and I’m really proud of the contribution my father made before he died of cancer, although a different type of cancer. It wasn’t caused by smoking.

I’d also like to pay tribute to my dear friend Norm Sterling, who, when he was a member of this assembly, years before anybody else was thinking about this, was putting legislation on the floor of this assembly to deal with anti-smoking.

So you know something? I think it’s important that we’re having this discussion. I congratulate all my colleagues on all sides of the chamber for taking action on this important matter. Thank you.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to rise today and support this act. We’ve heard from two parties. It appears it is going to get support through the House, and hopefully it gets that support very, very quickly. It’s a piece of legislation, I think, whose time has come.

The previous speaker talked about remarks that were made in the past and what other people felt about whether we should ban tobacco or not. At the time that it was first introduced that we should restrict the use of tobacco, certainly there were a number of members of the public and the industry, I suppose, who were opposed to that because, at the time, they felt that business, perhaps, was more important than public health. I don’t think anybody in our House agrees with that sentiment anymore.

I think the legislation is well drafted. I think the remarks that we’ve heard from at least one member of the opposition speak to the fact that this is something we can all do together, because we know the best way to prevent somebody from becoming addicted to any substance, including tobacco, is to limit its use in the first place, to not introduce it in the first place to our kids, to keep it out of the way of our kids to make sure that our kids understand that it’s not a normal thing to smoke.

I had two parents who didn’t smoke, Speaker, and I remember, as a child, feeling a little weird because our house didn’t smell like the other houses. I thought the other houses smelled cool. I think at one point I almost wanted my parents to smoke so I could have a cool-smelling, smoky house. As it turned out, my parents were ahead of their time, and I thank them for that.

I think that, as a province, if we’re able to set this ambitious goal of trying to have the lowest smoking rate in all of Canada, if we can beat BC out—I think a little competition, a little bit of fun could make this very, very serious issue something we can all get behind as legislators, knowing that it’s going to help young Ontarians. It’s going to prevent them from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke now and into the future.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to echo what we’ve already heard in the chamber today. This is an important piece of legislation that’s going to do wonders in terms of proactively helping people realize that their health matters, and, in that, hopefully curb a few health costs down the road in later life. I think about how they’re enticing young people with flavoured tobacco—it’s like, for goodness’ sakes.

People need to understand the ramifications here. My father suffered with emphysema, COPD and probably farmer’s lung as well. He lived on oxygen for 12 years, primarily because of life choices. He smoked. He wishes he could have turned the clock back, but we could do it now. We can help people realize that their health is very, very precious. It’s only when you see people suffer that you realize some of these things we’re doing in the House really can make a difference.

I applaud the idea of banning smoking on schoolyards. That’s just ridiculous; I always thought it was and continue to hold that to this day. The essence of the bill is very, very good. We all have our personal stories that make us want to stand up and support this effort that Minister Matthews has brought forward.

Just a little caveat, though: I’d be remiss if I didn’t say, as critic for small business and red tape, that I worry about the impact on the small businesses. We have to be mindful and sensitive to what a banning on patios may have on our restaurants and bars. But if we bring everybody to the table and really educate people as to why this is important, I think we should be able to move this through very easily.

Thank you to all of my colleagues for understanding the significance of this particular bill. While I’m a little cautious that we can’t be handcuffing our small businesses, this is the proper step to be taking.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think the legislation proposed—it’s interesting to hear once again with yet another piece of legislation that there’s a significant consensus in the House that we have a significant problem out there, and that we have legislation which is designed, both in a regulatory fashion and a legislative fashion, to improve those circumstances. Members I’ve listened to—the minister herself, of course—have all indicated that this is necessary.

When we look back at some of the landmarks that took place, some of the changes in attitude, it’s actually quite phenomenal. Even people who were ardent smokers, or today may still be ardent smokers, are often in support of legislation of this kind.

You and I, Mr. Speaker, are sports fans. We can recall going to arenas in years gone by where, if you went out into the lobby or hallway, you didn’t have to have a cigarette in your mouth to be smoking; you simply had to breathe. At that time, you were confronted with a lot of smoke. We used to see it in bars, restaurants and airplanes even. It’s hard to believe that they used to allow smoking in certain parts of airplanes and in restaurants as though, somehow, the smoke wouldn’t go from one end to the other.

Now, we also recognize that in taverns, for instance—that was once considered to be part of going to a tavern. People would go home and their clothes would be full of smoke. They would have to air them out, wash them, send them to the cleaners. More importantly, it had a profound negative effect on their health.

So when I hear members of this House speak favourably of legislation of this kind, I trust that there will not be a prolonged debate, unless it’s necessary, that it will go to committee and that we can see this bill passed by this Legislature. Certainly that would be my hope.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The health minister has two minutes.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say I’m delighted to hear that the official opposition—it sounds like they will support this. I want to say how much I appreciate that, and how much I appreciate the personal stories that were told here. I think all of us—in fact, I’m sure all of us—know someone close to us who has died from smoking. In fact, half of smokers will die from smoking-related illness. So I’m very grateful to hear of the support from the official opposition.

I’m a bit surprised I haven’t heard from the NDP, but I can only hope that that support is there. I know that the member from Nickel Belt is very supportive of it. I’m assuming that she has convinced her caucus to support this legislation.

I want to comment a bit on the impact of small business because, of course, we are all concerned about that. I draw great optimism from the experience in Ottawa. They are one of the municipalities that has banned smoking on patios and noticed no impact on business whatsoever. In fact, many non-smokers enjoy sitting on patios where there isn’t smoke. I know I have been driven indoors from patios by the tobacco smoke on patios, so I think this is the right thing to do. I have no question about that.

I am reminded about how controversial this was just a few years ago. I am still amused, when I see the no-smoking sign on airplanes, to think that we used to allow smoking on airplanes. We go into restaurants now and would be astonished if somebody lit up a cigarette. Today what is normal was not too many years ago not normal at all—in fact, controversial.

So I’m delighted. I hope we’re coming together as one, and let’s get this done as quickly as we can.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent to stand down the lead of the official opposition for another time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew is seeking unanimous consent to stand down the leadoff. Is that agreeable?

Carry on.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This doesn’t happen very often. I can’t remember when was the last time it happened, where I’m actually going to begin my address by saying that I’m going to pick up where the minister left off. That is not likely happening very often, because I have my very extensive speech written right here.

It starts out a little bit about the history of smoking and how we have evolved and our attitudes towards it, and our tolerance or lack thereof as time has moved on. You know, my father was elected to this Legislature in 1963 and my father was a smoker. I mean, he was a soldier in the Second World War. There were not many of those people who were infantrymen in the Second World War who did not smoke. You were given your daily ration of tobacco as part of the payment for being willing to risk your life for democracy and your country.

There were a lot of people who were smokers in this Legislature back then. There are very few now, if any. I don’t know if there are ones but I’m sure there are a couple. I’m not even sure, and I don’t know the actual history, but I know that even into the mid-1980s, members of this Legislature smoked at committee. During committee proceedings, members of the Legislature would smoke while the committee hearings were going on. I suspect that at some time they actually smoked in the chamber. If my dad was around I could ask him, but he’s not. He didn’t die from smoking, but I suspect that maybe even back in those days, they maybe even smoked in the chamber.

I remember when we had our hardware store in Barry’s Bay, and while my dad and my mother ran it, anybody who smoked just smoked on the floor. They could be serving a customer and have a cigarette hanging out of their mouth or checking a customer out and the cigarette just goes down into the ashtray while they check the customer out, and nobody thought anything of it.

I remember when I took over the business and I said, “There won’t be any smoking on the floor.” It was a little bit controversial when I said, “No, you can’t be smoking even if you’re not with a customer when you’re in the checkout. You can’t be smoking on the floor of the business.” But that was in the 1980s. So, I mean, we’ve come even a long way from then.

But the smoking prevention act of whatever you called it there the minister from 2005—I voted against it, and I was chastised for it, but I felt I was standing up for the restaurant owners who maybe weren’t prepared. Nine years have gone by since that time and, boy, the world has continued to evolve and continued to change, and our feeling towards smoking has changed as well.

Years ago, if you went to an event—say a dance hall or something like that—you might be there for three or four hours. The smoke was just hanging from the ceiling. Even if you didn’t smoke yourself, you didn’t find it that bad, because you’d become desensitized to the smoke. You’d go home and the next morning, you’d feel like you had sand in your eyes, but you still didn’t feel anything driving you inside to say, “That’s got to stop.” No. It was, “If they want to smoke, they can smoke,” and “If I don’t want to be here, I guess I don’t have to be here.”

But as we have changed our views on smoking and changed the number of places that smoking is considered to be acceptable or not acceptable, our sensitivities to smoking have changed dramatically. I’m talking about that dance hall that I might have been in back in the 1970s or whatever and not really thought too much about it.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes. Well, listen, nobody remarked much in any positive way on my dancing. I assure you that.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Just your dancing?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thanks, Ernie. My friend from Oxford says, “Just your dancing?”

So at that time, it didn’t bother you that much, or at least you didn’t think it bothered you that much. Today, as I was saying to folks at the table, look at it: If somebody lights up a cigarette down on the waterfront, I can smell it up at St. Clair. I mean, today we are sensitive. You’re walking down the sidewalk, and if there’s someone walking down the sidewalk, you get within 20 feet, and you can already detect that there’s cigarette smoke in the air.

That’s why I want to talk about—and I’ll get to the point, too—the issue with the restaurant owners and the patios. I think we need to allow them to voice their concerns, but I actually share experiences with what the minister talked about, how people now have said, “I’d actually like to go and enjoy my meal on the patio, but I won’t, because I go on the patio, and even if there’s nobody smoking on the patio when I get there, in the middle of my meal, if somebody comes in and it’s a smoker, it changes my sense of enjoyment for that meal at that particular establishment.”

I think that we’ve reached—and I’m not sure—look, nobody wants to have change. Sometimes the status quo is the easiest thing to accept. But I think that, in the long run, they’ll find that they will attract as many new clients to their patios as they may lose on a short-term basis because of the changes in regulations with respect to smoking. I think it’s worth having that dialogue with that association, the restaurant and hotel owners etc. But I think that we’re finding more and more that some of them are moving in that direction on their own, because they’re finding that their patios are not drawing as many people.

The number of adults smoking is continuing to decline—thank goodness for that. I’ll talk about how dismayed I am about youth smoking shortly. I hope I get to that. But the number of adults who are smoking has declined, is declining. Adults are taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them with regard to smoking cessation programs. I just hope they’re all successful, because it’s for everybody’s benefit if they can be successful.

Everybody who is a smoker is affected in a different way. Someone who has been a smoker for many, many years can quit smoking and really never look back. Some others, they quit, they start again—the addiction affects everybody differently. We’re all chemically similar, but we’re all chemically individual as well, so the addiction affects people in different ways. Some people spend their lives just trying to kick that habit. So if there are ways that we can bolster their efforts, I think that’s something that is positive. I don’t think there’s any question: It is an inarguable statement that you are better off if you’re a non-smoker than if you’re a smoker. Any argument? I don’t think so.

It’s great to have a debate when nobody’s heckling me. Only my own people were heckling me about my dancing skills, or lack thereof.

I was talking earlier about how dismayed I am when I see young people begin to smoke. It kind of boggles my mind that, given the information we have today, given the social pressures—maybe I don’t understand the social pressures of being a teenager, because it has been a while, but I have raised some. I have raised some, and some have just exited their teens not that long ago.

I’m proud to say, or pleased to say, that none of our children smoke, save and except for sometimes when they’re fishing and they might have a couple of Captain Blacks or whatever they’re called—Colts, or something like that—some cigars to keep away the bugs. But at one time, I did see them coming home with these flavoured smokes. They’re about the size of a cigarette, but they’re dark like a cigar, and they were cherry-this and whatever-that.

I was listening, when the bill was introduced, to the talk about the number of flavoured products out there. It’s really astounding. Folks, I can’t say they’re as bad, but they’re as focused. I mean, you look at the breakfast cereal ads these days. That crap doesn’t qualify as a food, a breakfast food. Please. I mean, it’s chocolate in the middle of a fake biscuit or some kind of thing, and that’s what they market to our children for breakfast cereal.

They know how children can be influenced by what is being marketed to them. Of course, when you’re trying to tap your new market—there’s no point in tobacco companies going after the 70-year-old smoker, because he ain’t long for this world. He’s not going to buy a lot of cigarettes before he says sayonara. But if you can get somebody who is 12, 13, 14 or whatever hooked on smoking, maybe you’re going to have access to some revenue for some time.

We’d all be better off if there was no smoking. As I say, I am dismayed about youth who are starting to smoke and thinking that it’s cool. The member from Oakville was talking about when he was younger. Maybe he thought it might have been cool to have a house that stunk of smoke. Back then, he would have said “smelled of smoke, had the aroma of smoke”; today, you’d say “stunk of smoke.” When you walk into a home that is occupied by heavy smokers—my wife is in real estate, and right off the bat, if you go into a home that is occupied by heavy smokers, for a lot of people there’s an issue there.

They want to make sure that that smell is going to be eliminated before they entertain the purchase of that home.

All of these are practical considerations, but the social side of smoking has changed dramatically. I mean, while at one time it may have been considered to be cool and there was nothing offensive, people find the smell of smoke—the after-smell of smoke—not an environment that they want to be around—the people that are the smokers.

So why would the children of today want to become smokers? Because, while it may not affect them at this time, if they’re among a group of people who are doing the same activity, it is going to affect them down the road.

I’ve got to believe—I’m not a fortune teller, and I guess I’ll accept that maybe I’m a bit prejudiced on the issue—that if somebody walked into your office looking for a job, and they’re a smoker, they’re going to have to be a lot better than the person who is not a smoker, because right off the bat, the smoker is more susceptible to be likely taking breaks to go down and have a cigarette; plus, in your office you’re going to have that environment. I’m not trying to be mean-spirited or anything else. I’m talking about the reality of the world we live in today. People have to be aware of that.

I’m not trying to be judgmental. I’m just trying to point out that this is where we are. This is 2014, and this is where we are.

But on that subject, and I know the minister has been listening very, very closely to what I have to say, and on occasion she has been nodding, which I suspect is her nod of approval of what I’m saying—this is new ground, folks. This is new ground. I kind of half expect I’m going to get a nice note after this. However, this may change over the next six minutes, because I know—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Minister of Labour says, “You were doing so well, Yak”—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member knows that he doesn’t have cross-conversations and leaving me out; I hate being left out. Through the Chair.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I could never leave you out, Speaker. I could never leave you out, neither intentionally nor unintentionally. But if it appears that way, we’re going to try to bring this back through you. So, through the Speaker, I say that the Minister of Health over there—but of course I’m addressing the Speaker—may not like the next part of my speech. And it won’t be just the Minister of Health. I’m not singling her out. The Minister of Community Safety will be interested in this as well.

Okay. You know, when the member for Nickel Belt was talking about it when the bill was first introduced and talking about all these flavoured cigarettes, where did she find all those 19 kinds, or whatever the heck it was, of flavoured cigarettes? Where did she find them? She found them at a smoke shack at a First Nations. So if we’re going to do everything we can to protect our children, we have to also address the source of the problem.

We cannot say that this is a threat to the health of our children and therefore the health of our entire society, because our children make up our society and will be, when they become adults and move on, the predominant population of the society in the years to come—we can’t on one side of the equation say, “We’re taking all of these measures to protect them in the world outside of contraband tobacco,” and then say, “Now, the minister is saying we’re doing something.” Well, the truth is, they’re doing very little, and very little because I know how many smoke shacks are in business on Pikwàkanagàn of Golden Lake in my riding.

I was in Port Dover last year, and I’ve seen the smoke shacks going through Six Nations.

So we cannot, on one hand, say that this is our commitment to our youth and then ignore where much of that product comes from, because youth can be trapped by—I talked about the flavour of the cigarettes, and that can be an enticement. The other enticement is the low cost. If you’ve got a product that is desirable but you can’t afford it, it remains just that: desirable. But if you’ve got a product that is desirable and affordable, then the likelihood of you actually purchasing that product goes up significantly.

I’m not going to stand here and point out the solutions to the government because I don’t have them in my hand. But there are groups out there who have been lobbying the government, and it affects legitimate businesses as well. So we cannot ignore that segment of this debate. If we’re talking about the health of our children, our grandchildren and the youth, we cannot ignore the contraband tobacco issue and just slough it off to the side and say, “That’s not part of it.” That’s only attacking half of the problem.

Theoretically, if we convinced every person in the world not to smoke, then there’d be no market for it, no matter where it comes from—understood. But we don’t live in that theoretical Alice-in-Wonderland world. I know that the people on the other side, sometimes they do. I was actually listening to the finance minister yesterday, Speaker, and I thought that, honest to God, he was going to be appearing in a new Disney version of Charles and Kathleen go to wonderland or something, because it was fantasyland about what they were thinking about the future of Ontario. But I’m going off the topic, and you know me, I always stay on the topic and I go through the Speaker.

So let’s stay on the topic. We have some opportunities here to reduce the access to places where smoking will be encountered. I like the idea of public places and playgrounds. We should not be sending our kids out to a place where the focus is enjoyment and physical fitness and then have them subjected to cigarette smoking or smoking of any kind. So there are some very good parts in this legislation. There’s the obvious omission, which maybe needs to be dealt with in another piece of legislation, not through the Ministry of Health, but perhaps through the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and I look forward to that coming.

I look forward to the day when it is not just my children who don’t smoke but nobody’s children smoke. We have eight grandchildren. I hope every one of them grows up to be a non-smoker as well. If that happens and that is repeated in families all across this province and all across this country, and eventually all across this world, it will be a better world for all of us. Thank you very much.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to rise and respond and to comment on the remarks from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I enjoyed his description of the change in attitudes and behaviours that we’ve seen in this province over the years, and in particular since the province introduced very tough anti-smoking legislation. I am reflecting back on my own experience—and the Minister of Health will certainly remember this—when London, our community, was one of the first municipalities in the province to pass a smoke-free bylaw.

That was due to the efforts of a community coalition called the Council for a Tobacco-Free Community. I was proud to be part of that work that pushed the municipality to prohibit designated smoking rooms. At that time, the debate was about allowing ventilated places for smoking. The evidence said that this will not remove the toxins that people who are exposed to smoke in designated smoking rooms will inhale.

As part of that effort, we brought in Heather Crowe, who members of this House may remember was the Ottawa waitress who died from lung cancer that she had contracted as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke during her 40 years as a waitress.

I think that we have seen that legislation does have an impact. Legislation is important, along with public education, to change behaviours and attitudes and move the province closer to an area where we will reduce the exposure to second-hand smoke and prevent young people from smoking. I want to congratulate the government for bringing forward this legislation. It’s important. We need to move it to committee.

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

Hon. Mario Sergio: I’m delighted to join the debate and support the bill as introduced by the Minister of Health. I have to say that I have enjoyed, as usual, the very positive comments by the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. As he says, it’s a wonderful time in the House, even though it may last six minutes. But I hope that he’s going to have some change of heart and may continue for a long time. I think this is a positive issue, and I can see the support throughout the House.

I think it was only last week, Speaker, that we saw the federal budget putting another $5 on a carton of cigarettes. I haven’t heard any cry from any side—young or old, smokers and non. So that shows you the support that is out there. I was pleased to see that the minister had considerable consultation prior to bringing out the legislation.

I have to go back to my last century, Speaker, my previous life, when I remember the North York council chambers were dealing with not allowing smoking in doughnut shops. Wow. I think for two, three nights, we had the council full of people saying that was the end of the world, and every coffee shop was going to close and nobody would go there anymore. Look, we have come a long way. I mean, you can go in any coffee shop; people are enjoying their coffee without the effect of smoke, and they are still in business and growing all the time.

It was nice to hear the Minister of Health saying, as well, that this has found considerable acceptance among our young people. This is the main crux of the legislation that is in front of us, Speaker. We would like to do more. I hope that we can do more to bring young people not to smoke, and I hope that this will pass soon in the House.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House and address the comments from the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Speaker, I’d like to give you some of my experience with smoke, and it is in our business, in a decorating business we have. Every once in a while, we go into a house that people have been smoking in. It’s interesting: When the curtains come off the windows and you get ready to paint, you can see discolouration on the ceilings; you can see it on the walls. There are times when you have to use a special paint, a stain blocker, to keep the nicotine from coming out through the paint, or you wash the walls trying to get rid of these stains.

The other interesting part about it is when you are painting your walls, as the paint dries, there’s a certain amount of humidity or moisture that comes out of the paint, and if you have a crew in there, you can get enough moisture that the windows start to get fogged up. Certainly when my wife is working, a lot quicker than I do, she usually gets more moisture on the windows than I. However, you can start to see, as the windows moisten up, the nicotine start to come down the windows.

These aren’t new houses. These are houses that people have lived in for a period of time. In a lot of the houses that we’ve done with this issue, people have stopped smoking in the house. If they continue to smoke, they smoke outside. And I think that young children—I like to study history. Maybe we should take some of these young folks into some of these houses and see what can happen, and that is really ugly. It may stop them and help prevent them from starting smoking in the first place.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m happy to stand and comment to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, and, once again, bring back the fact of where we’ve come from to where we are today, and the difference that I myself, as a previous smoker, have felt, and how we struggled when the first laws were brought into place. I myself was a waitress at the time, working in establishments when the non-smoking came through. We thought it was the end of the world. We were going to lose all of our customers. Nothing was going to ever be the same.

And when you walk into an establishment now, if you were to dare see someone light a cigarette, you would be like, “What are you doing? What is happening?” So, you know, it’s a totally different change from what we’ve seen previously.

I myself, being in the public eye—and how life has changed for me. It became an embarrassment to me when I was a smoker, and how that changed, because now, today, I’m almost six months smoke-free and quite proud of that. It was something that I always enjoyed to do, so getting to the point of when you can wake up one day and say, “That’s it. I’m done. I’ve had enough,” and continuing to work through that process is a tough thing. I’d encourage people to really think deep into what they’re doing to themselves, to their body, to the people who are around them.

You don’t really realize the difference that it makes to a person when you walk into a room and you smell like cigarettes, because, I’ll tell you now, I can smell those smokers.

But I think it’s a good thing that we’re moving forward. I know that we need to be looking at small businesses, because I hear from constituents in my riding who are concerned that they’re not going to be able to smoke on the patio anymore. And Hamilton has been one of those lead-takers when it comes to no smoking in the parks, no smoking in the establishments, no smoking on the patios. So I think it’s great work brought forward by our member from Nickel Belt, France Gélinas, and—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has two minutes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to thank the member from London West, the minister responsible for seniors, and the members for Perth–Wellington and Hamilton Mountain for their comments on my address.

I want to point out some of the fine people who have encouraged me to support this act, as they’re concerned about smoking among youth as well: a letter from Lara Mylly, the health promoter at the Whitewater Bromley Community Health Centre—thank you; Margaret Cliché from Beachburg, Ontario; Ellen Michaud from Beachburg, Ontario, as well; Dr. T.A.

Rheaume, from the Whitewater Bromley Community Health Centre; David Studham, the executive director of the Ottawa Valley Health and Wellness Centre; Judy Grasmuck from the Bonnechere Valley Satellite Clinic of the West Champlain Family Health Team; and my old friend and a former principal at Madawaska Valley District High School in Barry’s Bay, Wilmer Matthews, who I’ve worked with on a number of different issues over the years. I want to thank them all for their input and encouraging us to support this legislation.

I think the goals are honourable, and we certainly will get there. The bill does have our support. As I and my colleague from Huron–Bruce have said, we do have to dialogue with the restaurant industry to ensure that they will—and I think at the end of the day they will accept that this, in the end, will be better for all of us. But we will have to have that dialogue, and that can take place at the committee level.

But, again, the goal is to eliminate—or reduce and eventually eliminate—smoking among our youth. If it’s eliminated among our youth, eventually it will be eliminated among us all. Thank you very much, Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m so pleased to have one of my constituents here: Taylor Horning from Merrickville, part of the Ontario Youth Parliament that will be here today. But I’m even more pleased that her sister Peyton, who’s a former page, is here in the west members’ gallery—and also her parents, Alexandra Prefasi-Horning and Paul Horning. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I would like to welcome two people to the Legislature this morning: Angie Dawson, who started in my office yesterday, as well as a friend of mine from Kenora–Rainy River, Scott Jonassen. Welcome.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m very pleased to welcome a very special person here: my constituency assistant, Humaira Hamayun, who, in September, was diagnosed with cancer and has gone through six rounds of chemo and is in the middle of radiation treatment. She’s here with her husband, Hamayun Jilani, and her sister-in-law, Hamayun’s sister, who’s visiting us from Pakistan, Samina Zeeshan. Would members please welcome them in the members’ east gallery?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s an honour today to introduce four representatives from MY Canada. They’re young people determined to build a strong Canada for today and for future generations. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Good morning. I’m pleased this morning to welcome the first cohort of fellows from Studio Y, Ontario’s social impact and youth leadership academy. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s an honour for me to introduce the parents of page Emily Anderson: mother Kye-Young Kwon and father Neil Anderson. They’re here with sisters Erica, Natasha, Helena and Elizabeth. They are with us in the public gallery this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That was me, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

I’m delighted to welcome Chaitali Senmajumder, who is here today. She’s the mother of page Emon Senmajumder. I’m going to have to work with her to get the right pronunciation.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’d like to welcome a Burlington constituent, Dianne Caton, to the Legislature this morning. Dianne is in the members’ gallery to show love and support for her daughter, Jessie Caton, who is serving as page captain today. Congratulations, Jessie.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’d like to introduce Idil Burale, who is here with the Studio Y program at MaRS. She is an amazing community activist and a former constituency assistant for both my friend Mike Colle—my PA—and myself. I would like to welcome her and her colleagues from Studio Y.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s my pleasure to introduce Megan Storey, who is a former co-op student in my constituency office. She’s here with the model Parliament group today. I wish them all the best in the next three days of consultation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Scarborough—

Ms. Soo Wong: Agincourt.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to welcome my intern at my Queen’s Park office, Taylor Lew, sitting in the east gallery, as well as Meelesh Thakur, who is a grade 8 student in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, who’s also participating in the model Parliament.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce from the riding of Nipissing Mary Beth Caliciuri, the mother of one of the mock parliamentarians today, Anthony Caliciuri.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like members to join me in welcoming Alexander Baggs from St. Catharines, who is participating in your model Parliament.

Mr. Steve Clark: I know the Minister of Economic Development is dying to introduce him, but I’m going to one-up him and I’m going to introduce Bruce Davis, who I feel is a great business person. He’s the president of the Gananoque Brewing Co., and I’m so proud of him.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Of course, I want to introduce the great Bruce Davis as well. As many of us know, he was a former chair of the Toronto District School Board and, as has been referenced, the proud purveyor of many craft beers through Gananoque Brewing Co.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I smell free beer.

Introductions?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s an honour today to welcome Eric Muellejans to Queen’s Park. He’s here on behalf of the mock Parliament. I’d like to say to Eric that I attribute my getting involved in politics to his late father, who was on student council with me back at Glencoe District High School a number of years ago. Welcome, Eric Muellejans.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in welcoming Robin Smith Forbes in the public gallery this morning, supporting her daughter Sarah Forbes, a page from Mississauga South.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I want to welcome to the Legislature this morning Sandy Buxton, David Strachan, Connie Spek and Kevin Newman from the Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association, who will be meeting with me later on today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. Also from the model Parliament, representing Humberview Secondary School in Bolton, I’d like to welcome Gurpreet Badesha, Tina Boutis and Brittany Cox. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I apologize to the member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Further introductions? The member from York Centre.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Thank you very much. I also want to congratulate and add my welcome to the members from my riding for the model Parliament: George Philip and Louis Vatrt.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): York–Simcoe, not York Centre.

Further introductions?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Welcome to all the students from the model Parliament. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Particularly, I’m told that Ada Yang is here from my riding, so a special welcome to people from Guelph.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I’d also like to welcome the students, and in particular, from Scarborough–Guildwood, Judy Perpose. Welcome.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I would like to welcome Brendan Adamo from my riding for the model Parliament. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us in the public galleries today 85 students, as we’ve heard, from across the province, participating in the inaugural Legislative Assembly of Ontario model Parliament.

Before I ask us to welcome them, I would also like to say thank you very much to the staff here at the protocol office who have put together the entire program and are to be thanked on our behalf for bringing these young people.

Please join me in warmly welcoming our future parliamentarians to the Legislature today. I’d like to thank all parties for their support and participation in this very important project for our youth. Here they are. Welcome.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We are going to model for them their model Parliament.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think I just caused a major problem.

The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: With your indulgence, Speaker—sorry—I just wanted to introduce somebody who just arrived: Peggy Nash, the official opposition in Ottawa’s finance critic.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome. I’m actually glad you did that. That might put some distance between what I said we were going to model and that, so we’ll see what happens, but thank you.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): However, before we do start, I think it’s time to get introduced to the other set of youth that we have here. I ask the pages to please assemble for introduction.

Emily Anderson from Chatham–Kent–Essex; from Burlington, Jessica Caton; from Richmond Hill, Meera Chopra; from St. Paul’s, Thomas Clifford; from Brampton West, Robin Dhillon; from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Samer El-Galmady; from Mississauga South, Sarah Forbes; from Willowdale, Kevin Huang; from Nipissing, Jaclyn Hurley; from Barrie, Abbey Jackson; from Beaches–East York, Anne Lafaury; from Oakville, Shannon McCracken; from Timmins–James Bay, Owen Meunier; from Hamilton Mountain, Ibrahim Oleiche; from Newmarket–Aurora, Michael Alexander Sadono; from Sault Ste.

Marie, Ella Santana; from Scarborough Centre, Emon Senmajumder; from Peterborough, Nikola Skilton; from Ottawa West–Nepean, Shu Song; from Pickering–Scarborough East, Aqil Syed; and from Mississauga–Brampton South, Kiranpreet Walia.

These are our pages for this next session. Welcome.

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, yesterday, I talked about your failed record when it comes to job creation in the province, that we didn’t add any new jobs in the entire year of 2013. Sometimes, I’m not sure what’s worse: your jobs record or your fiscal record, because now, under the Liberal government, we have doubled our debt and we have the highest level of debt of any state or province in North America. This is very troubling. The two are related, I believe.

So, Premier, would you agree with me that if we want to send a signal that we’re open for job creation and to restore hope to people in this province, it’s important to balance the budget and pay down the debt as quickly as possible in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to just thank the member opposite for the question and say to him that employment rose in this province by 95,000 jobs over the last year.

Interjection: He knows that.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: He knows that, and I think he knows that, since June 2009, we have net new jobs of 440,000. So in fact, I think he knows that the way that we are working to work with communities, to invest in communities, to work with businesses and prosper—I think he knows that that is actually the way to go. We are not going to buy into or support a plan that would actually push good jobs out of the province and that would undermine labour. The strategies that the Leader of the Opposition is interested in would actually cut jobs, would cut programs and slash programs across government, and we don’t believe that is the way to build to an aspirational future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: As you know, clearly, Premier, your plan is not working. We’re losing 300,000 manufacturing jobs. We’re deep in debt. It seems to me that it’s basic sense: If the plan isn’t working, you try a different plan, you try a different path. And while yesterday you and the leader of the NDP were basically arguing over what taxes to raise and when, the Ontario PC Party was laying out our plan to create a million jobs in the province of Ontario and restore hope.

We continue that path on how we get Ontario working again. My colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Doug Holyday, is introducing a bill later today called the Financial Accountability Officer Act. It would basically compel the new Financial Accountability Officer to look at areas of managed competition to ensure that we contract out services, where possible, where it makes sense for taxpayers, so we get the best quality at the best price to the taxpayer.

Premier, can I count on you to support Doug Holyday’s very sensible, thoughtful and forward-looking bill?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member’s question is about achieving savings, and just yesterday we announced changes to the public sector retiree benefits, which will save, I think, at full maturity, a billion dollars a year, so that is a very important and significant change. I hope that the leader of the third party supports that and thinks that that is a good idea.

I haven’t seen the private member’s bill that the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore is going to bring forward, but I understand that he couldn’t identify any areas where this particular idea would apply. The notion of contracting out, which I guess is at the root of the issue—he couldn’t identify whether he thought contracting out teachers was a good idea, or contracting out the police. He didn’t have an answer to that.

Like the million jobs plan that the leader of the third party talked about, it is magical thinking. We don’t engage in magical thinking. We have a plan, and that plan is working.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: When it comes to our deep indebtedness and creating jobs, I wish you’d engage in any kind of thinking whatsoever. We need another plan.

Premier, I’m a little worried by your answer that you weren’t watching Doug Holyday’s press conference. He laid it out. It follows on the Drummond commission recommendations. Basically, we think there are all kinds of areas where we’d ask the Financial Accountability Officer to give advice.

I’ll give you one off the top of my head: The TDSB, under your watch, was paying $3,000 to switch an electric circuit. You know that in your own home, if you were to change an electric circuit—unless you could do it yourself—you’d look for the best price and the best quality for an electrician. You’d do that in your home, but Premier, when it comes to taxpayers’ dollars, why don’t you do the sane, sensible thing? Why do you lock into a contract that costs $3,000 for something that should be 10 times less expensive and shows respect for the taxpayer in this great province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that we have already adopted 60% of the recommendations that Mr. Drummond put forward.

I want to talk about our plan, because the Leader of the Opposition is engaging in what really is magical thinking because there are no specifics about how he would move forward, except we know there would be deep cuts and slashes to programs across government and there would be a laying-off of thousands of teachers and thousands of people who work in the health care sector. What we’re saying is that we believe that this is a time that we need to invest in infrastructure. We need to invest in roads and bridges and in transit across the province.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We believe that skills and training is an area where there needs to be support. We need to make sure that all of the young people in this room today have the opportunities to develop the skills that they need to take

part in the 21st century. Those are the kinds of investments that we’re making. We think they should come along with us.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier on the same topic: Let me give you another example that Doug Holyday’s bill would fix and why I think that you should support Mr. Holyday’s bill. I think it’s sensible. It’s proven. It’s working everywhere else, but for some reason you’re standing in the way here in the province of Ontario.

Again, under your leadership, the Toronto District School Board, because they’re locked into a particular contract with a government union, paid $143 to install a pencil sharpener. If you were to go to Staples today, that same pencil sharpener would cost you $20.

So I ask you again, Premier: Why are you forcing taxpayers to pay $143 for something that should cost $20 maximum?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Leader of the Opposition is aware, or I assume he’s aware, that the Toronto District School Board is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

As soon as I sit down, the next person who decides to jump when there’s quiet—I’ll get you too.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My understanding is that the Toronto District School Board is moving to address these issues where there was a contract in place that was not reasonable, Mr. Speaker.

I think it’s important to understand that at the base of this question that the Leader of the Opposition is asking is an attack on organized labour. That’s actually at the root of it, because this right-to-work legislation that he has proposed that really is at the heart of his notion about where the economy should go is an attack on organized labour. It’s an attack on the gains that organized labour has made over decades, and, in fact, would drive our workforce to the bottom. That’s where he wants to go. We’re not going to go there with him, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t understand, Speaker, why the Premier is not supporting such a simple, proven concept. Everywhere else it has been tried, it has saved anywhere from 15% to 30% for the taxpayer.

Let me take this back to the big picture of why this is important. Not only does it then improve the quality of services, but it means we have more money to invest in maybe that new drug to help treat Parkinson’s; to help treat cancer; money that we can actually use to balance the books. When we send that signal that we actually have our fiscal house in order, we get new investment, more jobs in our province. That means the young people here today for the model Parliament can find their future here in the province of Ontario, not out in Alberta or British Columbia.

Premier, I’ve given you two examples. I’ve got a whole list. I can go on and on, but I don’t understand why you don’t just give me yes for an answer. It’s a sensible bill; it’s proven; it’s thoughtful. It’s about time we made this happen in our province.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I say, I have not seen the piece of legislation. I’m happy to read it and to look at it. But, Mr. Speaker, if there’s anything specific in it, I’m happy to look at that.

Again, this is a savings question, and I pointed out that yesterday we announced retiree benefit changes. I will just say, Mr. Speaker, and correct my record, that it’s $1.2-billion savings over the next five years.

My hope is that the Leader of the Opposition would see that that’s the kind of move that makes sense. That’s the kind of work that we have been doing and we will continue to do. Then he would understand that investing in the future, investing in transit and roads and bridges across the province, investing in skills training for young people, making sure that our young people have opportunities, as they are getting in the youth employment strategy, for placements and job opportunities—that’s the kind of work that is necessary right now, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, Premier, I don’t think it’s standing up for taxpayers when you’re paying 10 times the cost for a pencil sharpener. Imagine the costs across government.

The Auditor General looked at your own spending in ServiceOntario, for example, and found that those that were in managed competition for ServiceOntario were three times cheaper than those that were government-run. It seems eminently sensible. To me, that sends a signal that Ontario is open for business, for job creation again.

I’m on the side of taxpayers on this and I’m on the side of the young people who actually want to find a future in the province of Ontario. The problem I think with you is, you’re on the side of the special interests who are getting rich off of these fat contracts. I guess the only reason why you can’t give me a yes or no is that you’ve got to call Pat Dillon and the Working Families coalition and get their permission. Why are you on the side of special interests? Why don’t you stand up for taxpayers, get our fiscal house in order and make Ontario open for investment and jobs again?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m on the side of mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers across this province who want to make sure that their children have the opportunities that they need. I’m on the side of aunts and uncles who are taking their nieces and nephews to school, who are helping families get to school. They need transit. They need transportation opportunities to be able to help their families get to work and get back from work.

I’m on the side of young people who want a good start in life. There are already 7,600 young people who have had an opportunity through our youth employment strategy, Mr. Speaker. I’m on the side of those kids who want a future. I’m on the side of middle class families who want retirement security. That’s who I’m on the side of.

Interjections.

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

New question.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. I am sending the Ontario Liberal platform for 2011 across to the Premier. These are the commitments that the Premier, as a candidate and campaign co-chair, took to the people when seeking support to sit here in this Legislature. Can the Premier tell me, Speaker, on which page the plan for new tolls, taxes and fees is?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I’m happy to have this question. But I really have to say that it is amazing to me that the leader of the third party continues to dissemble on her position in terms of building transit in this province, Mr. Speaker, and investing in infrastructure. It’s beyond me how the leader of the third party can actually believe that this is not a moment in our history when we need those kinds of investments, when people need those kinds of investments.

We know that productivity is lost because we don’t have adequate transit in the GTA. We know that northern communities struggle to pay for their infrastructure. We know that those kinds of investments are necessary. So I would have thought that, of all the people on the other side of the floor, the leader of the third party would have been a champion for those kinds of—

Interjections.

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

I did get a chance to understand one of the words that the Premier said, and I would ask to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. I would ask the Premier to withdraw.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question was not answered. I thought the Premier should know that it’s not there. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite, Speaker: The Premier and her party promised the people that they would not raise taxes on households.

As campaign co-chair, is the Premier aware of the commitments that she was actually elected on?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There has been a lot of talk about change in Ontario. I wasn’t the Premier in 2011. I’m the Premier now, Mr. Speaker. We have a new plan. That’s what this last year has been about: It has been about a new plan. We do have a new plan—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I liked it when you weren’t the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member for Nepean–Carleton might have liked it when I wasn’t the leader, but I am the leader now, Mr. Speaker. We have a team that is very, very committed to making those investments. I look to the leader of the third party. I hope she will support us in investments in transit and take a position on building infrastructure across the province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it is not just the platform. The Liberals went out of their way—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister for Rural Affairs is now warned.

Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals went out of their way, Speaker, to assure people that they would not raise taxes, tolls or fees. The Liberal leader went further: “Ontario families have made their contributions. We will not [raise taxes].” The party issued a statement saying, “Ontario Liberals have rejected tolls on existing provincial highways and consistently said no to tolls on the DVP or Gardiner Expressway.”

Is the Premier ready to admit that she has no mandate to hit families with new taxes, tolls and fees?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have been, as a government, investing in transit since 2003. We’re going to continue to do that, and so our position that we need a revenue stream to continue to build transit is completely consistent with what we have been doing.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the leader of the third party that she talk to us about what’s going on in her own caucus because there are members who actually agree that this is something that should be looked at. At a public meeting run by Metrolinx, the MPP for Davenport said, “We’ll look at revenue tools to make sure they’re fair and meet the purpose.” At that same meeting, the MPP for Parkdale–High Park promised to cover 50% of the TTC’s operational funding and said, “Do we need more money for transportation? Absolutely.... ” That’s the NDP, Mr. Speaker. Those are the values—

Interjections.

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier—in fact, the Premier who is the MPP for Don Valley West and who took $4 billion out of Transit City when she was the minister.

Speaker, families haven’t seen a raise in years, and they’re watching the bills pile up. But instead of making life more affordable, instead of respecting the middle-class families that sent us here, the Premier is telling hard-working families that they’re going to have to pay more—even after promising that she wouldn’t. What does the Premier have to say to those families, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party is aware that when I was Minister of Transportation, that $4 billion stayed in the transit build. It was reconfigured, but it stayed in. It was just a slower flow of dollars. She knows perfectly well that that was the case.

What I would say to families across the province is that we’re working very hard to make sure that their lives are better, including investing in transportation infrastructure and transit, and also making changes like changes to the minimum wage, making sure that that minimum wage, as it increases over the coming years, is pegged to index to inflation. We’re going to be bringing in legislation to create that indexation. I hope that the leader of the third party and her caucus would support that because I would think that the NDP would think it would be a good idea to have a rational plan for minimum wage going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier says she doesn’t want to play Let’s Make a Deal, but it seems that she can’t deal with the commitments that she made to families in the last election. Once again, Liberals are looking to hit household budgets with new taxes after explicitly promising that they wouldn’t.

What does the Premier have to say to those families, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, what I have to say to people across the province is, we are going to make investments in transportation and in infrastructure, including transit. We are going to do that in the fairest way possible. What I would have expected is that we would have had support from, quite frankly, both parties in the opposition, because I know that the PCs understand that having decent infrastructure and having modern infrastructure is important to the economy and actually saves businesses money.

I especially would have expected from the NDP that they would have understood that that kind of investment is an investment in the future, and it’s critical to the future well-being of people across this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier likes to talk about fairness, but this is what people see: New HST loopholes will let corporations write off the HST when they gas up the company car at the same time as Liberals create a brand new gas tax for the moms in Sudbury or Thunder Bay or Brampton—a party that was elected on a promise not to hit household budgets with new taxes, tolls and fees getting ready to do it yet again.

What does the Premier have to say to those moms and those families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I really believe that it’s important that a government take leadership on the long-term issues that are going to affect people’s lives. If we do nothing as a government but push aside those long-term issues and hold on to short-term quick fixes, then we are not doing our job.

I would say to the leader of the third party that it would be wonderful if we could have a conversation about retirement security, for example, as a long-term issue that is of concern across the country. I have no idea what the leader of the third party believes about what we should do in terms of retirement security.

I believe that having a CPP enhancement would have been the best way forward. The federal government doesn’t want to do that. We are going to put together an Ontario plan. I hope that the leader of the third party will see that as worthy of her support, as it will make a huge difference to people into the future.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: My question is for the Premier. Premier, I hope I’m reading you incorrectly, because I seem to sense that you’ve already taken a position on the bill that I’m about to put forward this afternoon. I want to assure you that this is not to do with politics; it’s to do with good management of the government and it’s to do with the best use of scarce resources, that being tax dollars.

We found out in municipalities, particularly the municipality of Toronto, that we could save a lot of money if we would just look outside of the way we’re normally providing service. Now, I think that all municipalities should do this, but I think the lead has got to come from the province of Ontario, and that’s what the bill is all about. We’re asking the Financial Accountability Officer to report to the Legislature on opportunities to use alternate service delivery to save money.

This can be done, and it’s only a review of the matter, but it needs your support, and I’m urging you to please support it. A lot of money can be saved if we do this. Will you support it?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Government Services is going to want to speak on the specifics. As I said, I haven’t read the bill. I know it was just released this morning, and I was in meetings; I have not had a chance to look at the legislation. I don’t know what the specifics are.

We are world leaders, as the Minister of Transportation is noting, in our alternative financing procurement. We have developed very strong alternative models of financing and procurement, and we continue to do that work.

I understand the analogy that was made this morning was with the city of Toronto contracting out garbage. Well, we don’t pick up garbage. We don’t have that function, so I don’t know exactly what functions the member is talking about. We’ll look at the legislation, and we’ll take it from there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s obvious to me that there are two things happening here. Oh, don’t point your finger. Don’t you dare point your finger.

We’ve got two different conversations going on. That’s not helpful, and it’s also not helpful to do the shout-down stuff that’s happening, so let’s just bring it down, please.

Supplementary.

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Yes, to the Premier: This is also recommended in the Drummond report; it’s in the 40% that you haven’t done. It’s also recommended by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce that we take a look at alternate service delivery. It’s a good way to reduce the cost of this government. It can be done.

The city of Toronto could save $35 million contracting out its garbage for the entire city. It should have been done in 2000, but it wasn’t done, so that means from 2000 to now—12 years—they’ve wasted over $400 million of taxpayers’ dollars. At the same time, they come up here to the province, cap in hand, on one knee, begging for money to balance their own budget when they wouldn’t do the things that were needed to do it themselves.

Now, I want to put us in the position of being able to balance our own budget, save the money that we can save, provide the service that we need to provide, and do it in the best way. Will you support it?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Government Services.

Hon. John Milloy: You know, Mr. Speaker, at first, in passing, I’m surprised that the member, as the critic for the Ministry of Government Services, wouldn’t have stood up today and congratulated the government on our move yesterday on retiree benefits, which will save some $1.2 billion.

I’m not sure where the member has been for the last number of years. I realize he hasn’t been in the Legislature, but he would have seen that our government has taken numerous steps to find more creative ways to deliver services to the people of Ontario in an efficient and productive way. But, Mr. Speaker, we have been driven by what makes sense, not by the type of ideology that we’ve seen from across the way, the type that has led to the let’s-have-right-to-work-for-less legislation, privatization.

I’m not prepared today to stand here and take lessons from the party that brought us privatization of the 407 on how government can bring forward these services.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In November of last year, after Cliffs announced it would stop operations in the Ring of Fire, the minister hastily announced the creation of a development corporation. Several NDP attempts for information on this new development corporation were called “premature” by the government. Even the federal government is requesting details that the province just doesn’t have.

Last Friday, the ministry announced that it had hired consultant firm Deloitte to set up a development corporation, the same development corporation that had already been announced three months prior. How much is Deloitte getting paid to come up with a project that the Liberal government already announced it had created?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you for the question. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that despite the lack of support that we’re getting from the other side of the House, we are making important and significant progress on the Ring of Fire, and may I say that the creation of the development corporation is absolutely key to that.

We recognize that there need to be decisions made related to infrastructure. We know that in terms of the project moving forward, we have got to be able to get the resources out of the Ring of Fire and, obviously, to market. That’s why that’s so important.

We also, working with our potential partners, certainly including industry, First Nations and potentially the federal government—hopefully—recognize that we want to move forward with the kind of expertise that Deloitte can provide to us. They have the governance expertise and they have the legal expertise to be able to pull this together in terms of making the decision on infrastructure.

There are other aspects that I do want to speak about, particularly related to how important our work with the First Nations is, and perhaps I’ll get to that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again to the minister: For the past three years, the NDP has been calling on the government to take a leadership role in creating a real plan that will benefit job creation in the province. Time and time again, the government kept using rosy press releases on agreements, without facts to back them up. Hiring Deloitte is an admission that the government never had a plan for Ring of Fire development in the first place.

Will this government stop giving out consulting contracts to outside firms and do its job by coming up with a serious plan for Ring of Fire development instead of wasting another five years?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We have spoken so very often, certainly the Premier has and other members of our government, about how important it is to get it right, and indeed it is very important that we get it right. That’s why, indeed, I think we’re getting support from our industry partners and getting support from many others in terms of the retention of Deloitte being that key to probably pulling the establishment of the development corporation together. It’s crucial.

But also on that parallel path are the very important negotiations that are taking place between the province, led by Frank Iacobucci, and by Mr. Rae, representing Matawa First Nations. We’re working very hard to bringing that to a position where we can make a more formal announcement of that moving forward. That’s crucial to this as well. I know the member knows that.

But in terms of the development corporation, we are moving forward in a very positive way. We’re getting support for the work for the development corporation and support for the work that Deloitte will give in terms of the expertise they can provide to us.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. My constituents have raised a number of concerns regarding the previous session. Particularly, they’ve observed the government’s troubles in advancing laws to address the challenges faced by our environment here in Ontario.

Those who care about Ontario’s environment were dismayed to watch the Protection of Public Participation Act addressed on five separate occasions over the past nine months without progressing to a vote. Further, the official opposition ate up much of committee time on the Great Lakes Protection Act, allowing only four amendments to be voted on.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please speak to the speed of environmental bills moving through this Legislature?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I do understand the concerns of his constituents. Our government understands that Ontario’s environment is always fragile. In order to restore and preserve its beauty and value for the current as well as for future generations, action has to be taken now. Economic and environmental opportunities, I think, are being lost. That’s as a result, I think, of political jockeying, which happens in this House from time to time, mainly when I hear the bells ringing and prolonged debates and so on.

I recognize that the Conservative Party has chosen to be against many of these environmental initiatives; that’s their business. That’s why we’re appealing to the New Democratic Party to try to form a green majority, if you will, to pass these four bills. I’ve directed a letter to my good colleagues, the New Democratic Party, who have been supportive of this legislation, to help us out with this programming motion. I hope they will give it some favourable consideration because I think it would advance the cause of the environment.

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

Carry on.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t need some quarterbacks.

Mr. John Fraser: Again, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Residents of Ottawa South will be pleased to hear that our government is seeking the support of the third party to work towards the greater cause of protecting Ontario’s environment.

It is a shame that the economic and environmental opportunities were lost in the previous session due to political games being played by the official opposition. Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment please remind the people of Ontario why we need to pass these important pieces of environmental legislation and how they would ensure a healthier future for our environment and our economy?

Hon. James J. Bradley: It’s an excellent question. We need these laws to protect the Great Lakes, for example, and that’s Bill 6. We have widespread support for the proposed Great Lakes Protection Act from health and environmental groups as well as municipalities. We need to expand recycling. The Waste Reduction Act would, if passed, create new opportunities for business investment and jobs by harnessing the economic value of waste. We need these laws to stop polluters from intimidating community groups who are trying to protect their own neighbourhoods.

Again, I respect the fact that the Conservative Party has decided to be against most of these environmental laws—one not, but most of them. That is why I am asking all members of the House, including my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who have spoken in favour of these bills in the House and in committee, to work with us. We want to get these bills moving so we can continue our consultation with the stakeholders and provide them with the opportunity to present their advice and recommendations to all members of committee. That’s the way the House should work, and I hope that’s going to be the case.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. During the recent ice storm and the power outage, it was clear that the province’s emergency management preparedness plan was either ignored or it was lacking, or perhaps it was both. Whether it was the disregard of basic communications channels—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. All right. Let’s go to the people now.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Whether it was a disregard for basic communication channels of operation to opposition MPPs or the glaring reality that politics, not progress, was behind the giveaway gift card fiasco, it was clear that this government put postal-code politics ahead of plans for Ontarians. In the aftermath of the ice storm, the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus asked for a select committee to study the province’s emergency preparedness protocol for quicker response in the future. I’m sending my page over with our direct request to the government House leader as well as our proposal, and I would ask that the Premier stand in her place and agree with that—

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, having met every day during the ice storm with the leadership from Emergency Management Ontario and Hydro One, I know that they were on the ground in every community that was struck by the ice storm and they were working hard to make sure that all of those lines were reconnected and that people got their power back. They did it around the clock. There were workers on the ground. It was complicated. It was complicated because of the tree coverage.

It was complicated because of the breadth of the storm, but the fact is that those workers were on the ground, and their leadership was engaged across government to make sure that every resource, whether there was an emergency declared or not—and the member opposite knows that there were not emergencies declared except in one jurisdiction. Across the board in every jurisdiction, every resource was available to communities.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland will come to order.

Carry on.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The workers’ leadership is not in question. It is your leadership that is in question. This wasn’t just a Toronto issue. Opposition members of the Legislature, even from Toronto, never received verbal briefings from you, your energy minister or anyone over there. You chose to give out gift cards in the city of Toronto, but not to opposition areas until much later in the day. Your own energy minister was missing in action. And I will say this, Minister: You showed leadership—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to say it again, just to make sure you heard it: The Minister of Education will come to order. And then the member from Renfrew is prepared to receive another one; I will give it to him, but he’s on the edge.

Please finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: When the Minister of Energy was mayor of Ottawa and regional chair, he actually displayed leadership in a time of crisis. I don’t know what has changed with him. Perhaps he’s now a lapdog for this government.

But what is unacceptable was their postal-code politics that were played in the city of Toronto, in seats that they could win, at the expense of people in other affected areas.

Let me ask the Premier this one more time: Will you call the select committee? Will you put progress before politics?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really have to say that I honestly believe that this is a shameful question, because the fact is that there were people working across the province. The member opposite knows perfectly well that the gift card program, which was a small part of our attempt to offer some support, was offered in every community. Every municipality that was affected was offered it, and they took it up, and the member opposite knows that. My understanding is that the member for Nepean–Carleton’s office was offered a briefing, and that was declined.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I am looking for some decorum. I resent that, when I do get control and we do get calm, somebody uses it as an opportunity to start it again.

You have 10 seconds.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I said that it was my understanding. If that’s not the case, then we will look into that. There are two reviews that are happening as a part of the response to the ice storm. There’s the after-action report and the supply chain review. It—

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

HEALTH CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Seventy-two-year-old Kelemua Esayase is a very sick woman. She, like 600 other people seeking care at Trillium Health Group in Toronto, had her CT scan read incorrectly by a radiologist. Due to this error, Mrs. Esayase’s cancer was not diagnosed, and the treatment was not provided. This hospital has admitted to Mrs. Esayase that they made a mistake, that they made an error.

Does the minister think that it is sufficient for the hospital to admit that they’ve made a mistake, or do they have a responsibility to help and care for patients like Mrs. Esayase who have suffered because of these errors?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Of course, I am prohibited from speaking about individual cases, but I can assure you that all individuals with urgent care needs are treated in our hospitals, regardless of their coverage. That is an obligation under the Public Hospitals Act, that people are treated. Hospitals cannot refuse to treat or admit an individual if the refusal would thereby endanger the person’s life, regardless of the individual’s residency or insurance status. So, Speaker, this, of course, is an issue that I think everyone is concerned about and is investigating what has happened in this particular situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, after months of misdiagnosis, Mrs. Esayase’s ovarian cancer was finally caught but at an advanced stage. Then the worst happened: Surgeons refused to operate.

The family feels abandoned by the health care system and by the hospital. They feel that their mother is paying with her life for their mistakes.

Speaker, the minister must hold the hospital accountable. She has to make sure that they take responsibility for their mistakes and the way they impact patients. When will the minister do her job and ensure that hospitals do their part to help people affected like Mrs. Esayase?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I can assure you that Trillium Health Partners is actively working with the patient and the family to address their concerns. That work is ongoing. I can also tell you that Cancer Care Ontario has put in place evidence-based protocols for determining when patients need chemotherapy or surgery. Ultimately, physicians are responsible for making health care decisions in consultation with patients and their families.

Speaker, I can assure you that people who work in health care in the province of Ontario are as fine a group of people as we could find anywhere on earth. They are dedicated to providing the highest possible quality of care to patients, and if something does go wrong, they are the first to look at that and say, “What can we do to make sure this does not happen again?”

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre des Transports et de l’Infrastructure, the Honourable Glen Murray. Minister, I’d just like to first of all take this opportunity publicly to thank you for taking time recently to visit my own riding of Etobicoke North to make an important announcement which, of course, will be a benefit to my constituents.

Of course, I’m well aware of how our government is making record investments in public transit, and these will have echoing and recurring benefits for all of my residents. My constituents rely on GO trains and buses to get to and from work and school, as well as to transport family, friends and visitors to our vibrant community. The GO system helps to reduce congestion on the roads and helps to keep our air clean.

Minister, I would ask you to please inform this House, and through this chamber, as well my own residents, about some of the details of the transit investment that we recently announced together.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister. I’d like to, of course, formally and officially thank you for the update and the upgrade to the Etobicoke North GO station.

I know my community continues to benefit from the ongoing investments that our government is making, whether we’re talking about health care, community safety or, in this case, transportation and infrastructure.

Nevertheless, adding to the list of troubling policy commitments that the honourable Leader of the Opposition is making, I was a little bit dismayed to learn that he might halt infrastructure spending for communities like mine.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Transportation, would the minister please inform this House: What are some of the investments that we’re making in communities across Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: One of the areas that we don’t talk a lot about is our highway program, which is almost $3 billion, Mr. Speaker. We’re working right now on twinning highways across northern Ontario. The Windsor-Essex parkway now—not only has it been a success in the sense that we’re building one of the most important trade routes, but it has actually provoked the construction of the new presidential bridge—the most important trade corridor.

But, Mr. Speaker, to maintain economic growth and jobs, we have to spend 5% of our GDP on infrastructure. Anything less would mean a loss of jobs and competitiveness. We’re very proud that after 30 years of less than one quarter of 1% being spent by this government, we are now at 2% of GDP, or about $13 billion.

The municipalities are doing their job. They’ve reached the 1% goal of GDP. The federal government, Mr. Flaherty—he sat in this House as a finance minister. I commend him; he has been incredibly consistent. He has now got the federal government down to somewhere between a quarter and a half of GDP, which will kill jobs and undermine the future of our economy.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, you know by now that your outdated ratio system is costing tens of thousands of Ontario citizens, citizens like these young men and women in the audience here today, an opportunity of a good career in the trades. You must surely know that by now. Our young people are taking their apprenticeships in BC and Alberta while you dither and allow the Ontario College of Trades to become a new barrier for job creation and economic growth right here in this province.

You brag about seeing more women and more aboriginals enter the trades, yet they are the first to be subjected to your three-to-one ratio system that is costing them valuable opportunities.

When, Minister, can we expect to see you get on the side of young men and women and support the position of Tim Hudak and the PC caucus and support a one-to-one ratio system here in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: With all of these young people here today, what a great opportunity for me to have to smoke out the party opposite on their position when it comes to ratios. I want to say to the young people—through you, Mr. Speaker—here today that when that party was in office, in eight years, they reduced apprenticeship trade ratios by zero. The NDP, in all of their years in office, had one. In our years of office, before the College of Trades got put in place, we did eight reductions—eight times more than the NDP. I can’t do the math because they did zero.

Since the College of Trades has been up and running, they’ve done 14 in less than a year. So we’ve done 22 trade ratio reductions, compared to zero that you did when you were in office. I think that’s a pretty darn good track record. I think that people in this audience can add a lot better than you can.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the same boring and uninformed message that you have been subjected to for months. The fact of the matter is that only two trades have been approved by your cabinet: floor covering installer and cement finisher. The other 22 are a joke. You’ve never approved anything—nothing you’ve approved. And just yesterday, your Ontario College of Trades regulation review committee had an emergency meeting to pass regulations for the 22 trades that you have been saying are already passed. That was following a letter to Ron Johnson by the Ontario home builders, so you went right into panic mode.

We already know that the ratio review teams are too biased to go to a one-to-one ratio, but at least, Minister, when will you finally get cabinet approval to change some of the ratios when, in fact, you could have done this earlier this year? You could have done it without even forming the Ontario College of Trades. You could have done it yourself, if you want to brag about that. We don’t need the Ontario College of Trades. Let’s abolish it once and forever. Get rid of this mess.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I think if the member really cared about the people in the audience here today and if he cared about young apprentices, he would want to support the College of Trades because the College of Trades has a mandate to promote skilled trades with our young people. It has a mandate to provide skilled tradespeople with the ability to govern themselves.

What he’s not saying to the young people here today is he wants to go back to the days when politicians ran the skilled trades, back in the Tory days when we had zero trade ratio changes.

Young people in this province don’t want to go back to Mike Harris. Young people want to move forward with a Liberal government that’s going to continue to grow the skilled trades, going to continue to help young people get into the skilled trades. That’s what the College of Trades is going to do.

Stop the politics. Start standing up for the young people of this province.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety.

Speaker, in the wake of the horrendous retirement home fire in L’Isle-Verte, Quebec, on January 23, the Minister of Health was quoted as saying on CBC, “One thing she wants to do is go back and look at accelerating the mandatory installation of the sprinklers.

“Sprinklers are being installed in older long-term-care homes operated by the Ministry of Health as it rebuilds its facilities, but that program is scheduled to last until 2025.”

Speaker, the Minister of Health says she’ll accelerate implementation in government care facilities, but can the minister explain if the government has a plan for protecting the vulnerable people in our province who live in the other facilities—and when?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you very much for this question. I know that the Minister of Health would like to answer the second question.

First of all, what happened in L’Isle-Verte, Quebec, is very, very unfortunate. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones there.

We are very proud to be the first province to make sprinklers mandatory in existing retirement homes and long-term-care facilities. It was not an easy process, but we did it with everybody at the table. I want to take this opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to thank all of those who came to the table and were willing to compromise to make sure that we achieved this very important milestone in public safety. Let me say again that we are the only government in the country to do this.

We’ll continue to make sure that our seniors are safe in their facilities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs worked on the issue for years with very slow success. From the time I raised this issue until the 2013 consultation, six seniors lost their lives in retirement home fires, while this minister did nothing. Those deaths didn’t inspire her to get moving more quickly on the issue, but sadly it seems to have taken the recent tragedy to get her colleague moving on it. Even in the wake of the comments by her colleague, this minister has done nothing to address the implementation periods for the regulations passed by this cabinet last spring.

Will this minister commit to providing an update this week on the status of the implementation of the new regulations, and provide this Legislature with an accelerated timeline for each part of the regulations, to protect the people of this province?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Any time there is a tragedy like we saw in L’Isle-Verte, of course we all look to see what lessons can be learned, and that’s exactly what we are doing.

I think it’s important to note that 70% of our long-term-care homes do have sprinklers. The remaining 30% are slated for redevelopment, to bring them up to today’s standards, which of course will include sprinklers.

It is important to note that it’s not only about sprinklers when it comes to fire safety, Speaker. We have taken significant steps to make sure that all of our residents are as safe as can be. In fact, we’ve provided $20 million to support long-term-care homes to come up to code, to develop evacuation plans, to develop safety plans, enhance fire protection equipment, fire safety training for staff. All of our long-term-care homes must, and do, have a comprehensive fire safety plan.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

In Ontario, we have some of the best and brightest young minds. What is encouraging is that many of them want to give back to their community. They’re talented, creative and driven.

In my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, I know that many of the young people, like Kevin Vuong, George Xu, Alice Wang, Akehil Johnson and Tamara Myazada, are not afraid to step up in terms of a challenge and be part of the solution. Like many young people in Ontario, they need our help. They need mentorship. They need guidance to realize their full potential.

In fall 2013, our government announced new funding for youth programs at MaRS Discovery District. Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Children and Youth Services tell the House what is included in the curriculum of this program and tell us more about the status of this initiative?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you to the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for this very important question today. The member is right: Ontario has many exceptional, globally minded youth who are passionate about their communities and about making a difference in their communities. In fact, there are a number of them with us here today.

We recognize that for them to realize their potential and succeed, they need to build the right skills, have access to the right resources and make the right connections. That’s why I’m proud that our government is investing in the MaRS Discovery District’s Studio Y Ontario social impact and youth leadership academy, with their first group of cohorts with us today. Fellows at Studio Y will take

part in an intensive skills development curriculum. It will include training in leadership, project management, entrepreneurship, community-building and governance.

In January, I had the opportunity to meet the first cohort, and I was amazed by their positive energy. These promising youth have the drive, determination and talent to become leaders capable of making positive social change in Ontario for years to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Soo Wong: I thank the minister for that res