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

April 30, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Apr-30 (PDF)

L033 - Tue 30 Apr 2013 / Mar 30 avr 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 30 April 2013 Mardi 30 avril 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION

ACT (TANNING BEDS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

(LITS DE BRONZAGE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

CANCER TREATMENT

AIR QUALITY

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

POWER PLANTS

FLOODING

POWER PLANTS

CANCER TREATMENT

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

ANIMAL PROTECTION

VISITOR

CORRECTION OF RECORD

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

CARNATION REVOLUTION

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

VICTIM SERVICES

AWARD OF DISTINCTION

BANGLADESHI PROTEST

PRÉVENTION DE L’INTIMIDATION

MICHELANGELO PROSTHETIC HAND

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TECHNICAL STANDARDS

AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES TECHNIQUES

ET LA SÉCURITÉ

PETITIONS

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

PAN AM GAMES

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

PAN AM GAMES

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

UTILITY TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

MINING INDUSTRY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

PAN AM GAMES

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION

ACT (TANNING BEDS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

(LITS DE BRONZAGE)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 17, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to regulate the selling and marketing of tanning services and ultraviolet light treatments / Projet de loi 30, Loi visant à réglementer la vente et la commercialisation de services de bronzage et de traitements par rayonnement ultraviolet.

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

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I start my one hour lead, I would like to introduce a few people who have joined us this morning in the gallery. I’m talking about Nicole McInerney—I did better with her name this time—Kelly Gorman and Joanne Di Nardo. All three of those women have been coming to Queen’s Park. They work for the Ontario branch of the Canadian Cancer Society and they really, really want this bill to move forward.

Basically, the bill that we’re talking about today will do a few things. The first thing that it will do, and it’s the thing that the bill is best known for, is that it will ban young people—that is, 18 and under—from gaining access to tanning beds and tanning salons. Adults will continue to have free access, but anyone 18 and under won’t have access, which means that when you go to access a tanning booth, a tanning bed or a tanning salon, they will ask you for your ID—very much similar to what we do for cigarettes or alcohol etc.

It will also ban selling of advertising for tanning services to people under the age of 18. So right now, if you go onto the Internet, if you go on web pages, if you go on Facebook, if you go into graduation books—graduation is coming, Mr. Speaker, so kids are getting together, putting together books from their years in high school. They sell advertising so that they can put the graduation books together. Well, this new bill, when passed, will ban the practice: You will not be allowed to promote and advertise the use of tanning beds directly to youth, to people under 18.

It will also make it mandatory for everyone who intends to sell tanning services to tell the public health unit. The public health unit will now have a registry of where all of those tanning beds and tanning booths are. Because right now, Mr. Speaker, some are pretty easy; if it says Miami Sun, you have a pretty good idea they’re selling tanning services. But for some of them, frankly we have no idea that they are doing this. You can go to a gym—I’ll name GoodLife, which is in my building right now and has this great deal on. For a minimum amount of money you can tan all you want.

Sometimes the tanning beds are at the back of a gym. Or basically we just don’t know where they are. So if you own the equipment, that’s fine, it’s yours; you do as you see fit. But if you use the equipment in a business, that is, if you derive money from it, you will have to call the health unit, and the health unit will now have a registry of everywhere we have tanning beds. You would be surprised; there are a lot of them out there, not only in beauty salons and hair salons but also in, as I say, health and fitness types of places.

The bill will create a system of enforcement so that not only will the health unit keep the registry—you will have to register with the health unit—but there will also be a system of enforcement, so that if you don’t check for ID, if you do provide tanning services to young people, then you will have a penalty fee. And some of those are rather substantive.

The bill also may create exceptions for medical reasons. Although, after having spoken with more dermatologists than I knew we had in Ontario—we have quite a few; I have realized that—none of them could ever see a reason why they would send someone to a tanning salon. So it could very well be this is a moot point, but we left it in the bill just in case there is somebody that we haven’t talked to.

As you know, this is a bill whose time had come. Basically, way back in 2008, the former member from London–Fanshawe—not the present member sitting beside me but the former member—introduced almost the identical bill. In 2008, he brought it for second reading. Unfortunately, it died on the order paper. He and I reintroduced it as a joint bill, that is, co-sponsored between—he was a member of the Liberals—the Liberal Party and ourselves. We reintroduced it as a joint bill with the idea of really showing that this was not a political issue, that this was a basic health promotion issue that we were putting forward.

It sort of makes sense to have it as a co-sponsored bill, which we did. Here again, the goodwill of 2010 between two parties died on the order paper.

I brought it back in 2012—we’re getting closer and closer—and by that time it had received tremendous support. A lot of the groundwork had been done.

Whereas in 2008 and in 2010 there was still quite a bit of pushback from the industry, by the time 2012 had come, things had changed dramatically.

First of all, we had the association of Ontario medical students. They did a fantastic job reaching out to university students and really educating them as to the danger of using tanning beds. Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as a tanned skin; a tanned skin is a damaged skin. There is no safe use of tanning beds. The glamour industry is way more powerful than any one of us in this room. When they put a message out, oh, they know how to target their audience and how to be heard.

They had all of those false pretensions about the goodness of tanning beds: “Oh, it will help you with your vitamin D deficiencies.” It did everything but the dishes. None of that is true. There is nothing good that comes out of using tanning beds. A tanned skin is a damaged skin, full stop.

The Ontario association of medical students had gone through universities and got the message out to all of the younger people. There was a very nice postcard campaign that I’m not supposed to show, but I will read. The postcard campaign was called “No tan is worth dying for!” It urged the government of Ontario to enact legislation that bans the use of artificial tanning equipment by youth under the age of 18. It was, “Show your support, sign a postcard,” and it was by the prevention and screening network of the cancer society. This particular one came from around my riding. I want to thank Dr.

Sutcliffe from the Sudbury and District Health Unit, who put together a youth group that went out and did education in high schools, where a lot of young women, mainly, make the decision to use tanning beds for the first time. What the postcard asked for was quite simple: “I support the Canadian Cancer Society’s call to action for the government of Ontario to:

“—ban the use of artificial tanning equipment by youth under the age of 18;

“—prohibit the marketing of artificial tanning targeting youth;

“—develop and maintain a registry of artificial tanning equipment in Ontario;

“—ensure all staff operating artificial tanning equipment are trained on operation, procedures, maintenance, and how to identify people at greater risk of developing cancer, particularly those with type 1;”—that is, people with very, very fair skin, sometime with freckles;

“—require that signage be placed in clear view of each bed, clearly outlining the health risks of artificial tanning.”

I forgot to say in my opening statement that this is also something that is contained in the bill.

The postcard went on with a little “Did you know?” box. The “Did you know?” said, “Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, such as that emitted from artificial tanning equipment, during childhood and adolescence can increase a person’s risk of getting skin cancer both now and later in life.

“Melanoma is the second most common form of cancer in young Ontarians aged 15-34.” Those were rather powerful words. Those postcard campaigns were done—there was a petition that was basically identical to what the postcard campaign had said, that went throughout Ontario.

Then came the cancer society. The Ontario cancer society in 2012 held a breakfast here at Queen’s Park, in our dining room. They had dozens and dozens of very, very good and dedicated volunteers with them who came from all 107 ridings here in Ontario. They basically had a chat, a one-on-one, with their MPP to explain to their MPP why it was important for us to support this.

The work has been done, Speaker. The work has been done. Youth are now on board. They realize the danger that this is. They realize how powerful the glamour industry is for some of their peers and they are ready for protection. They are asking us for protection, and I think it is our duty as legislators to do that. How do we do this? We do this by passing this bill, the Skin Cancer Protection Act.

There were a number of other activities that had also taken place. Again, the great volunteers from the cancer society throughout Ontario would go to high schools and talk. I had the pleasure to attend some of those presentations in my own riding. I will always remember, we went to Lockerby high school, which is a big high school in Sudbury. They had arranged for all of the graduating class and the class before that to come into the gymnasium. There were hundreds and hundreds, close to 1,000 young people in there.

The cancer society had found a woman who was actually the mother of one of those students, who came and talked. She came and shared her own story of her own battle with cancer. You could see that the students were listening intently. We then put out the message about the damage of using tanning equipment. Then we asked them to take a pledge. We knew that this would put a lot of peer pressure, so we made it comfortable for whoever was not willing to take the pledge. They all did, except for three just gorgeous young women, extremely tanned.

The message I got out of this is that when you can share your message early, when you can protect them, youth get it. They know that nothing good will come of this. They know that they are partly the target/victim of the glamour industry. But once they have the knowledge, they take the right decision. What we are trying to do right now is to make it easy on all by banning them.

We’ve all had—some of them are too young, but I’ll speak for myself. It was tough raising kids through their teenage years. My three went through teenage years like bing, bang, bang, all of them at the same time. I’m happy I survived that period of time. As hard as it was on them, I think it was even harder on me. It’s a tough time to be a parent of teenagers. They want to drive the car, sometimes when it’s not appropriate. They wanted to experiment with alcohol when I didn’t think it was appropriate. They certainly were under pressure to experiment with recreational drugs when I thought it was inappropriate.

And they wanted to go out with people who I thought weren’t good either. So you end up saying no on a whole lot of things to your teenage sons and daughters as they grow up. Then they want to get tanned. At some point you have to say, “I’m tired of saying no all the time. I don’t want them to drink and drive. I don’t want them to do drugs. I certainly don’t want them to drink to excess. Maybe I’ll give up on something—you know, to try to give and take with your teenager. And what do you give up on?

It seems like tanning is something that you could give your support to and say, “Well, at least, she’s not drinking and driving or going out with this guy that I really don’t care for.” So you give up. You give in, not knowing that what you’re doing is increasing her risk of skin cancer by 75%.

I worked in a hospital long enough—we had a cancer treatment centre and I worked on the oncology unit long enough to know that skin cancer is no fun. The treatment for melanoma is no picnic either. The chances of death are right up there. Melanoma is not easy to treat. Once you have it—hopefully you catch it early, but once you have melanoma and you fight skin cancer, you’re in a battle for your life. Unfortunately, many of them will lose that battle.

Looking back to all of those parents that are going through those trying years of trying to guide their teenage sons and daughters on the right path, let’s take that battle away from the raising of kids. As legislators, let’s do the right thing and make it clear that it doesn’t matter how much you beg your mom, you’re not going to be allowed in there. You are not to be allowed in there because nothing good will come of it, because a tanned skin is a damaged skin. And the damage just keeps on adding; it never goes away.

This is what we are trying to do here today. We are trying to have this debate on the use of artificial tanning equipment and how this industry needs to be regulated.

Another part of the bill is that we will be putting clear signs, warning signs, directly on it, very similar to what you see on cigarette packages right now that spells it out in black and white: If you smoke cigarettes, chances are you will get cancer. Those warning signs will be there. Although youth won’t be allowed to use tanning equipment, a lot of other people still will be allowed, so at least we will be giving them information that comes from a reliable source as to what are the effects.

The actual wording is not in the bill, simply because Health Canada has also decided to look into this, and Health Canada will be issuing a warning, will be mandating warnings, on tanning equipment. So if the warning that Health Canada—if we can coordinate our efforts so that we agree, then all the better. Not only will there be just one sign; it will be clear language that will be throughout all of the different provinces and Ontario.

The need for this bill to regulate the tanning industry is gaining more and more support. I talked a little bit as to what some of the youth are doing—youth on youth, through either the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario branch or their regional branch, and through the health units in different areas, where they talk to one another. I’ve talked about what was happening at the university level with the medical students that attend those universities.

But the pressure to move on with this bill is also coming from the health care society, so I would like to thank the many groups that I’m about to read out. This group, of course, includes the Canadian Cancer Society. When the Canadian Cancer Society started to put their time and effort and energy behind this bill, I knew that we were on the right track. They have a way of recruiting volunteers, of training them, of doing peer mentoring that is just phenomenal. When they identified tanning, the regulation of tanning beds, and started to put their message out, it became very, very credible and very powerful.

The Canadian skin cancer association also put their shoulder to the wheel. Again, the skin cancer association is specifically for people living with skin cancer. I will highlight one such person, who I think a lot of you got to know. Her name is Kate. You met her last spring, the spring of 2012. Her name is Kate Neale. Kate is just, you know, one of those drop-dead gorgeous young women. She is very, very pretty, and she’s very smart.

Kate started working for the tanning industry when she was in her teens. Kate started tanning quite regularly, up to 16 times a month, basically every second day, because—you know what, Madam Speaker?—in Kate’s contract of employment, there was a clause that said, “In order to keep your job, you must maintain a tanned appearance.”

Can you believe this, Madam Speaker? We are telling those young women throughout the hundreds of tanning salons we have in Ontario that if you want to keep your job, you have to expose yourself to a known carcinogen. Since 2009, the World Health Organization has upgraded tanning equipment to the highest level; it’s on par with arsenic and tobacco and everything else. If you use tanning equipment, you increase your risk of cancer. It’s not an “if” or a “maybe”; it is quantified. You increase it by 75%.

So here we are, a young woman wanting to make a few dollars so that she can pay for her tuition, her books and enter the workforce, who is told, “If you want to have a job with us, you will have to maintain a tanned appearance.” I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can tell you that in Nickel Belt, in February, maintaining a tanned appearance is not that obvious. It is impossible to do this unless you go to a tanning bed, unless you expose yourself to a known carcinogen. Yet it was in her contract. Kate did not want to lose her job. Like many young women, she needed the money.

But like everybody else, I can tell you that this year we’ve had the winter that did not know when to end. I was ready to ditch it out weeks and months ago, but it stayed. By the way, the ice went off the lake on Sunday at 2:30, thank heaven. Spring is here. This aside, it was a long winter. How do you maintain a tanned appearance? You go to a tanning salon. You got to a tanning booth.

So here is Kate, taking all of the training that her employers were offering. She became extremely knowledgeable about all of the goodness of tanning beds. Then, the worst happened. Then she went with her mom to an appointment with her dermatologist. When she tells the story, she is able to tell the story lightheartedly, actually, because when she got to the appointment, the doctor thought that it was for Kate’s mom, because Kate was so young. She was not even 20 years old. Yet she had developed skin cancer. Kate is now 22 years old.

She has a big scar on her breast and a big scar on her stomach from where they did surgery to remove skin cancer. Kate couldn’t attend when the Minister of Health reintroduced the bill because she was undergoing medical care. But Kate—not only is she very pretty; she’s very smart—used her knowledge of the tanning industry to speak to her peers, to turn things around, to make things better. She’s asking us to follow in her footsteps and make it easy, to make the right decision the easy decision: Ban it for everybody under 18. Put warning signs on it. Make sure we know where those things are.

Make sure we talk to people with type 1 skin. Kate should never have tanned. She’s one of those with the type 1 skin. Yet she did, 16 times a month; about every second day she used the tanning bed.

She talked about it. She said that after a while she felt like she had become dependent on it, that she needed her fix of sunshine, she needed her fix of exposure to UV. Of course, there is nothing we can do to change the past, but as legislators we can certainly change the future for the better.

I also had a chance to meet with the Melanoma Network. Melanoma is the worst type of skin cancer, in the sense that it is very tough to treat. The treatment can only be described as brutal and not always successful. There are many survivors of melanoma. Once you get them all in a room, they often have something in common: They used tanning beds when they were younger, not knowing.

Kate’s cancer developed really quickly, but the statistics would tell you that it usually takes between 10 and 15 years before the cancer will appear. So if you use a tanning bed when you’re 16 years old, chances are you will be 26 or 30 when the cancer shows. At 26 or 30 years old, you are just starting your career. You finally finished school. Hopefully, you got a job that allows you to support yourself. Often, your first job will be a little bit more precarious—lots without drug plans, lots without job security—and you have to undergo cancer treatment. They are just starting out in life, and then they get news like that.

If you spend any time with the Melanoma Network, you will see that, unfortunately, a lot of their stories all have something in common, something that we can change right here in this Legislature. What they have in common is that they used tanning beds when they were young.

We also met with the David Cornfield Melanoma Fund, which is basically a fund that helps people deal with melanoma-type skin cancer and what it does to their lives. Because, have no fear, not only is it hard physically and emotionally for yourself, your family, your loved ones and your friends, it also hits you in the pocketbook pretty heavily. If you haven’t got a drug plan, be ready to get into debt. It is expensive.

The Ontario Medical Association has given their unconditional support. They are the ones who get to break the news. They are the ones who get to look those beautiful young women in the eye and say, “This weird-looking freckle there is not a freckle. It’s actually skin cancer.” There’s not one physician in world that likes doing this. It is hard on the patient; it is just as hard on the physician. They know what it means. They know what the future holds. They know the hardships.

They know that they have just hit this person in the stomach and that they are about to keel over, because when you are the one who is tasked with sharing news like this, nobody likes it. The Ontario Medical Association and their members would much rather we prevent it than that they had to share that news and then support their patients. The Canadian Dermatology Association is doing the same thing.

I must say that back in 2008 and 2010 Ontario would have been the very first province to bring regulation to the tanning industry. We’re now old news. Most of the other provinces have done it already. You look to Quebec, you look to British Columbia, you look to the Maritime provinces, Newfoundland—they’ve already passed those bills.

Actually, it was quite something because when Maryse Gaudreault, who was an MPP for Hull at the Assemblée Nationale in Quebec, when they started to do their work, they actually came to Ontario. They wanted us to share the research that we had done. They wanted us to share our bill with them, which I did. They beat us to the punch because they took our bill, ran it through their Legislative Assembly, and not only did the bill pass, but all of the regulations and everything else have already gone through; it’s already in place, it has already happened.

It feels sort of weird because at the time we were the leader on this issue. We’re also the province that has the most tanning salons, in part because we have more people, but as a percentage we’re also very high. The National Assembly in Québec did it, and they did it in a fairly short period of time.

There is very little pushback from the industry. Here again, I have to thank the good people at the cancer society. They did what we call on-the-ground research. What they did was they hired young people and they asked them to go—I used to know the number by heart, but we’ll say 72; the number is about that—to 72 tanning salons in Toronto. They were all underage, and they basically presented themselves and asked to tan. What do you figure happened?

Do you figure that the industry, who had guidelines as to who they should and should not let in their doors—they had guidelines that they were supposed to post and show to everybody regarding type 1 and warnings—well, I won’t keep you in suspense any longer. Nothing happened. The kids paid their money and they were allowed in. None of the warnings that were supposed to be there were there. None of them had done all of the guidelines. A few of them had one or two of the guidelines in place; none of them had them all.

All of them welcomed their money and rolled out—it wouldn’t be the red carpet—the heating lamps for them to go under.

I sort of did the same thing in my riding. I had 12 of them at the time; I have 13 now. I called them for my daughter, saying that my daughter wanted to go tanning, and if she would be allowed in. The conversation never lasted more than 30 seconds. Within the 30 seconds, it was, “I will fax you this sheet that says that you allowed her in.” It didn’t matter if I pretended she was 14, which she was not. All I had to do was agree to their offer of signing this fax—they had it on the Internet—or she could just bring a piece of paper from home and go tanning. None of them talked about “not allowed under 16” at the time. None of them talked to me about her skin type or anything like this.

The industry has been under guidelines for many, many years. It has not worked, which is why things have changed. Things have changed in five other provinces, and things are about to change in Ontario.

I had told you that the member from London–Fanshawe had introduced the bill. We co-sponsored it. I brought it back. Then the Minister of Health, in this session, finally brought it forward. When she came to see me—because she said, “This is more or less your bill”—to see if I was okay with it, I asked for one thing. I had no problem giving the bill away; it is not a partisan issue. I asked for one thing: I asked that it be moved through the House quickly.

As you know, Speaker, the government controls the legislative calendar; I don’t. My second ballot, my chance to bring a bill for second reading, is not until December. Now that we have a budget coming, it probably won’t be until February 2014. I don’t want to wait until February 2014 before this Legislative Assembly does the right thing. I want us to move with this, and the quicker, the better. So when the Minister of Health came—I thank her for this—and offered this, I jumped at the occasion. She has the opportunity to move this through the House quickly, and I sure hope that she does. I will come back to this in a minute.

I talked about some of the agencies that have supported us, and there have been many, many. I’ll share some of the statistics with you: 16% of grades 11 and 12 teenagers use tanning beds. That is 16% of youth in Ontario who are putting themselves at risk of skin cancer and melanoma. I’m no statistician or anything like this, but I can see a bleak future where 10 years from now, of those 16% of youth—which represents hundreds of thousands of youth—a lot of them will have skin cancer, and a lot of them will need our health care system to try to go through this.

When I mentioned the provinces, I forgot to—in the Maritime provinces we have Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, on top of Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and British Columbia.

If we look a bit at the international market—because when you bring a private member’s bill forward, you do a ton of research, actually—the first country to ever ban it was Brazil. Brazil has lots of sunshine, but yet there are people who fall to the pressure of the glamour industry and want to tan some more.

In December 2012, a territory of Australia called Victoria banned all sun beds, and by December 2014, a big part of Australia will have banned tanning beds altogether. It’s not only for youth; it will be no more—no more, no more. Australia already has a very high rate of skin cancer. They don’t have to deal with the winter that we deal with, and the people there are exposed to natural sun a whole lot more than we are.

So a lot of their population have skin cancer, but here again, the tanning industry, the glamour industry, got to their youth the same way they got to ours, and the need to be tanned was still there, was still put forward in a way that a high percentage of young people, mainly young women and girls, in Australia do that. Australia is going way further than us. They are banning this altogether.

There is a time-sensitive period to this. The first one is when people go away for the March break. The tanning industry will tell you lies such as, “Oh, if you get a base tan, you won’t burn as much. Oh, if you....” None of this is true. None of this is true. A tanned skin is a damaged skin.

There is another big push that is coming, and this is graduation. There will be lots of people graduating from high school, from college, from university, and those parties are becoming bigger and bigger all the time. Not only do you need the right dress and the right partner; you also need the right tan.

I’m really proud of many high schools in Nickel Belt and Sudbury that have brought forward the campaign “Cool to be Fair”; that is, cool to be fair-skinned. They take pledges that they will not tan before they go to prom, they will not tan before they go to a graduation ceremony, and more and more of them are doing this. But, here again, for 16% of youth, the pull of glamour is stronger.

When you do health promotion with that age group—I call them the “three I”: they are invincible, immortal and infertile—it’s really, really hard to get any of those messages across to that particular age group. I don’t want to leave it to parents anymore; I want us to do something. Because although they feel invincible and they feel immortal and they also feel infertile, they are none of the above; they are just like the rest of us. Some of them die and some of them get sick, and you know what happens with the rest of them. The idea here is to take that away.

We’re not asking for a big step. We’re not ruining the industry or anything like this. Other jurisdictions are banning them all together; we are taking small, reasonable steps, which I would say most of the industry knows are inevitable. After Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Newfoundland and us, having had this bill in this House for the fourth time now, they know that it is inevitable. I would say soon, I hope this afternoon, we send this bill to committee. I would say that if we need two hours in committee, that would be about it. Because there is no pushback to this bill anymore.

We could line up 100 groups and speakers who will come and speak in favour of it, and this is fine. I still want it to go into committee, because the people have a right to see the bill in its entirety. And if we can tighten up the language and do things even better, I’m all for that. But I want this to move, and to move quickly.

I’ve been talking about girls and women because they are the main users, but an interesting statistic is that 3% of men also use tanning beds and their skin is no different than the skin of a woman. They are increasing their chances of melanoma and skin cancer by 75%, just like the girls and the women who agree to use those tanning beds. But tanning equipment is more common among young women. You can see that it decreases as you stop buying the glamour magazines; it follows the same age range: 26% of women between the age of 16 and 24 years old use tanning beds—26%; I told you the statistic.

In 10 years from whatever age they are now, chances are—I don’t wish any harm upon anybody, but chances are some of them will be going through a very tough time. And it decreases: 7% of women age 45 to 64. I don’t want to wait till they’re 64 before we get the message across. Those statistics come from the Ontario Sun Safety Working Group and are dated 2010. I’m taking a pretty sure bet that the curve has not gone down. Unless we do something, it will continue.

In the last two decades, we’ve diagnosed 80,000 new skin cancers every single year. I’ll let that sink in: 80,000 people get a diagnosis of skin cancer. Everybody’s starting to do the math: 365 days; that means many, many people every day are faced with the news that they now have skin cancer. The most common cancer for people aged 15 to 29 is skin cancer.

Let’s look at the economics of that. It’s pretty daunting. Right now we’re looking at close to $1 billion a year in care. That is just the care that is paid for by the government. It’s actually $922 million. This is based on 2010, called the Economic Burden of Skin Cancer in Canada. This is a lot of money.

When we’re looking at how we can save money in the health care system—well, the best way to save money in the health care system is to not need it in the first place. I absolutely guarantee you, Madam Speaker, nobody will volunteer for chemotherapy and radiation treatment unless they need it. If you don’t have skin cancer, nobody—those 80,000 people? They’re not going to volunteer for the treatment. We only treat them once they have cancer. We could prevent a whole lot of this hardship from happening, and it has an added bonus: Not only do you save hardship on people and families, you also save money within the health care system.

In Ontario alone, the cost of skin cancer—the statistics I was just giving you are Canada-wide. In Ontario alone, in 2011 the cost to our health care system was $344 million. That’s a lot of money, $344 million; I can think of a few things that I’d like to do with that money in the health care system. I think a five-day home care guarantee would be a nice place to start, but I digress.

Interjection: Or a mental health strategy.

M me France Gélinas: Or a mental health strategy—even better. I could think of a whole lot of things $344 million could buy us rather than treating skin cancer in young people when it could have been prevented.

When we start to look at Ontarians, how do they feel about regulation of the industry? Well, 83% of Ontarians support a ban on indoor tanning—83%. I’ve been in politics for five and a half years, and that’s long enough to know that we will never get 100% support, no matter how good the idea is. To have 83% support is pretty high; 83% of the people in Ontario get it. They know that this industry needs to be regulated.

Of the people that were polled, 73% said that the industry cannot be trusted to self-regulate, 83% said we should ban indoor tanning for youth under 18, and 80% said that we should have legislation to regulate the tanning industry. I think it is high time that Ontario do this. The studies are there. The World Health Organization has spoken.

The guidelines for tanning salon owners, operators and users, which are based on Health Canada’s 2005 guidelines, have not been effective. Health Canada did put out their guidelines, but they were not followed. If we looked at the website—you don’t even have to go on-site; go onto the website of the tanning salons, and 40% won’t even mention any of the regulations and guidelines from Health Canada. Only two websites—that’s 5%—provide information about skin cancer risks. This is rather shameful.

I don’t want to paint them all with the same brush, because I have been in contact with many, many tanning salon owners that have come to see me, and many of them get it. Many of them realize that they are not all the same—some of them want to do the right thing, but then, they work within an industry, and if their competitors across the street are opening their doors to girls of 16 and 17, and they are doing the right thing and turning them away, they’re not going to be in business for very long. Those operators do want the industry to be regulated, and a lot of them out there are quite willing to do the right thing. They know what the right thing is, and they’re quite willing to do it.

I would say that in 2008, in 2010, it could have been unpleasant politically because the industry was still fighting this quite a bit. They still wanted us to believe that there was some good coming out of a tanned skin, that a base tan was something good, that vitamin D was something that Ontarians needed. They’ve changed their tune about this.

The cancer society has done its work, it has done this research and it has been phenomenal at educating people to basically put a clear message out: A tanned skin is a damaged skin; there is no safe tan. If you repeat it enough times, people get it. But the industry still needs to be regulated.

Avant de conclure, j’aimerais vous parler d’une campagne que le Service de santé publique de Sudbury avait commencée. Je suis très fière de la D re Penny Sutcliffe, qui est notre médecin-hygiéniste à Sudbury, pour le district de Sudbury, qui avait lancé la campagne de cartes postales. La carte postale s’appelle « Se faire bronzer ne vaut pas le risque de mourir! ».

C’était une carte postale qu’un groupe du bureau de santé publique de Sudbury avait commencée, mais c’est une campagne qui s’est propagée à la grandeur de la province où des jeunes des écoles secondaires partaient avec leurs cartes postales et demandaient à leurs pairs—c’est-à-dire d’autres étudiants du secondaire et parfois du collégial—de signer les cartes postales. La carte postale dit : « Faites pression auprès du gouvernement de l’Ontario pour qu’il décrète une loi interdisant l’usage d’équipement de bronzage artificiel par les jeunes de moins de 18 ans. Montrez votre appui en signant une carte postale. »

Puis, cela avait leur logo.

Ce qu’ils demandent est exactement ce qu’on a dans le projet de loi : « J’appuie “l’appel à l’action” de la Société canadienne du cancer, division de l’Ontario, qui demande au gouvernement de l’Ontario :

« —d’interdire l’usage de l’équipement de bronzage artificiel par les jeunes de moins de 18 ans »—ça c’est la

partie de la loi que les gens connaissent le mieux;

« —d’interdire la commercialisation de bronzage artificiel qui cible les jeunes »—donc, dans les cahiers de fin d’année, pendant les bals de finissants, on ne verra plus d’annonces de l’industrie du bronzage;

« —d’élaborer et de maintenir un registre de l’équipement de bronzage artificiel en Ontario » parce qu’en ce moment, on n’a aucune idée; dans un salon de bronzage, on a une pas mal bonne idée qu’il va y avoir des lits de bronzage, mais il y en a dans des gymnases, il y en a dans des clubs d’aérobie, il y en a chez les coiffeuses, il y en a un peu partout. Maintenant, le bureau de santé publique va savoir exactement où ils sont;

« —de faire en sorte que tout le personnel responsable du fonctionnement d’équipement de bronzage artificiel participe à une formation sur les procédures, l’entretien et les façons de cerner les personnes qui sont plus à risque de développer un cancer, surtout celles qui ont une peau de type 1… »;—une peau de type 1 : ils ont tendance à être très pâles, et parfois ils ont des taches de rousseur—« et

« —d’exiger qu’une affiche soit placée bien en vue de chaque lit de bronzage, décrivant les risques du bronzage artificiel pour la santé ». Donc, lorsque tu vas vers un lit de bronzage, ça va être clair.

Il y avait un petit message également : « Le saviez-vous?

« L’exposition à la radiation ultraviolette, comme celle qui est émise par l’équipement de bronzage artificiel, au cours de l’enfance et de l’adolescence peut augmenter les risques de développer un cancer de la peau, maintenant et plus tard dans la vie. »

Et le deuxième : « Le mélanome est la forme de cancer la plus commune chez les jeunes Ontariens et Ontariennes de 15 à 34 ans. »

Une campagne excellente.

I’ll use the two minutes I have left to say how important it is for us to move forward. We have a minority government. There is a budget coming. There are all sorts of rumours as to, will there be an election? Will there be changes?

This bill has the support from all three sides of the House. I was very happy to listen when the minister and her PA did their hour lead. I did the same thing when the PC lead was done. I listened to the comments that were made and the personal testimonies that were shared in this House of people who have been diagnosed with skin cancer, friends they know who have melanoma or other forms of skin cancer.

It is quite obvious that on all sides of this House people want this regulation to take place. People want this bill to go through. I hope that it is sent to committee, this afternoon, if possible, right after this if at all possible, that it has a short period in committee to tighten up and give people—I still want to give due process to the legislative process and democracy, but that it receive third reading and royal assent before prom.

The highest usage of tanning beds will take place between the last week of May and the end of June. This is when hundreds and thousands of new girls will use tanning beds for the first time. We have it within our power right here, right now today, to protect all of those young girls from going into a tanning salon and taking the first step towards what could be skin cancer, melanoma and everything. I hope we do the right thing. I’m counting on you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Question and comments?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to respond to the remarks from the member from Nickel Belt.

I’d like to thank you for telling Kate’s story. It’s interesting. The weekend when I went home after the Minister of Health tabled this bill, my neighbourhood and lots of other neighbourhoods in Guelph were plastered with lawn signs asking people to come in and get their cut-rate tanning. Like, “Special offer. Come and get your tan.” I’ve also started to get letters in my constit office telling me that it’s not possible for young women to get cancer so quickly.

So thank you for telling Kate’s story and explaining how a young woman who is vulnerable to skin cancer because of her skin type, if she tans frequently, actually could, as a young woman, get skin cancer, because that belies some of the information that is being delivered to my constituency office. I think it’s really important for us to have that information about an actual case.

I want to say that I agree with you totally that we need to pass this bill quickly. The reality is that tanning bed season and prom season are one and the same. If we all work together to pass this bill quickly, to move it along quickly, to get it through third reading quickly, we can actually have a real impact immediately, mainly on the lives of young women but sometimes young men, too.

It’s important for viewers to understand that in order to do that, we need all three House leaders to agree to have the vote. We need all three House leaders to agree to stop putting up speakers. We certainly agree with you that we should get on with this. All three parties have indicated they support—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments and questions?

Mr. Todd Smith: Merci, madame la Présidente. C’est un plaisir de parler à la présentation d’une heure par la députée de Nickel Belt. How’s that?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Not bad.

Mr. Todd Smith: Not bad? It is a pleasure to speak to this bill, and it was a great presentation by the member from Nickel Belt. Sixty minutes is a long time and there were a lot of stats that came out during that presentation. Many of them are very important for those who are watching and listening. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that many of the people that this bill is targeted at reaching are watching and listening to this debate today.

Having been representing the riding that Kate Neale comes from, the Belleville area—Kate is a wonderful person to be spreading this message. As much as the Minister of Education or the MPP from Nickel Belt or the MPP for Prince Edward–Hastings, for that matter, can stand up and talk about the stats and how people are affected negatively by indoor tanning, the best advocates and the most important advocates are people like Kate Neale, who can tell her story. She’s 22 years old.

She’s a beautiful young lady who has been tanning for six years now and is dealing with the effects and the aftermath of melanoma and what that has done to her body. I know from talking to Kate that she lives in fear every day now, because, as you mentioned, there is that 90% chance of melanoma recurring, which it has for her, even after the surgeries that she’s had, that have left scars on her body—this terrible disease that she’s going to have to live with for the rest of her life. It’s so important that people like Kate are out there and spreading the message of how dangerous indoor tanning is.

I especially appreciate the remarks from France Gélinas where she said that not all of these tanning bed owners should be painted with the same brush, because there are some good ones out there. But this is a very dangerous thing affecting our community, and we look forward to supporting this.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Kitchener–Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure, actually, to stand up and follow the member from Nickel Belt. Her advocacy on this file is to be commended. She has shown great resilience in reaching out across the entire province to secure support.

It’s hard not to be a little bit frustrated. This could have happened in 2008. But you know, we have an opportunity before us to actually do something about this. As the Minister of Education mentioned, it’s going to take all the House leaders to accelerate, if you will, and make up for lost time on this front. I think that this can be achieved, especially given the political context of moving into a very high-pressured discussion around the budget process. So I share the enthusiasm from the member from Nickel Belt to sort of get this done and get this done today, and get it to committee, fine-tune it and then get it into regulations so that we get ahead of the whole prom season.

I think that the people of this province support this, and they would support us getting this done today, because they’ve waited a long time. I especially appreciate the comments from Nickel Belt, as a mother of teenagers who are moving into that “No, no, no” season, as she rightly pointed out. I mean, I think that parents would be very appreciative of the fact that their children could not access tanning beds at a facility. I think that that is our job, and we can get that job done today.

I just want to say thank you to her and to the legislators in this building who have taken a leadership role on this: good work. The people expect us to actually work together in this way, so let’s get this done. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Moi aussi, je voudrais féliciter la députée de Nickel Belt pour sa présentation. Je pense que c’est très important aujourd’hui qu’on travaille tous ensemble pour prévenir les cancers dans le futur parce que le cancer n’apparaît pas tout de suite. Le cancer de la peau, on dit que ça commence même chez les bébés—alors un conseil aux parents de ne pas exposer leur bébé et de mettre de la crème solaire.

Puis, il n’y a pas de meilleur temps que présentement pour lancer le message, non pas seulement aux jeunes, mais aux parents aussi. C’est le temps des graduations. C’est le temps où les jeunes filles voient dans les magazines—et elles sont les plus influençables à cet âge-ci.

On sait, comme parents—on dit que les parents sont toujours en train de dire « non, non, non », mais on a besoin de toute une communauté pour envoyer ce message-là.

So I’m very impressed with the presentation of my friend from Nickel Belt.

I have two concerns. The first concern is about the medical exemption, because as a former Minister of Community and Social Services, you cannot always trust 100% the medical community, who will have clinics like the special diet clinic—some doctor has a clinic and they will sign; they don’t know the individual, but they will sign. So I want this to be raised at committee.

The second thing that I would like to see at committee is it should be “No, no, no,” that an employer would put in a verbal or written contract—because a contract is not always written; verbal and written contracts—that the employee should use the tanning salon.

I trust that this will go to committee sooner than later and these two topics will be discussed at committee. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Nickel Belt has two minutes to respond.

I think the time has come. You’ve heard the comments around this room. Everybody agrees that the industry needs regulation, that the bill we have in front of us is a good foundation to do this. Do we need a little bit of tweaking? Every bill can be improved. Let’s send it to committee today so that we can do the last tweaking and it goes through third reading and royal assent before prom season comes.

One of the comments that I had made was that people who work in the industry are under contract to maintain a tanned appearance. We cannot stand idly by when workers have no choice but to either lose their job or to expose themselves to a known carcinogen. This has to change.

The foundation of the bill that we have in front of us is something that we have worked on since 2008. The groundwork of the health promotion initiative has been done. I cannot thank enough the people from the cancer society, dermatology, medical association, nurses’ association, health units, all of the students who participated, and the Ontario Medical Students Association for their help. I had a long, long list and I can’t find it. We had so many people help along the way. The work is done. The people of Ontario are ready for this. The industry is ready for this. What are we waiting for? The time is now. It will make a huge difference in the lives of many young women.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? The member from London—no. I’m looking at three other people at the same time.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Because you said that, Whitby–Oshawa.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome several members from Advocis, who are joining us in the gallery today: Mr. Jack Snedden and Wayne Daley from Whitby, and Alex Fischer from the great riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce a few members from my community who are sitting in the members’ east gallery today: from the Wise Advisory Group, Julian Wise, Kim Sevcik and David Stewart; from Qualified Financial Services, Denise Vitellaro Turner; and from Bearing Capital Partners, Jamie Sevcik. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure this morning to introduce a former page of this assembly and also the daughter of a former well-esteemed agriculture minister, much loved by every member of this assembly and previous assemblies: Roxane Villeneuve Robertson.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’d like to welcome Kris Birchard from Advocis, from the wonderful Blackburn Hamlet in the riding of Ottawa–Orléans. Welcome, Kris.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s an honour to introduce the warden of Middlesex county who’s joining us today, Brad Richards; the CAO of Middlesex county, Bill Rayburn; and also a good friend of mine from London, from Wernham Wealth Management, Ted Wernham. Welcome.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to welcome from my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East, Claude Rochefort from Advocis to the Ontario Legislature today. I look forward to meeting with him this afternoon. Thank you, Claude.

Mr. Michael Harris: I too would like to welcome a few members from the region of Waterloo here today with Advocis: Alan Anderson, Darren Sweeney and Dennis Yanke. Welcome to the Legislature. I look forward to meeting with you today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. I got it all?

Mr. Randy Hillier: You got it all.

Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s my pleasure to welcome and introduce to the House—I had a lovely meeting with some representatives from Advocis today in my office, and I look forward to them having a great day, as I am sure they are, at Queen’s Park today: David McGruer, John Saikaley, Richard Chartrand, Roger Rhodes, Jacques Duplain and Sean Lawrence. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. David Zimmer: I’d like to introduce a Willowdale constituent, Sonny Goldstein, who’s here for Advocis Day.

It’s the annual Queen’s Park day for the Financial Advisors Association of Canada. I remind members there is a Queen’s Park reception today at 5 p.m., and all are welcome.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to welcome a good friend of mine to the Legislature today, here for Advocis Day as well, a well-known financial investor from Belleville: Shannon Neely, who’s sitting next to the daughter of the former Agriculture Minister Noble Villeneuve, Roxane Villeneuve.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce the family of page Fiona Marshall Young: Kristin Marshall, Paul Young, Michelle Young, Waverly Chow and Lisa Chow.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I’m privileged to introduce Allain Labelle and Michael Vagnini from Advocis. A little historical perspective: Michael Vagnini is a former student of mine who attended my office often for some sound advice, so we welcome him warmly—and Allain warmly—to the Legislature.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome John Willoughby, president of Advocis.

I’d also like to recognize Tenzin Shomar, who’s the page captain today. His parents also join us—that’s Phurbu and Tsering—and sister Dephel. They are in the gallery here watching Tenzin as page captain today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Brad Richards—he is the warden of Middlesex county—and Bill Rayburn, the CAO. Welcome, please, to both of you gentlemen. Thank you.

Mr. Frank Klees: I also want to extend a welcome to the members of Advocis who are here with us today: Mr. Peter Tzanetakis, the vice-president, government and corporate relations, for Advocis; and my life insurance agent, Roger McMillan. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There’s a joke in that, but I’ll just bypass that and move right along.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome today Linda Gratton, who is part of the Advocis group from Peterborough.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Well, it’s that time. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 40th Parliament.

Please assemble.

See how quickly they did that.

Brendan Adamo from Mississauga–Brampton South; Eve Cassavoy from Scarborough Southwest; Ethan Chisamore-Johnston from Newmarket–Aurora; Benjamin Comley from Niagara West–Glanbrook; Jack Dawson from London West; Gabriel Demizio from Niagara Falls; Victoria Farkas from St.

Paul’s; Megan Gauvreau from Sudbury; Kelly Ge from Scarborough–Agincourt; Madison Hogg from Beaches–East York; Brigid Howard-Waddingham from Eglinton–Lawrence; Fiona Marshall Young from Toronto–Danforth; Chedi Mbaga from Trinity–Spadina; Samantha McCluskey from Etobicoke–Lakeshore; Simon Osak from York Centre; Karinna Pe from Willowdale; Shruti Sandhu from Thornhill; Anjali Sharma from Markham–Unionville; Tenzin Shomar from Durham; and Daniel Starrett from Whitby–Oshawa.

These are your pages for this session.

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, this morning, the Ontario Power Authority’s CEO, Colin Andersen, brought a spreadsheet to the justice committee that showed the cost of the Oakville cancellation to be $1.1 billion, less any savings. I’m sorry he had to disclose that on you.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: That’s $1.1 billion, less any savings, for a net cost potentially of $310 million.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Willowdale will come to order, and I’ll start identifying individuals. That includes members on all sides. I’m trying to get control.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They’re not used to the truth over there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew has just got himself a little deeper than I think he wants to. I’m seeking your co-operation. I will identify individuals from here on in.

Please finish your question.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you. I asked him if the government knew it was more than $40 million, and he said yes. And when I asked him who in the government knew, Speaker, his answer was one word: Everybody.

Premier, will you now apologize to Ontarians for not telling them what you’ve known all along about this gas plant scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, all parties, first of all, opposed the Oakville facility. The government honoured its commitment to the people of Oakville and renegotiated—

Mr. John Yakabuski: The opposite of Bad Boy: Everybody.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. As I’ve tried to indicate to you, it does go both ways, and it is starting to happen that way. So, the member from Renfrew, for the second time, would you please come to order?

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the government honoured its commitment to the people of Oakville and renegotiated the Oakville facility. In September 2012, the Ontario Power Authority posted on its website the memorandum of understanding and a 216-page contract. That contract identified sunk costs and also contemplated a wide range of other costs. That was there for the whole world to see in September 2012.

The Auditor General, in his Mississauga report—it was very, very clear from that that these are very complex calculations—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, given what we’ve heard this morning, I hope you’re not going to follow the path of the other Liberal witnesses who have appeared before the justice committee when you testify today. They’ve either all developed sudden-onset selective amnesia, or they just plain didn’t tell the whole truth to the committee. One admitted to destroying documents illegally, while another ordered the OPA to withhold documents. We heard that this morning from Colin Andersen again.

Ontarians are fed up with this obstructive nature and are fed up with the Liberals taking care of their political whims with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer and ratepayer money.

Premier, how can you expect to maintain the confidence of this House and Ontarians when you knew all along your numbers were false?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I’ll continue the answer that I was in the middle of before.

What’s clear from today, as well as from the previous auditor’s report, is that the calculations are very, very difficult—so complex that this morning at committee, the OPA acknowledged an estimate that it made about four weeks ago with a particular cost; it had a different cost today. The consultant that was referred to in the particular report also had a different cost figure. The opposition has a different cost figure.

That’s why the Premier asked the Auditor General to come and do a report: because we need an independent, reliable figure that we can count on, moving forward.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, I asked Colin Andersen who in the government knew the cost of cancelling Oakville would be more than $40 million. His answer was: Everybody.

Premier, there is nowhere for you to go now except to come this afternoon and tell the truth. You’ve known about the costs for months and yet have stood in this Legislature—you and your ministers—and told us something different. Behaviour like that is why you do not have the confidence of Ontarians, nor should you.

Premier, what are you going to tell us this afternoon that you couldn’t have told us a year ago?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, in September 2012 the whole world knew there were extra costs. It was on the OPA website. A 216-page contract identified sunk costs. They identified that there will be more calculations and more costs to come.

The critic—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will come to this side and say the same. I’ll start identifying you individually. My ear is pretty good. I don’t even have to see you sometimes.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, we agree with him. The whole world knew there were additional costs; it was on the website. The critic stands up and he misrepresents—he speaks—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let me do my job, please.

The member will withdraw.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

But what I will say is that he uses selective facts and selective quotes without completing the sentence, without stating that the whole world knew there were additional costs. There was a 216-page contract. If he didn’t read it in September 2012, that’s his problem. Do your job right.

Interjections.

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

New question.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Premier, Colin Andersen from the Ontario Power Authority said that your Oakville gas plant decision is at least $310 million. That’s eight times the amount you stood and told this House.

Ontarians are disgusted, and what’s even more disgusting is the Premier’s arrogance by saying this week that this House only gets one confidence vote, and that will be the budget. That’s her decision; forget the parliamentary rights of the rest of you.

The budget to be tabled will be overseen by a Premier who’s been rather “liberal” with the truth—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. You can’t say indirectly what you can’t say indirectly, so I’m asking the member to withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker—and it will be tabled by a Minister of Finance whose seat was bought by one of the gas plant decisions. I ask the Premier: Do you honestly believe that this House has confidence in your government? If so, then why don’t you call the non-confidence motion right now and test your theory?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Energy, come to order, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been very clear on the issue of confidence. I believe that the budget is an imminent and an important opportunity for the Legislature to express confidence or non-confidence in the government. I really hope that the members opposite will read the budget and then they will make their decision.

I just want to say this: I will appear before the committee this afternoon, but whether I’m in this House, whether I’m in the hall speaking to media, whether I’m at an event in some part of the province, I always tell the truth, the truth that I know, absolutely—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand the members opposite are in a position today that they want to undermine that statement, but the reality is, that is the truth.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Well, Premier, you chaired the meeting where the Oakville cancellation was approved. You signed off on the cabinet minute approving the cancellation of the Oakville plant. You stood in this House and told us a dollar number that you knew was not the whole truth. Colin Andersen said just a few minutes ago downstairs in committee that everyone knew the true cost, and that it was much higher than what the Liberal Party and what you yourself have admitted.

I ask the Premier: Who’s telling the truth, your—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Social Services, come to order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —the person who you put up as an expert and said that we should respect, long-time civil servant Colin Andersen, or you, the Premier? Are you telling the truth, that you didn’t know the true cost, or is Colin Andersen telling the truth, which he just said under oath?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe that Colin Andersen was telling the truth, absolutely.

We called the OPA to committee to answer questions about the Oakville cost. This morning, as I understand it, the OPA provided two different cost estimates. Both estimates differ from what the OPA previously advised the government. That makes the case that it’s extremely important that we have the Auditor General look at the books and determine the cost. That is why I called and asked the Auditor General to look at the Oakville situation. That’s why I asked the Auditor General to look at it, because of the complexity that the Minister of Energy was talking about, because of the complexity that Colin Andersen spoke of.

Every time I have spoken on this issue, Mr. Speaker, I have told the truth as I have understood it. I will continue to do that today and at committee.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that the Premier stood in this House on September 24, 2012, and said directly that the costs of Oakville were $40 million. The Liberals screamed and howled every time we, the Tories, said that it wasn’t true.

Now, we can understand the Liberals wanting to buy off the NDP in an attempt to cling to power during the budget discussions, but what we can’t understand on this side of the House is why it’s in the best interest of taxpayers or the half a million people unemployed in this province to keep this government going, to in any way prop up this government.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been caught red-handed and red-faced. Won’t you get up now and apologize to the people of Ontario for not telling them the whole truth? You have an opportunity to do that. You have an opportunity to save what little reputation you have. Apologize and call the non-confidence vote.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that the complexity that Colin Andersen from the OPA talked about this morning makes it very clear that waiting for the Auditor General’s report is extremely important in this case.

What I want to say to the people of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, is that I regret that this situation has come to this. I regret that we are in this situation. We collectively, because every party in this House said that they wanted to make sure that these cancellations happened, Mr. Speaker. The complexity was not going to go away if it had been the PCs who had been implementing the decision or if it had been the NDP who were implementing the decision. The complexity around the costs of these cancellations was going to be in place no matter who implemented the decision. We implemented it.

At every juncture, we were given information. That’s the information that I relayed whenever I spoke on the issue.

When I came into this office, I said that we’ve got to get these questions answered. That’s why we opened up the process; that’s why the committee has had the opportunity to ask these questions.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier likes to describe her government as new. People want change from the same old politics that have left them cynical about the work that we do here. Does the Premier agree that it’s time for that kind of change?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I’m not sure exactly where the leader of the third party is going with this, Mr. Speaker, but you know, from my perspective, what’s very important is that I follow through on what I said I was going to do. I said that we needed to open up the process around the gas plant discussion, that we needed to make sure that all documents were available, that we needed to broaden the mandate of the committee and make sure that all questions could be asked about every aspect of the decision. That’s what I’ve done.

At different junctures, both opposition parties didn’t want us to open up the process as much as we wanted it open. We’ve managed to get it open so that the committee can ask its range of questions. I think that’s what I said I was going to do. I’ve followed through, Mr. Speaker. From my perspective, that’s what the people of Ontario should be able to expect.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier keeps insisting that things have changed, but anyone watching the committee this morning, the committee that was charged with looking into the cancelled gas plants, can see that it’s politics as usual here at Queen’s Park.

This morning, the head of the OPA confirmed that the cost of scrapping the private power deal in Oakville was eight times more, eight times higher than the government claimed. Does the Premier think this will make people more cynical or less cynical about politics in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hope that what comes out of this is a better process, that we can make sure that this doesn’t happen again. Because the reality is—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact that the OPA has had different numbers to report at different points is a real problem. It creates frustration. It creates a sense of insecurity in terms of what are the experts actually looking at and how do we calculate these numbers. So how do we make sure that in the future we have a better upfront process, we make a good decision about siting this kind of infrastructure?

But if there has to be a cancellation, I think we all need to ask, how do we better predict what the costs are going to be, and how do we avoid a situation where the people who are the experts, and they are the experts, on whom we are relying—that they are able to give us better estimates?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we go to the supplementary, I’d ask the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to come to order, please.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier said she’d offer change, but instead of real answers and explanations, Liberals are busy trying to call failed Tory candidates to testify at committee in a desperate attempt to score some political points, and Tories table motions that will never be called for debate in this House. Does the Premier think this is the sort of change the people of this province want?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We also called the OPA to come and to deliver their information. We’re trying to get—and I know the OPA came as an NDP witness, but we had asked that they come earlier. The reality is that we are working with the committee process, we are trying to get the information out; we’re trying to make sure that all the documents that both the NDP and the Conservatives have asked for are available and that everyone who they’ve asked to come forward are coming forward. I’m going to be there this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

This is not a political game. From my perspective, this is about making sure that people have the information that they need. It’s about making sure that we find a way to work together and ensure that the next time around, we have better information, we have a better upfront process and the community is involved earlier on so that we don’t get into a situation like this again.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In tough times, people are looking for some real sense that their government will put the challenges facing people at the top of the agenda, not the challenges facing the Liberal Party and their well-connected insiders. The Premier has made it clear what her priority is when it comes to facing the facts on the cancelled gas plants. Is she ready to admit that this just isn’t good enough for families who expect more and better from their government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said that I regret that this situation evolved the way it did, that we did not collectively have a better process in place so that the decision could have been made up front. I agree with the leader of the third party that this should not have happened the way it happened. I agree that we should have had better information and that we should have been able to pin down what the costs were going to be in the first place.

But the reality is, this is where we are. A decision was made that was agreed to by all of the parties in the Legislature, and we are having to deal with the fallout from that. I am not happy with that. I’m not happy with that at all, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think the people of Ontario should be happy about it either. But what they should expect is that we get all the information, we learn from the situation and we put a better process in place next time around.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people feel like they’re falling behind, and they’d like some sense that the government understands their challenges and will put their needs first. That’s not what they’ve been seeing here in Ontario. The millions of dollars handed to hedge funds so the government could scrap gas plants and hold on to political power is just one example. But when people see that money can be found for corporate tax loopholes and CEO salary hikes at hospitals while they’re being told to pay more and expect less, they know that it’s time for a change. Is the Premier ready to put people first in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That is exactly what our throne speech—and what our budget is going to be about, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to a fairer society, and I think that the leader of the third party understands what that means. That means focusing on the education, on the health care that our citizens in this province need, that every resident of Ontario—every child in the province, every senior who needs service, every child who needs an education—has access to that excellent institution that we are so proud of in Ontario. That’s what the budget will be about.

The budget will also be about making sure that we have the conditions for economic growth, making sure that we are fiscally responsible so that we can deliver those services that the people in Ontario need.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For people struggling with tough times, this isn’t a game. It’s millions and millions of dollars that could have been invested in hiring nurses, creating more home care or helping young people find the job that they need. When they open the papers today, they see a lot more of the same: top executives at Ontario’s lottery corporation getting fat raises while people receiving chemotherapy treatment learned that their government refused to regulate the company that was mixing their drugs.

Is the Premier ready to get her priorities in check and not just talk about it?

Hon. Kathleen O.

Wynne: The leader of the third party, I think, knows it’s extremely important that we absolutely put the people of Ontario at the centre of all of the decisions that we make, and to make sure that, as we bring our budget forward, we recognize that making people’s lives better, making sure that young people have access to employment, making sure that people who need care in their homes get that home care, making sure that people in our northern and rural communities and the aboriginal children who are not succeeding in school get the supports that they need—those are the priorities that we need to focus on in terms of making this province a fairer society.

In order to do that, we need to stay on track in terms of our fiscal plan. We’re going to do that, and we’ll be bringing that budget to this House on Thursday.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Premier of Ontario, and it’s dealing with a very serious matter. It—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —not only with her eroding credibility but also with the confidence the people of this province have in her government.

I was at the justice committee earlier today when Colin Andersen made it very clear that everybody knew that those costs were much higher than 40%. I assume, as do all of my colleagues, that “everybody” includes you. You’ve known all along that the costs of this politically—

Interjection.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —motivated decision were huge, but you misrepresented those numbers in this House several times—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member knows that it’s not allowable. Withdraw, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn, Speaker.

The Premier knew, as a minister and now as Premier, that that $40-million figure she had been suggesting wasn’t true. So, we have a serious question for you: When were you first briefed that this $40-million figure was inaccurate? And can you tell this House why you deserve to have the confidence of the people of Ontario given what you have done?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the government House leader will want to comment on the supplementary because I know he has been following the issue very closely. But I just want the member opposite to know that no matter her accusations and no matter the tone with which she—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Somebody is making it too loud. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No matter the tone in which she delivers the accusation, the reality is that I have said I will appear at the committee and I will tell the committee exactly what I know and my experience of the situation. I will answer all the questions and I will continue to do what I have done all along, which is to tell the truth. At every juncture I will tell the truth as I understand it—at every juncture, whether I’m here in this House or whether I’m at committee or whether I’m out in the hall—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from Lanark will come to order, please.

Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: She can run and she can hide, but the people of Ontario have seen what this government has done. Don’t take my word for it. Colin Andersen said, right in front of me at the justice committee, that the $40-million figure was 775 times higher, and that everybody knew—his words; they weren’t mine, they weren’t the member’s from Nipissing. They were her own hand-picked OPA chair’s.

We know that Premier Wynne chaired the cabinet committee that signed off on the documents. We know that she was the campaign chair for the Liberals in the last election. We know she sat around the table when Colin Andersen said that everybody knew the costs were much higher than $40 million. Then, she stands in this House on September 25 and continues to cite that erroneous figure.

The people of this province have lost confidence. They want to know: Will she put our want of confidence motion on the floor to be debated and to be voted on?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, let’s start dealing in facts. This is what Mr. Andersen had to say in front of the committee this morning—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton will come to order. I think that’s the second time I’ve mentioned his riding’s name.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Let’s quote from Mr. Andersen in front of the committee this morning: “The $40-million number was the one used at the time of the announcements because it was the one that was very crystallized, if you will, at that point of time. But what was key in the sentence that you just used, the $40 million in sunk costs—because that’s exactly what it describes; it’s the sunk cost, which was acknowledged all along as only being a portion of the costs. There were other elements that were noted.”

Do you know what else Colin Andersen had to say? He said, “We have a board, and we talked about the fact that there was a very strong commitment on the part of the government and all three parties and the citizens in the area”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton will desist, please.

You have a 10-second wrap-up.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Andersen acknowledged the very simple fact that the Progressive Conservative Party was out there on the campaign trail supporting the relocation of both of those plants.

CANCER TREATMENT

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Yesterday, the committee heard from Marchese, the company that supplied the diluted chemo drugs to the hospitals. Marchese has always known that they were unregulated. Marchese actually told us that they had directly asked both federal and provincial officials to oversee their operation but they were refused. Why did the province refuse to regulate Marchese even after they were asked?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for this question. I think it’s very important to note that Marchese did approach the College of Pharmacists. The College of Pharmacists reported back to Marchese that because these were not drugs that were being mixed for individual patients, it did not fall under the definition of a pharmacy. Therefore, it did not fall under the jurisdiction of the College of Pharmacists.

The College of Pharmacists referred Marchese to Health Canada. Health Canada is responsible for the manufacturing of drugs. Indeed, it has a policy on its books that if a pharmacy does not fit under the definition of a pharmacy, then it likely is a manufactory and falls under the jurisdiction of Health Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: It is still rather disappointing to hear the answer from the Minister of Health. It’s as if the College of Pharmacists exists out there without the oversight of her ministry, and it’s as if the grey area is still news to her ministry. These facts were known long ago. The reality is that the government chose to do nothing. To make matters worse, the government now seems to be putting the responsibility of oversight on the backs of our hospitals.

My question is rather simple: Does the minister understand that it is her job to provide oversight of our health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I take my responsibility extremely seriously.

I do think it’s important that the member opposite understands that Health Canada is responsible for the safety of drugs. I was very, very pleased that Health Canada has clarified the position and that we have introduced regulations—that the College of Pharmacists is posting regulations that will fix this problem. That will go a long way to fixing this grey area.

Speaker, I am as concerned about this situation as anyone—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Lanark, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —taking strong steps to fix the problem.

AIR QUALITY

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last week the minister released the 2011 Air Quality in Ontario report, which marked the 41st year of long-term reporting on air quality in Ontario. Research has shown that air pollution has negative health effects, increases health care costs and causes premature deaths. The 2011 air quality report concluded there was a decrease in the levels of air pollutants and that air quality improved in Ontario. This is great news, especially to the health of the youngest residents in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he tell the House about the improvements that have been made since the last air quality report?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s air quality is continuing to improve. Emissions of harmful air pollutants continue to decrease. Air quality has improved significantly over the last 10 years, especially nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, three major smog-causing pollutants.

We also measure levels of fine particulate matter—tiny particles in the air that can come from a variety of sources like aerosols, smoke fumes, dust, fly ash and pollen. Yearly averages have decreased approximately 30% since 2003. Fine particulate emissions from industrial processes have decreased by more than 57% over the 10-year period from 2001 to 2010, and the transportation sector shows a gradual decrease of 23% over the same period.

The report confirms the actions we have taken, specifically the phase-out of coal, emission trading regulations, emission controls on Ontario smelters and Drive Clean emissions—

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I would like to thank the minister for his leadership and sharing with the House the positive news.

Air quality in Ontario has improved significantly over the past several years. In the minister’s answer, he identified some of the progressive initiatives that our government has undertaken which improve Ontarians’ health, taking our commitment to the environment seriously.

Since 2003, our government recognized that the health of our Ontario communities, like my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, and our environment are a high priority. We have taken many steps to improve the air quality in Ontario.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he explain what our government is doing to improve the air quality in Ontario?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Ontario’s air standards, as you would know, are among the toughest in North America. We’re still looking at new ways to improve our air quality. We don’t intend to give back the gains we’ve made, and there’s still more to be done.

Eliminating dirty coal-fired electricity generating units is the largest initiative of its kind in all of North America. Since 2003, our government has cut coal use in Ontario by nearly 90%. By the end of this year we will only have two coal plants operating, and by the end of 2014, Ontario will be one of the first places in the world to eliminate coal as a source of electricity production.

Our emissions trading regulations for nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have helped to reduce air pollutants, and the Drive Clean emissions testing has successfully reduced emissions in our transportation sector, an area where reductions are needed and difficult to achieve.

Ontario’s long-term energy plan is helping to improve our air quality by increasing the use of emission-free electricity, such as wind, solar and other forms of clean energy.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier. In light of the emerging gas plant scandal, where the government schemed to understate the true cost of cancelling the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants and then took deliberate steps to hide who was responsible for deciding to cancel the gas plants, how can the Premier continue to maintain the pretense that her government has the confidence of this House?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, there’s been a lot of talk this morning about transparency. This afternoon, the Premier of this province will be appearing before committee, as suggested.

After the arrogance of what went on across the way—and I hope there will be an apology to the Premier from the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, who stood in this House and said, “We shouldn’t have to haul you before the committee like some Quebec construction industry snitch”; the member from Leeds–Grenville, who talked about playing calendar and playing games. Yet when we asked the Leader of the Opposition to be before the committee today, he was suddenly too busy. He may appear on the 7th or the 14th; who knows. When we asked Geoff Janoscik, the candidate in Mississauga South, to come before the committee, he refused.

Mr. Speaker, I will go on in my supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. There’s a moment in which it’s difficult to find whether or not I can land somewhere, because everyone’s heckling, even when the answer is being given from the members of that side, and when the question is being put on that side. You would help everybody if we all agreed just to stop heckling, and let the question be put and let the answer be put.

Supplementary, please?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Well, the Premier keeps saying that the budget motion is a confidence motion, but taken literally, it only pertains to the budgetary policy of the government, not confidence in an overall sense. In contrast, our confidence motion allows for a more comprehensive test of the confidence that the House has in the government, setting aside the political auction sales that the last two budgets had become in this minority Parliament.

Hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition dictate that any vote can be designated as confidence by the government, and any government that can’t command the confidence of the House should resign.

By refusing to call the confidence motion for debate and a vote in this House, the government demonstrates that it believes it might be defeated if a vote were held. If they themselves don’t believe that they can command the confidence of the House, what gives them the right to table a budget this Thursday afternoon?

Interjections.

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

Answer.

Hon. John Milloy: You know, Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing heckles across the way that this is a serious business, and it is a serious business—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Simcoe–Grey, come to order. The member for Leeds–Grenville, come to order. Thank you. Now you’ve got it.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, this isn’t political games that we’re asking these people to come before committee.

Geoff Janoscik put out a press release saying, “Unlike the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, the only way to guarantee this power plant does not get built is to elect a Tim Hudak Ontario PC government.” We asked him to come before the committee to talk about the PCs’ position on the cancellation; he has refused.

We asked Mary Anne DeMonte-Whelan to come before the committee. She put out a pamphlet to thousands of houses saying, “The only party that will stop the Sherway power plant is the Ontario PC Party.” This morning, at the last minute, she cancelled.

Will they work with their colleagues to make sure that these witnesses come before the committee?

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Emails from Chris Morley, former chief of staff to Dalton McGuinty, show the Premier was briefed personally about cancelling the Oakville gas plant. Presumably, there was a discussion of costs.

Does the Premier agree that it cost a lot more than $40 million to relocate the Oakville gas plant? And when did she know that these costs were much higher than her government was claiming?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite knows that I am going to be at committee this afternoon. I’m going to be speaking to whatever questions are put before me.

I will just say again that at every juncture, when information was given to me, that was the information that I related, Mr. Speaker. I talked about the information as I understood it.

But the reality is that, this morning, the OPA provided two different cost estimates. Both estimates differ from what the OPA previously advised the government. The estimates have changed over time. That is what the OPA said this morning. I will be at committee this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: For months, the government has claimed it cost $40 million to cancel the Oakville gas plant. The Minister of Energy said on October 3, 2012, “Let’s be very clear: The memorandum of agreement speaks to the cost ... and we know that the cost … is $40 million.” Since the Premier was sworn in, she hasn’t corrected that number.

We know the Premier was briefed by Chris Morley before she signed her name to the government policy to go into arbitration on Oakville. Why did it take months of public pressure and committee hearings to get the Premier to agree that the cost was a lot more than $40 million?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: It was this Premier who has asked the Auditor General, an officer of the Legislature, to look into it.

There was a bit of noise before, a little bit of enthusiasm. Let me share Colin Andersen’s quote from this morning: “The $40-million number was the one that was used at the time of the announcements because it was the one that was very crystallized, if you will, at that point in time. But what was key in the sentence that you just used, the $40 million in sunk costs—because that’s exactly what it describes; it’s a sunk cost, which was acknowledged all along as only being a portion of the costs. There were other elements that were noted.”

We have asked the Auditor General to look into it. As has been pointed out, a number of figures were provided by the OPA. Let’s allow the Auditor General to do his work, and let’s have the committee start to do some productive work to make sure a situation like this doesn’t arise in the future.

FLOODING

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Minister, Thunder Bay and the surrounding area municipalities of Oliver Paipoonge and Conmee experienced significant flood damage in May 2012. This flooding, which was reported to be as high as six feet in some basements, resulted in damages to 4,400 homes and businesses, affecting countless families. It also resulted in significant damage to municipal infrastructure, washing out roads and bridges, damaging culverts, and causing shoulder erosion and sinkholes.

Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing tell this House what the government has done to help the people of Thunder Bay, Oliver Paipoonge and Conmee to help them recover from this flood?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank my colleague for the question, and I want to recognize the people, the staff and the first responders of Thunder Bay, Oliver Paipoonge and Conmee for their tireless work during and after this disaster to help their community.

As the House may know, I was up in Thunder Bay last week, and I was able to meet with the mayor of Thunder Bay, Keith Hobbs, and the disaster relief committee to commend them for their swift action at the time of the flooding and their assistance to residents to recover from the flood. They acted quickly, they repaired basements and removed dangerous mold, and they ensured that residents were in a safe and healthy place to live.

As a result of the hard work and advocacy by my colleagues from Thunder Bay–Atikokan and Thunder Bay–Superior North, I was happy on Friday to inform the city of Thunder Bay that the province will provide $4 million under the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program to help the city pay for their response, and we continue to work with them today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister. It’s good to hear that we have support in the city of Thunder Bay and municipalities in repairing the damage that was caused by this flood to over 4,400 homes.

The minister mentioned in the original answer that our government is committed to providing $4 million to help the city of Thunder Bay pay for these repairs to many of the private residents’ basements. Unfortunately, there have been claims in this House that our government has only provided $300,000 to the people of Thunder Bay for this disaster.

Could the Minister share with this House if our government has provided additional funds to the people of the city of Thunder Bay and the surrounding areas to repair the damage?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I appreciate the question. The province remains committed to providing up to $17.2 million to Thunder Bay and area municipalities under the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program. To date, we have already provided $3.5 million to help to reduce the financial burden of Thunder Bay and affected municipalities. These funds will help rebuild and rehabilitate infrastructure such as roads and bridges. It also helps reimburse individuals who have suffered losses from this disaster. We’ve also provided up to $200,000 to cover the administrative costs of the disaster relief committee, who are volunteers who have done important work to help the people affected.

While I was in Thunder Bay, I was able to clarify the ODRAP rules, and when the staff of municipal affairs and housing looked into the estimates of those claims, we noticed they were on the low side. I’m glad to report that the committee will be re-examining its eligible claims, and I expect there will be an adjustment on those claims.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is for the Premier.

Colin Andersen’s testimony at justice committee this morning was a scathing indictment of your Liberal government’s scandal. He confirmed that your $40 million figure to cancel Oakville is not even remotely accurate, and that the true cost is nearly eight times higher. While we have become accustomed to your numbers not adding up, even your finance minister must feel uncomfortable standing behind the fudged numbers related to these gas plant boondoggles.

Our want of confidence motion has been tabled, and refusal to call our motion for debate is an affront to democracy. Premier, will you stand in your place and commit to calling the confidence motion today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Colin Andersen appeared in front of the committee. I’ve shared some of the quotes, some of the material that he talked about—the original $40-million figure. He also provided the committee with a number of different cost estimates, which I think lends a lot of value to the move by this Premier to ask the Auditor General to look into it.

But again, Mr. Speaker, the other thing that Colin Andersen pointed out today was that he was very much aware that all parties of this House supported the cancellation of the Oakville plant. As I say, these are not political games. We asked the Leader of the Opposition to come today—a man who starred in a YouTube video, a man whose candidates put out press releases and a Twitter feed, all promising this—to talk about the work that they did, the policy work and valuations. We’ve asked Conservative candidates to come forward, and one surprisingly cancelled first thing this morning, while another has refused to go.

So perhaps in the supplementary the honourable member can talk about his efforts to get them—

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Same old spin.

My question is back to the Premier again. Premier, when you took the week-long mediation course, you must have learned that there are two sides to each dispute and a means to resolve every dispute. In case your memory fails you, I’d like to offer the following reminder: Your Liberal government told the hard-working people of Ontario that the cost of cancelling the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants to save Liberal seats in the last election was approximately $355 million lower than the actual cost. The hard-working people of Ontario are tired of your government wasting taxpayer dollars in scandals, Premier.

The Ontario PCs have tabled a motion to test whether or not the people of Ontario still have confidence in your government, given the accumulation of the scandals under your watch. Premier, will you stand in your place, show some integrity and call that confidence motion today?

Hon. John Milloy: I don’t see this as being spin. The member of Halton, Hansard, June 1, 2010: “The people of Oakville have told you they don’t want the proposed gas-fired power plant ... and I agree with them.”

The member from Halton, Hansard, September 14, 2010: “Oakville residents have called on you to change the location of the proposed Oakville power plant…. I have listened to the people of Oakville, and I agree with them.”

The member from Halton, a press release, September 14, 2010: “Minister, will you move the Oakville power plant? I am asking the minister to consider moving this plant.”

The member from Halton, Hansard, October 19, 2010: “I was pleased when it was cancelled.”

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. Dozens and dozens of quotes from the opposition, where they put forward the exact same commitment. It was a promise they made and a promise we kept.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Yesterday we heard from the London Health Sciences Centre, the hospital most affected by the diluted chemotherapy drugs. Hospital officials told us they would never have knowingly used a non-regulated provider and that they trusted the safety of the procurement process.

There is ample evidence that the ministry has known about this grey area for years. Can the minister explain why her ministry did nothing for so long?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the question. I just want to take a moment to say thank you to the people from the London Health Sciences Centre who appeared yesterday and I think gave very thoughtful and very thorough answers to the questions that were put to them. This has been a difficult time for everyone at London Health Sciences, and I applaud them coming and giving the answers that they did yesterday.

As I said to the earlier question on this issue, Marchese did approach the College of Pharmacists. The College of Pharmacists informed them that they did not have the authority to regulate that particular activity and referred them to Health Canada.

I think what is very important here is that we are taking the steps necessary, in collaboration with Health Canada, to ensure that this does not happen again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Ontarians want to know exactly what went wrong and how this could have happened. For the almost 700 patients affected in London, the urgency is even greater. The hospital seemed to do everything in its power to protect its patients, but the ministry failed in its duty of oversight. Will the minister explain why she failed to protect patients in London when they needed the protection the most?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I agree that we—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to pass the test. The member from Lanark is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I completely agree that the patients affected and their loved ones deserve answers. That is why I have appointed Dr. Jake Thiessen to really do a thorough investigation so that we can get answers and we can take appropriate steps.

We’re not waiting, though, to take steps. The College of Pharmacists and the hospitals are taking appropriate steps now, but we do await the more thorough review.

I also think it’s important to note that Marchese could have chosen to deliver this under their pharmacy; in fact, the original contact was with the regulated pharmacy. They then chose to spin off a separate company that did fall into this grey area.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question today for the Minister of Research and Innovation.

Our government really recognizes that bringing leaders together across sectors is one of the best ways we can drive innovation. Our province is home to world-class researchers, leading institutions and very strong private sector partners that have helped make this province number six in the world for the quality and the impact of its research. This research creates jobs, generates economic growth, and it makes Ontario one of the best places to live and work.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Research and Innovation: What is our government doing to ensure that leaders across all sectors, including government, are collaborating to produce the best outcomes for Ontario when it comes to research?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member for that question.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Research and Innovation, I am proud to be part of a government that is forward-thinking and innovative.

Great advances can be made by sharing best practices, ideas and resources. Our government recognizes the importance of collaboration. Collaboration will translate into job creation, better health care, a cleaner environment and a stronger economy.

Recently, our government invested $100 million in the Ontario Brain Institute. This investment will support a network of data on brain diseases across disciplines. Researchers will be able to turn information into clinical application and commercialization opportunities.

Data is an integral part of our knowledge-based economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I’m glad to hear we’re investing in an institution that’s doing important work in the area of brain disease.

I know that the minister was travelling in the Thunder Bay area recently to the regional research centre.

We all know in this House that collaborating and sharing information is critical. We can find solutions to our shared challenges if we do that.

Big data is a major trend in the technology and research communities, and it appears that’s going to drive a lot of innovation. Some say that data is the currency of the new economy. Our ability to access, understand, search and organize information is important.

The work of the Ontario Brain Institute is a great example of the important work that can be done through sharing data.

Speaker, through you again to the minister: What other government investments are being made to ensure the sharing of data?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member again for that question.

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of data sharing. With our contribution of $7 million, IBM Canada was able to partner with leading universities across the province to create the IBM Canada Research and Development Centre. Using state-of-the-art computing facilities, this centre is focusing on solutions for climate change, gridlock and also on mapping of the human brain.

I recently attended the Think Conference organized by ORION, or the Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network, which focused on big data. ORION members can access a global grid of research and innovation and educational networks. Students, educators, researchers and businesses across the province can access and explore data and share information.

I am proud to be a part of a government whose investments in innovative, collaborative and forward-thinking projects is—

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

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: My question is for the Premier.

Speaker, the government has “known from the outset” that the true costs of cancelling the Oakville plant are exponentially higher than $40 million. The Premier knew. The minister knew. The cabinet knew. The Liberal caucus knew. The Liberal Party knew. This government is rotten to its core. It’s morally bankrupt.

Premier, the time has come. Will you call the confidence motion so we can put your government out of its misery?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: This is a Premier who, when she took office, immediately offered a select committee to the opposition. They refused because they wanted to undertake a witch hunt against a former member of this Legislature. This is a Premier who asked the Auditor General to look into the Oakville situation. As has been pointed out, the OPA brought a number of figures, a number of estimates, before the committee this morning and spoke about the complexity. Let’s allow the Auditor General to do his work.

This is a Premier who asked government members of the committee to come forward with a motion with the broadest search possible of government ministries and agencies to produce documents on gas plants, and they voted against it.

The fact of the matter is that we have a Premier who will appear in front of the committee this afternoon, as invited, and who has shown—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Again to the Premier: The NDP may be willing to excuse your failures and nine years of scandal, but the PC caucus will not. The Liberal government has lost the moral authority to govern. It’s over, Premier. Call the PC want of confidence motion today.

Hon. John Milloy: We have media interviews talking about the commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party to cancel those plants. We have statements in the Legislature. We have press releases. We have the Twitterverse. We have the Leader of the Opposition appearing and starring in a YouTube video.

All we have asked is that PC candidates and the Leader of the Opposition come before the committee to explain their side of the story, the costing analysis that they undertook. So far, we’ve been stonewalled at every turn. We asked the Leader of the Opposition to be there today, and he played calendar. We asked Progressive Conservative candidates to come forward, and they cancelled at the last minute or refused to come forward.

When will the Progressive Conservative Party show the level of transparency that the Premier—

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

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you will know, because you were Minister of Education at the time, that your government has followed an RFP process that has essentially put out of business small bus companies that had been operating for years in this province.

Just last week, we had the Minister of Education say that it was the perception of her ministry that in fact there were more small businesses in the bus business today than there were before. How does that square up with the reality of all those small businesses that closed down across Ontario, from central Ontario to northern Ontario and across this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Yes, I’m pleased to respond. As the member knows, we’ve asked our school boards to move to consortiums so that they can consolidate the busing between the public and Catholic boards and provide a more efficient management of the service. Those consortiums then in turn have been asked by the Auditor General, who looked at this—and the ministry, I agree. But the Auditor General, when he did the first audit of school boards when we expanded his mandate, actually looked at school board procurement of transportation services and suggested that just having a contract that went endlessly on with no competitive procurement process was not an acceptable process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ll tell you what is not acceptable: when the government decides they’re to put out of business people who have been operating buses in this province for 50 to 100 years. That’s what is not acceptable. There are bus companies in Barrie, there are bus companies in Cornwall, in Timmins, in Elgin and across this province that have been shut down as a result of this policy. Why? Because this government decides only the big international bus companies should be in the business of providing services to those school boards and to our children.

I say, again: Will you for once get the real perception and understand what you’re doing is killing small businesses in this province, something that should not be done?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think it’s important to keep this in perspective, that since 2003 our government has increased the funding for transportation services by 34%. In fact, if you look at—because you mentioned small rural boards, we’ve actually provided, in this school year that we are currently in, $217 million in funding specifically to rural boards for transportation.

But you asked about what has happened with the procurement in those boards where they are doing a competitive procurement. In fact, where the consortium is doing a competitive procurement, we’ve seen the number of local operators increase their market share from 39% to 49%—

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

ANIMAL PROTECTION

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order. It’s never too late to be warned, and it’s never too late to have someone named—never. Thank you.

Member?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Our government was the first in nearly a century to strengthen the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, in 2009. This is something I’m very proud of.

In Scarborough Southwest, we have many animal rescue groups, and they are concerned about the well-being of all animals. There was discussion last fall about how Ontario could ensure that we continue to have the strongest animal welfare system in the country.

Speaker, can the minister tell us what our province is doing to further strengthen the protection of animals in Ontario?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Scarborough Southwest for his question. I know that he’s an animal lover.

After I announced a three-point plan, we consulted with many of our partners, including the OSPCA; the Canadian Council on Animal Care; the Ontario Veterinary College; the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies; various animal protection and advocacy groups, like Zoocheck; inter-ministerial partners; AMO; the city of Toronto; former employees from Marineland; and other animal organizations.

We have completed the consultations now, and we are reviewing the feedback. Our goal is the same: We want to start any required changes this spring, including possible legislative amendments, to better protect animals in Ontario.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. Earlier today in response to a question to the member from Halton Hills—and I would like to cite—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order. That might be funny, but you still have to have decorum.

The member on your point.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to draw your attention, Speaker, to standing order 23(h): “Makes allegations against another member.” The government House leader made allegations that the Leader of the Opposition refused to come before the justice committee looking into the gas plant scandals that the Liberals have perpetrated.

I have in my hand, Speaker, which I will present to you as well, a letter from the Leader of the Opposition indicating to the committee his—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s enough, thank you. I will allow the member—and any member at any time can correct the record if they’ve made a statement that needs to be corrected. That is not my purview; it’s the member’s purview if they’ve made a statement that is not correct.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to introduce in the Speaker’s gallery today a guest of mine, the mayor of Brantford, Chris Friel. I’m glad you’re here with us, Chris.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing on a point of order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to correct my record. I stated earlier that the Oakville cancellation costs from the OPA were $1.1 billion. I’ve just redone the math. I apologize; it’s $1.094 billion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That is a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My goodness.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Timmins–James Bay has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education concerning bus contract RFPs. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands adjourned until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1146 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome Pietro Sostegno and Shannon Neely. They’re from Advocis and they’re joining us this afternoon.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize and welcome members of the Federation of Ontario Traditional Chinese Medicine Associations, a traditional Chinese medicine group that has more than 2,000 members. They’re here to voice their concerns regarding the one-sided negotiations the Wynne Liberals took to regulate a very complex industry.

This morning, the Federation of Ontario Traditional Chinese Medicine Associations held a press conference and an informational lunch reception here at Queen’s Park for all MPPs and staff to educate members of this House on the complexity of TCM. They’ve also brought in 12,000 signed petitions of individuals who will be directly affected by the implementation of the new regulations.

I’ve had the chance to meet with numerous TCM practitioners now, and I appreciate the amazing work that they do, not just for the Chinese community, but for all Ontarians. Let’s be reminded of their remarkable contributions to our health care system.

I ask the health minister and other cabinet minist