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

March 19, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Mar-19 (PDF)

L013 - Tue 19 Mar 2013 / Mar 19 mar 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 19 March 2013 Mardi 19 mars 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

PENSION PLANS

POWER PLANTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

POWER PLANTS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

DRIVE CLEAN

TUITION

ROAD SAFETY

CASINOS

ROAD SAFETY

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

DILLER TEEN FELLOWS PROGRAM

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

MALVERN FAMILY RESOURCE CENTRE

WASTE DISPOSAL

LONG-TERM CARE

MISSISSAUGA STEELHEADS

CANWEST DHI AWARDS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

DIETITIANS DAY

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

DOG OWNERSHIP

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

LONG-TERM CARE

WIND TURBINES

TAXATION

AIR QUALITY

SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

AIR QUALITY

SPRINGWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

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)

Ms. Matthews moved 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): Ms. Matthews has moved second reading of Bill 30. Ms. Matthews.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker. I will be sharing my time with the member from Oak Ridges–Markham.

I rise in the Legislature today to speak to legislation introduced on March 7 that, if passed, would protect Ontario’s young people from the harmful effects of artificial ultraviolet radiation by prohibiting the use of tanning beds for youth under 18 years old.

Before I go any further, I would like to recognize the efforts of the member from Nickel Belt in introducing private member’s Bill 74,

An Act to help prevent skin cancer, 2012, during the last legislative session. Further, I’d like to recognize the efforts of the former London–Fanshawe MPP Khalil Ramal, who introduced the Skin Cancer Prevention Act, 2008, and co-sponsored the Skin Cancer Prevention Act, 2010, with the member from Nickel Belt. I would also like to recognize the member for Scarborough–Guildwood for her past efforts to restrict tanning for youth in Ontario.

Speaker, prohibiting the use of indoor tanning for our youth is absolutely the right thing to do. Cancer is a terrible disease. We have all been touched by it—our friends, our families, ourselves. In any form, it can take an enormous toll on individuals and their families.

As I mentioned, I introduced this legislation two weeks ago. That day we heard from Susan Cox. Susan is living with melanoma; her story is powerful and her story is heartbreaking. Susan spoke passionately about her experience with using indoor tanning beds and the impact on her. I would like to thank her again for sharing that story.

I would also like to recognize Kate Neale. Kate has worked very hard to bring this issue to the forefront. Many of you will remember Kate. She has been a real champion when it comes to cancer prevention. She came to Queen’s Park to make sure we all knew about the dangers of youth tanning. She has educated MPPs on the importance of restricting access to tanning for young people.

I spoke to Kate on the day this legislation was introduced. Kate had this to say: “At 21 years old, I was diagnosed with skin cancer. I’m 22 now and living with the reality that I’ve wrecked my health because I used indoor tanning beds as a teen.” Kate goes on to say, “The disease has scarred my body and continues to wreak havoc with my health....

I want to stop every 16-year-old from using indoor tanning beds, so I started volunteering with the Canadian Cancer Society in 2012 to take action on this issue.” Kate goes on to say, “A year later, thanks to the efforts of many, this dream will hopefully become a reality when this legislation becomes law.” I share Kate’s hope for this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I share Kate’s hope and optimism for this Legislature.

I know that many Ontarians wake up every day prepared to fight their cancer, and we are fortunate we have so many highly educated, skilled, dedicated health care professionals in this province who come to work every day to help those patients with their fight. But I think it’s incumbent upon us, as legislators, to do what we can do to prevent cancer in the first place. As legislators, we owe it to our loved ones to do everything we can to help reduce the risk of cancer, especially where our kids are involved.

I believe that our proposed legislation demonstrates that when it comes to protecting our youth from the harmful effects of tanning beds, we are on common ground. However, on March 4, prior to the introduction of this legislation, in speaking to the media after question period, concerns were raised by one opposition party member when they said that the Progressive Conservative Party does not believe in banning things. So I ask the party opposite to rethink that position. I ask them to think, how far does your opposition to bans extend?

I raise this question because members of the same party have already demonstrated their support for the type of legislation we’re debating today. In fact, on June 6 of last year, the member for Newmarket–Aurora brought forward a petition from his constituents in support of the private member’s bill introduced by the member from Nickel Belt, and he affixed his signature to that petition, signifying his support for that position.

I know the member for Prince Edward–Hastings represents Kate Neale, the young woman I spoke about earlier, and he has said, “There’s enough evidence out there now from the World Health Organization, the Canadian Cancer Society and many other organizations who say it’s not safe for teens to be tanning.”

Mr. Speaker, there are some issues where party lines ought to disappear. For example, as a province we’ve agreed not to allow smoking in cars where children are present. We’ve decided that youth under 19 should not be able to purchase cigarettes or alcohol. As legislators, we’ve agreed among ourselves that there are activities that youth should not partake in to protect their health and well-being. I am confident that restricting access to youth indoor tanning is one of those issues where party lines should disappear.

I know that every one of us on all sides of the House want to do our utmost to protect our children. So I call on members from all parties to find common ground and do what is right.

Although we have more work to do in our collective fight against cancer, as a government we have made good progress. For example, we’ve introduced integrated screening programs for cervical, breast and colorectal cancer so participants receive screening reminders. We’re supporting Cancer Care Ontario with the creation of an online tool that uses someone’s medical and family history to assess their personal cancer risks to help determine if someone could benefit from genetic testing, preventive supports or screening. We’re investing in regional cancer centres that provide radiation and chemotherapy; they’re making a tremendous difference in the lives of patients and their families.

We’ve enacted tough legislation to combat smoking. Our action plan for health care identifies the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy as a priority, with the goal to have the lowest smoking rates in Canada. We are determined to reach this goal and we will expand our efforts to do so. We’ve seen success: Smoking rates have decreased from 24.5% in the year 2000 to 19.4% in 2011, a significant decrease in smoking rates.

To help Ontarians who want to quit smoking, we’ve expanded access to nicotine replacement therapies and we’ve provided counselling for smokers in family health teams, nurse-practitioner-led clinics, community health centres, aboriginal health access centres and in addiction service organizations. We’ve also helped Ontario Drug Benefit clients by providing funding for smoking cessation drugs through the Ontario Drug Benefit program.

And we’ve increased support for Ontarians who smoke with hospital-based cessation initiatives in 15 locations and workplace-based cessation programs in collaboration with 19 public health units. We’ve also moved to protect youth from second-hand smoke and from exposure to cigarette power walls in stores. These measures are all part of our government’s focus on prevention.

Just as there is with smoking, there is clear and compelling evidence to indicate that we must take action on youth indoor tanning, and we must take that action now. Scientists have for some time expressed strong concerns about this issue and have urged governments to restrict young people’s access to tanning beds.

In fact, by passing this legislation, Ontario would join several other municipalities, provinces, states and countries that have already decided to take action on youth indoor tanning. In August of 2012, Oakville became the first municipality in Ontario to ban the use of indoor tanning beds for youth. Peel introduced a similar bylaw in September 2012, and in January 2013, the city of Belleville introduced similar restrictions. Quebec, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have all introduced a ban, and Manitoba has introduced parental consent.

In the US, California and Vermont have banned youth under 18 from using tanning beds, and more than 30 states currently restrict minors’ access to indoor tanning. Britain, Iceland, Finland, Portugal, Norway, Scotland, Spain, Sweden and France also have legislation restricting or prohibiting tanning bed use by youth.

Mr. Speaker, the dangers associated with exposure to artificial ultraviolet radiation at a young age have been well documented. Here’s what we know about cancer rates and youth tanning bed use: The World Health Organization puts tanning beds in the same highest-cancer-risk category as asbestos and smoking. In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an expert committee that makes recommendations to the World Health Organization, reclassified UV-emitting tanning devices as carcinogenic to humans.

It is known that tanning bed use increases the risk of malignant melanoma by 17%, and, more importantly, that risk increases by 75% if tanning bed use begins before the age of 35. Yet despite the warnings and despite the well-known risks, tanning bed use by youth is on the rise.

Between 2006 and 2012, tanning bed use more than doubled, from 7% to 16%, among grade 11 and 12 students. We know that the incidence of melanoma in Ontario has been rising in youth and young adults aged 15 to 34.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I would ask the members to take their conversation outside or make it so it’s easier to hear.

Please continue.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you.

The incidence of melanoma in Ontario has been rising in youth and young adults aged 15 to 34, especially among females 25 to 34.

As I mentioned, the proposed legislation is similar to earlier legislation introduced in this House, and I would like to highlight some of the action this legislation would take.

First, it would establish a restriction on the sale of tanning services to youth under the age of 18, and it would require tanning bed operators to request identification from anyone who appears to be under 25 years of age.

It includes a provision for medical exemptions. We would consult with health care professionals to determine if a medical exemption is advisable and the form it would take.

The legislation would require that salon operators post signs noting the prohibition on tanning for those under 18, and it would also state on the sign the health risks of using tanning equipment for everyone, regardless of their age.

The legislation would prohibit the advertising or marketing of tanning services to youth under the age of 18, and it would permit the appointment of inspectors to support compliance. Operators would be required to inform their local public health unit of their business contact information to facilitate inspection.

Finally, the proposed legislation would provide for offences consistent with those in the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Specifically, operators would be subject to a maximum fine of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations for every day or part of a day for which they fail to comply with the proposed legislation.

Speaker, I believe these measures are strict enough to generate compliance with the proposed legislation, but I would also like to assure members that we will work with stakeholders on implementation.

I know that our proposed legislation responds to the call of many organizations in the health community who have advocated for this restriction on youth indoor tanning. I would like to recognize the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Medical Association, the Canadian Dermatology Association, the Melanoma Network of Canada and many, many others who have been advocates for taking action against indoor tanning use.

After we introduced this legislation two weeks ago, I was very happy to see that many in the health community support this legislation. I would like to take a moment to share what some of these very important groups think about the proposed legislation.

First, I’d like to thank the Canadian Cancer Society for their support. Joanne Di Nardo from the Canadian Cancer Society, who was with us when the legislation was introduced, said, “We applaud this decision aimed at saving lives and reducing the devastating impact of skin cancer.” She has also said, “We hope that all members of provincial Parliament will act quickly to pass this legislation that has strong support from all parties and Ontarians.” I could not agree more.

I would like to thank the Ontario Medical Association, who said that they “urge speedy passage of the bill to make this life-saving measure a reality.”

On the same day, my good friend Dr. Doug Weir, the president of the Ontario Medical Association, said that “the evidence is simply unequivocal that the use of tanning beds increases cancer risk—and the earlier in life people are exposed to UV rays, the more likely they will develop skin cancer.”

The Melanoma Network of Canada, another strong advocate, was pleased to see the introduction of this bill. Annette Cyr, the chair of the Melanoma Network of Canada, said that, “We know that even limited exposure to tanning equipment in youth can greatly increase the risk of developing melanoma or other forms of skin cancer later in life,” and that, “by introducing this bill, the Ontario government is signalling that it is committed to the fight against skin cancer”—and indeed we are, Speaker.

Finally, the Ontario Public Health Association said that it “welcomes the proposed legislation to ban tanning beds for youth under the age of 18.” The Ontario Public Health Association also reminded us that “the rates of tanning bed use and melanoma incidence among youths have been rising in recent years and it is evident that education alone on this topic is not sufficient to curb the serious effects of using tanning beds.”

Speaker, I know there are other groups and associations that are supportive of this proposed legislation, and once again I thank them for their advocacy in moving this issue forward.

I’m also pleased that this proposed legislation fulfills a commitment of Ontario’s Action Plan for Health Care and fits with my ministry’s overall goal of keeping Ontarians healthy, the first pillar of our action plan. We’re working very hard to make Ontario the healthiest place in North America to grow up and grow old. With that goal in mind, our government is increasingly focused on prevention and keeping Ontarians healthy in the first place, so we’re putting more of our efforts into promoting healthy habits and behaviours, supporting lifestyle improvements and better managing chronic conditions.

In particular, we note that if we want to prevent illness in the future and achieve better outcomes in the future, we need to improve the health of our kids today.

Just as this proposed legislation takes action to prevent the incidence of skin cancer among our youth, we’re also taking action to help our kids lead healthier lives overall. You’ll know that last year we struck the Healthy Kids Panel, and last month I was very pleased to receive their report. I’d like to say it really is an excellent tool, an excellent report, that contains invaluable advice on how to help our kids lead healthier lives.

The key issue that the panel’s recommendations addressed is childhood obesity. We know that childhood obesity is very complicated. There isn’t just one cause, and there isn’t just one solution. What we do know is that over the past 30 years, the prevalence of obesity and overweight children in Ontario has increased by 70%. We also know that as our children become adults, obesity later in life can lead to chronic diseases like diabetes, and there’s a connection between obesity and cancer too.

So as a starting point, in response to the panel’s recommendations, we’re going to form an interministerial working group that will direct the government’s actions on implementing many of the report’s key recommendations. It will be co-chaired by myself and the Minister of Children and Youth Services. I can tell you that I’m very excited to co-chair this panel with my colleague Minister Piruzza, and I’m looking forward to engaging our colleagues further on this issue. The legislation that we’ve introduced is one more way we’re working to protect and promote the good health of our future, Ontario’s young people.

I want to emphasize that restricting access to youth under 18 is not a “should do,” it is a “must do.” I want to reiterate that it is incumbent upon us as legislators to do everything we can do to prevent cancer. This proposed legislation is a great example of what we can do when we come together and find common ground on our shared priorities. I’m confident that this proposed legislation responds to the evidence before us, and I’m counting on our united effort to take action to prevent Ontario’s youngest citizens from the risk of cancer. I’m asking all members to support this important piece of legislation.

I want to again say thank you to the organizations that have worked so hard to restrict youth access to tanning. I would like to say thank you to the member from Nickel Belt again for showing us what we ought to be doing and for coming together with common ground on this bill. I want to again acknowledge Khalil Ramal and the member from Scarborough–Guildwood, and finally I want to say thank you to those who work hard each and every day in this province to fight cancer. Thank you.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I rise in the House today to speak further to our proposed legislation that, if passed, would protect Ontario’s young people from the harmful effects of exposure to ultraviolet radiation caused by tanning beds. I would like to acknowledge the presence of two representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society who have joined us here today: Joanne Di Nardo and Florentina Stancu-Soare. Thank you for being here.

This legislation is really a terrific example of what we can achieve when we work together and find common ground on our shared priorities. Our proposed legislation would prohibit the use of tanning beds by youth under 18. The contents of our proposed legislation are highly consistent with the private member’s bill that the member from Nickel Belt introduced in 2012, and I want to echo the minister in thanking the member from Nickel Belt for the work that she’s done on this issue.

I know that this has been an important cause for her and I share her commitment to protecting our young people from the increased risk of developing skin cancer associated with the use of tanning beds. I would also like to thank a former colleague, the member from London–Fanshawe, MPP Khalil Ramal, for his hard work and passion on this subject. He introduced the Skin Cancer Prevention Act of 2008 and co-sponsored the Skin Cancer Prevention Act of 2010 with the member from Nickel Belt, and I was certainly happy to speak in support of both of those bills when they came before this House.

Certainly, Khalil has been a strong advocate in the battle against skin cancer on behalf of all Ontarians, and especially our sons and daughters. Lastly, I would also like to thank the member from Scarborough–Guildwood for her work over the past few years to restrict tanning for young people in Ontario.

This is an area where I believe we have common ground with both of the opposition parties, and I believe that all of us in this House recognize the serious challenge and potential harm posed by tanning beds for young people in this province. Speaker, there are simply too many Ontarians fighting cancer of all kinds.

All of us know somebody—a colleague, a family member or a friend—who has courageously battled cancer, and all of us feel the responsibility to help those who are faced with this terrible disease; and all of us, as siblings or parents or friends but also as legislators, know the importance of preventing Ontarians from getting cancer in the first place. This is especially the case when our kids are involved. So we need to take action now.

Malignant skin cancers like melanoma can be aggressive and fatal. I’m not sure how many members of the House know that former Prime Minister Lester Pearson succumbed to malignant melanoma. I dug out one of my old dermatology texts because still, as a former medical officer of health, the need to educate is one of the things that I feel is a responsibility. So I want to tell you a little bit more about malignant melanoma.

First of all, “most, but not all, invasive malignant melanomas arise from a pre-existing pigmented junctional nevus,” that is, a mole. “The changes that herald the transformation from benign to malignant lesions are as follows: rapid change in size or colour, development of inflammation, bleeding, ulceration, and appearance of pigment around the lesion.” The change from a benign to a malignant lesion produces so few warning systems that it is often unobserved. It goes on. It’s actually very stirring stuff, I find, to understand exactly what this cancer is all about. And we should all be on the alert.

We are talking here about prevention, but every member in this House should be very conscious of the fact that they should observe their skin for changes and report them to a physician immediately if they occur.

Now, at least here in Ontario, we can be confident about the type of cancer care we receive. Dr. Robert Bell, chair of the Cancer Quality Council of Ontario, and president and CEO of the University Health Network, has said that if you live in our province, you have one of the best chances of survival anywhere in the world. Thanks to our dedicated health professionals, if treated early, these cancers can often be beaten.

But we all know it’s far better to prevent our Ontarians from getting cancer in the first place. A focus on healthy living and disease prevention is an important part of our government’s action plan for health care. The good news is, when it comes to skin cancer, we know one of the major causes: exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

Today, with this proposed legislation, we’re taking action against an important source of ultraviolet radiation for many young Ontarians. The dangers of exposure to sources of artificial ultraviolet radiation like tanning beds have been well documented over the years, and there is strong and growing evidence associating the use of tanning beds with an increased risk of contracting skin cancers, including basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and, as already described, the most dangerous type of skin cancer, malignant melanoma. We also know that those dangers are greater for young people.

The World Health Organization has classified tanning beds in its highest-risk category for developing cancer, along with tobacco and asbestos. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an expert committee that makes recommendations to the World Health Organization, has stated that there is a convincing causal relationship between tanning and skin cancer. In 2009, this agency reclassified ultraviolet-emitting tanning devices as carcinogenic to humans.

It has been shown that people who use tanning beds have a 17% increased risk of developing melanoma—the particularly dangerous type of skin cancer—compared to people who don’t use tanning beds. More importantly, there is evidence of increased risk for youth. In fact, the risk of melanoma increases by 75% when people use tanning beds before the age of 35.

What’s more, skin cancer treatment is costly for the province’s health care system. With increased use, those costs will only become higher over time. Very simply, there is significant and increasing evidence that the use of tanning beds increases a person’s risk of developing skin cancer. More perniciously, the risk is increased even more for young people using tanning beds.

Public health units across the province have been doing their very best to educate people, particularly children, on the risk of tanning beds. I was pleased to see that the York region health services department website has a campaign to educate the public. It’s called “Don’t Be Caught Dead in a Tanning Bed,” and it outlines a number of tanning bed fast facts; in essence, that tanning lights can give off five times as much ultraviolet radiation as the sun, so that not only can it cause skin cancer but sunburns, wrinkles—very important for young ladies—and eye damage.

Markham Stouffville Hospital has, on its website, promoted the same campaign. However, education is obviously a very important step, but we feel strongly that we need to take education a step further and introduce this important legislation.

So, overall, with the educational efforts that have been made, more and more Ontarians recognize the dangers of youth tanning. In spite of this, substantially more young people are, in fact, using tanning beds today than just a few years ago. We know that tanning bed use by young people between the ages of 12 and 17 rose from 5% to 8% between 2006 and 2012 in Ontario. In the same period, the proportion of grade 11 and grade 12 students using tanning beds more than doubled, from 7% to 16%. Meanwhile, the incidence of melanoma in Ontario has been rising in youth and young adults between the ages of 15 and 34.

We all agree that the best way to fight cancer is not to get it in the first place. As I said earlier, our government has made its commitment to cancer prevention clear, and it is a key part of our action plan for health care. As parents, we have a responsibility to protect our sons and daughters. As legislators, we have a responsibility to protect the young people of this province, and with the proposed legislation before us today, we have an opportunity to do just that. Speaker, the imperative to act is clear and the time to act is now.

Now let me outline in greater detail the elements of the proposed legislation.

The proposed legislation would establish a ban on the sale of tanning services to youth under the age of 18. There is a provision for medical exemptions, and we will consult with health care professionals to determine if a medical exemption is advisable and what form it would take. As many members in the House I’m sure are aware, an example where UV radiation can be helpful is for some conditions such as psoriasis.

In order to ensure young people are not using tanning services, the legislation would require that salon operators ask anyone appearing to be less than 25 years of age for identification to prove their age. This would be consistent with how the LCBO, Beer Stores and convenience stores ask young customers to provide acceptable forms of identification before they are allowed to purchase alcohol or tobacco products.

The proposed legislation would also require salon operators to post signs noting the prohibition on tanning under the age of 18. Because we recognize that tanning beds pose risks for all who use them, it is important that Ontarians are properly informed before making choices that might affect their health. Signage would also have to outline the health risks of using tanning equipment for everyone, no matter what age.

As the sale of tanning services for young people under the age of 18 would be prohibited, it would also be inappropriate to market those services to young Ontarians. As such, this legislation, if passed, would prohibit the marketing or advertising of tanning services to young people under the age of 18.

Of course, these requirements would need to be enforced, so the proposed legislation would permit the minister to appoint public health inspectors in order to support compliance and respond to complaints about compliance with the legislation. Operators would be required to inform their local public health unit of their business contact information to facilitate inspection. This written notice would include the tanning establishment’s location and would be submitted to the local medical officer of health.

This will be extremely helpful for public health units. They have been struggling with the fact that tanning salons open up on just about every corner. They literally, in the course of their duties, note the location and go in to inspection once they are, in fact, aware of the location. So this written notice will facilitate the inspection activities of health units.

Finally, we recognize the need for strong measures to ensure compliance. That’s why the proposed legislation would provide for offences, with operators subject to a maximum fine of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations for every day or part of a day for which they fail to comply with the proposed legislation. The proposed fines are similar to those in the Health Protection and Promotion Act, which is the most relevant statute for point of comparison, given that addressing tanning is similar to addressing other kinds of health hazards that may affect people.

However, the proposed fines are different from those for selling tobacco and liquor to minors. In the case of tobacco, individuals selling tobacco to persons under age 19 are subject to penalties of up to $4,000 for a first offence to $100,000 where the person has committed three or more offences. For corporations, it’s up to $10,000 for a first offence, to up to $150,000 where the person has committed three or more offences. In terms of alcohol, the Liquor Licence Act states that the maximum fine amounts for selling alcohol to a person under age 19 are $500,000 for corporations and $200,000 for individuals, imprisonment for up to one year or both.

The fines we are proposing, $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations, are higher than those provided in the member from Nickel Belt’s most recent private member’s bill, which were $2,000 for every day or part of a day not in compliance. I believe that the measures in our proposed legislation are strict enough to generate compliance. However, as the minister said before me, we are committed to working with stakeholders on implementation.

Today, there are about 1,300 tanning facilities operating in Ontario. They are located in a variety of diverse locations. In addition to salons, tanning beds may be found, for example, in gyms and in condominium buildings. The Joint Canadian Tanning Association, or JCTA, estimates that commercial indoor tanning is a $500-million business in Canada. Overall, the JCTA estimates that about 10% to 12% of the population uses indoor tanning equipment. We know that a growing number of those people are young people.

The good news is that with this legislation we can significantly lower the number of young people using tanning beds. When you consider the dangers of artificial ultraviolet light tanning, which I’ve already outlined, the need for action is clear. This is an area where there’s a great deal of consensus about the necessity of focused action. I believe this proposed legislation represents important common ground for all the members in this House today.

What’s very compelling is that there’s widespread support among the public and among stakeholders that youth tanning must be banned. For instance, an Ipsos Reid survey conducted in June 2011 found that 83% of Ontarians support a ban on the use of tanning beds by youth under 18, and there are many organizations in the health community that have spoken out loudly and clearly on the need for a ban on indoor tanning for young people.

Organizations that have advocated for a ban on youth indoor tanning include the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Medical Association, Ontario’s medical officers of health and public health units, the Canadian Dermatology Association and the Melanoma Network of Canada. The minister, before me, has spoken about the strong support many of these organizations and others have displayed for this proposed legislation since she introduced it less than two weeks ago. I’m grateful for the support of these organizations and others like them, and they’ve shown that this is an important piece of proposed legislation.

Even more importantly, I’m grateful to them and to many other groups and associations for their continued advocacy on this issue. I think it’s important to recognize the thousands of Ontarians who volunteer every day for organizations like those in the fight against cancer. The proposed legislation we are speaking about today is in part the result of their action and advocacy.

A ban on youth indoor tanning has been an important goal for many cancer survivors, loved ones of those who have cancer or who have had it in the past, and others who have been touched by the tragedy of skin cancer.

Clearly, advocates and scientists have expressed strong concerns about this issue, and many have urged governments around the world to restrict young people’s access to tanning beds.

Internationally, the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have both been clear that tanning beds can cause skin cancer.

I have spoken already about the member for Nickel Belt’s long advocacy on this issue.

As the minister mentioned moments ago, the member for Prince Edward–Hastings has recognized that “There’s enough evidence out there now from the World Health Organization, the Canadian Cancer Society, and many other organizations who say it’s not safe for teens to be tanning.”

The member for Newmarket–Aurora also brought forward a petition from his constituents last year supporting a restriction on youth indoor tanning, and affixed his signature to it. I’m so glad that he’s quoted in the Newmarket Era—I’m sure, Madam Speaker, you read that, as most residents of northern York region do, religiously every week. Mr. Klees is quoted on March 14 of this year with regard to this legislation.

“‘When a choice turns into a matter of personal harm, the government needs to take action’....

“Although he respects young people, Mr. Klees admitted he made some decisions in his youth that he wouldn’t make now.” I found that particularly intriguing, Madam Speaker.

“Creating rules for indoor tanning is no different than regulations on cigarettes, gambling and alcohol, he said.

“‘It is the responsible thing for the government to do.’”

On the other hand, I was somewhat dismayed recently to hear the member for Whitby–Oshawa say to the media that the official opposition doesn’t believe in banning things. I’m hopeful she will reconsider her remarks because I have to wonder if members opposite don’t believe in banning young people under 19 from purchasing cigarettes or purchasing and consuming alcohol. And I wonder if the official opposition opposes our ban on smoking in indoor public places like restaurants and bars. And I wonder if members of the party opposite oppose our ban on smoking in cars where children are present.

Ontarians agree that people, especially young people, should be restricted from certain activities that are harmful to their health. I’m confident that restricting access to youth indoor tanning is one of those issues where party lines disappear.

Many jurisdictions have already taken action on youth indoor tanning: municipalities, provinces, states and countries. Oakville became the first municipality in Ontario to ban the use of tanning beds for youth in August 2012. Only a month later, in September 2012, Peel introduced a similar bylaw. In January 2013, the city of Belleville introduced similar restrictions. So we now have a patchwork across Ontario, and this legislation will provide a level playing field.

Six Canadian provinces—Quebec, Manitoba, BC, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland—have either introduced or implemented legislation restricting tanning bed use by young people, ranging from requirements for parental consent to an outright ban. In the United States, California and Vermont have banned youth under 18 from using tanning beds. In total, more than 30 states currently restrict a minor’s access to indoor tanning, either by requiring parental consent or setting an age limit.

A number of other countries also have legislation on their books restricting or prohibiting tanning bed use by youth, including the United Kingdom, Iceland, Finland, Portugal, Norway, Scotland, Spain, Sweden and France.

In our own country, at the federal level, Health Canada recently proposed regulations to update health warning signs on tanning equipment sold across Canada. Those proposed warning signs will speak to the increased risk of cancer from tanning bed use and will advise that tanning bed use is not recommended for anyone under 18 years of age.

Ontario’s proposed signage goes further. It will specify that people under 18 are prohibited from tanning and warn all users of the potential health impacts of tanning bed use. The specifics of the requirements for signage will be prescribed in regulation, and the ministry will consult with other jurisdictions and with Health Canada in their development.

There’s no question that Ontario is on the right track with our proposed ban on youth tanning, and it’s important to note that in jurisdictions where a youth ban is in place, there has been no evidence to suggest that it has had any serious detrimental effect on tanning businesses.

Speaker, our proposal responds to growing evidence and gathering momentum across our province, our country and around the world that a ban on indoor tanning services for young people is key to reducing the risk of our children contracting skin cancer. I believe our proposed legislation presents a balanced approach—very typical of our government—toward reducing the health risks for young people from tanning, minimizing burdens on the industry, and managing the level of investment required by government for enforcement.

Let me assure the members that we will work with our stakeholders to implement this new legislation, including developing guidelines on advertising and marketing, which will be prescribed by regulation.

This proposed legislation is consistent with the broader changes we’re making in Ontario’s health care system. Just over a year ago, the Minister of Health released Ontario’s Action Plan for Health Care, an ambitious plan designed to address head-on the twin challenges we are facing: fiscal and demographic. It called for a fundamental change in how we deliver health care in Ontario in order to maintain the sustainability of our universal public health care system for generations to come.

It called for the kind of change we could only bring about by working together: government and opposition, legislators and health professionals, policy-makers and front-line workers. We need all Ontarians to work together to bring about a shift in the way we understand health care and how it’s delivered. We have made tremendous progress in just over a year, and I believe this piece of proposed legislation represents exactly that kind of change and exactly that kind of co-operation between advocates, scientists, health care workers and members of all parties in this House.

Speaker, Ontarians increasingly recognize the importance of living healthy lives. We recognize that government has a vital role to play in this. Our health care system should be helping people stay healthy, not just treating them when they’re injured or ill. That’s why a key part of our action plan for health care was our government’s commitment to keep Ontario healthy by focusing on wellness, prevention and health promotion. We are working to make Ontario the healthiest place in North America to grow up and grow old.

This proposed legislation aligns closely with this key pillar of our health care system’s transformation. It is another step that complements what we’ve already done to improve our kids’ health. We know that as our children become adults, obesity can lead to chronic diseases like diabetes later in life, and there’s a connection between obesity and cancer, too.

Over the past 30 years, the prevalence of obesity and overweight children in our province has increased by 70%. This is a major challenge, and our action plan set an aggressive goal to reduce childhood obesity by 20% over five years. We have already implemented several programs to address obesity, including EatRight Ontario and the Healthy Schools initiative, but we know that effectively tackling obesity goes beyond healthy eating and exercise. It’s a complex challenge with many causes and many solutions.

That’s why last year we struck the Healthy Kids Panel, bringing together experts in the field to provide us with proven strategies for reducing childhood obesity. Earlier this month, the minister received their recommendations on how to meet our ambitious goal. This is an important report that reflects the best available evidence and includes invaluable guidance on improving the health of our children. In response, we are going to form an interministerial working group that will direct the government’s action on implementing many of the report’s key recommendations, co-chaired by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

We have also worked hard to protect our kids and prevent cancer by toughening tobacco laws, banning smoking in public places and encouraging more Ontarians to quit smoking as part of Smoke-Free Ontario. As part of our action plan, we are determined to have the lowest smoking rates in Canada.

We are building on these strong measures by working to prevent young people from getting addicted, making it easier for smokers to get support and reducing the demand for tobacco products. We banned the retail display of tobacco products on so-called “power walls,” and in 2009 we extended the smoking ban to include motor vehicles when children under 16 are present. In July 2010, we banned the sale or distribution of flavoured cigarillos, to protect youth and young adults.

We have recently listed smoking cessation drugs on the Ontario drug benefit formulary and expanded access to nicotine replacement therapies for those undergoing addiction treatment. We are committed to increasing fines on those who sell tobacco to children.

We are also investing in a school-based and youth-led strategy to prevent kids from taking up smoking, a Smokers’ Helpline, cessation counselling in health care settings, and free nicotine replacement therapy through family health teams and public health units.

Speaker, our government is also supporting communities to plan and deliver integrated programs that improve the health of Ontarians through our Healthy Communities Fund. Additionally, about 130,000 children who have never been able to have a filling, or even have their teeth cleaned, will have access to a dental professional through the additional $45 million we’ve invested in Healthy Smiles Ontario. We’re also providing $4.25 million to the Asthma Plan of Action, an integrated plan led by the Ontario Lung Association to improve health outcomes for Ontarians with asthma.

Finally, our province’s public health program focuses on the health and well-being of the whole population through promotion and protection of health and the prevention of disease. Public health units and medical officers of health work to protect the health of Ontarians by controlling infectious diseases through regulatory inspections and enforcement and by preventing or reducing exposure to environmental hazards.

They work with community partners to promote healthy living and prevent disease and injury by closely monitoring outbreaks, screening for cancer, immunizing to control infectious disease and conducting research on injury prevention. These are just some of the health protection and promotion initiatives our government has taken. This legislation, of course, forms an important part of that program.

Some of our most important commitments to preventing disease are part of our ongoing fight against cancer. It is imperative that Ontarians get screened for cancer; we know that cancer screening saves lives. That is why we are working hard to make sure all Ontarians are screened, so that cancer can be detected early. To better improve cancer screening rates, we are expanding comprehensive screening programs for cervical, breast and colorectal cancers, so that we notify and remind participants when they are due for their next screening.

We’ve also created the Time to Screen tool, to provide Ontarians with more information on when to start screening based on their age and gender. We are also working on an online personalized cancer risk profile. This tool will use patients’ medical and family history to measure their risk of cancer. It will then match people to screening programs and prevention supports, including genetic testing for people at high risk.

We expanded the Ontario Breast Screening Program in 2011 to include high-risk women beginning at age 30, resulting in 90,000 more screens over three years. Our government expanded the provincial breast cancer screening program by funding an additional 332,000 screens and adding 53 new breast screening sites across Ontario. This brings the total number of screening sites in the province to 153. I think this is a huge step forward in accessing health care as close to home as possible.

We launched Canada’s first province-wide colorectal cancer screening program to combat the second deadliest form of cancer in the country. We’ve invested $193.5 million over five years to implement this colorectal screening program.

We introduced a free vaccine to protect young women against the human papillomavirus or HPV, which is the major cause of cervical cancer. This vaccine is now provided to 77,000 female grade 8 students every year, and that saves families up to $405 per child.

We’ve also further expanded cancer detection by funding the prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, test. This is helping to fight prostate cancer, the most common cancer among Canadian men.

We have made tremendous progress, but there’s still more to do. Quite simply, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, too many Ontarians are faced with cancer, too many loved ones who have to fight this terrible disease. The proposed legislation before us represents one more important step that we can take to protect our children and prevent Ontarians from developing skin cancer. I believe that this proposed legislation responds to the evidence, advances our health promotion goals and addresses a serious health issue in a fiscally responsible manner.

The proposed legislation is aligned with the broader changes we’re making in Ontario’s health care system through our action plan, the kind of fundamental changes we need to make in order to protect health care for future generations. The legislation, if passed, would be part of our shift toward health promotion and prevention and part of our commitment to keep Ontario healthy.

I believe this proposed legislation shows common ground between all members of this House, and with the support of all members the act could be effective as soon as October 2013 and no later than January 2014. This would allow time to develop supporting documents like protocols and guidelines for public health units who will enforce the act, training for public health inspectors and the necessary regulations to support the legislation.

I’m asking for all-member support so that this proposed legislation could be implemented as early as possible, and I want to close by once again thanking the many people and organizations who have worked tirelessly to protect our kids by making clear the risks of indoor tanning bed use and advocating for its restriction for Ontario’s youth. I want to thank them for the work they do and the dedication they show every single day.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I have enjoyed listening to the leadoff speeches by both the Minister of Health and the member from Oak Ridges–Markham, who has extensive medical knowledge. I thought that it was great that she did have that public service announcement with respect to melanoma and the need to do regular checkups to make sure that you don’t have any problem areas.

But I would also like to acknowledge and thank the member for Nickel Belt for really starting this conversation. I think this is something whose time has come. There is very compelling evidence to suggest that exposure to tanning and ultraviolet rays does in fact cause skin cancer, and especially with respect to tanning beds, where there’s evidence that there’s five times more radiation than one can get from regular sun-skin contact. This is something we need to consider very carefully.

I have consulted with the Canadian Cancer Society, with the Joint Canadian Tanning Association and the OMA. There are numerous groups who have been speaking to this. I know that my colleague the member from Prince Edward–Hastings has a young lady, Ms. Kate Neale, who has been a very outspoken advocate for the banning of skin tanning beds for persons under 18.

There is certainly a precedent in Ontario for the state to take a role in situations where young people are concerned, with the inherent parens patriae power that we see being exercised by the state. The children’s aid societies derive their authority under that inherent jurisdiction. So, while it has been said that we don’t believe in banning things, there’s certainly a reason in some cases to do that where young people are concerned. Adults can of course make their own decisions, but when it’s young people that we’re considering, we need to make sure that they’re kept safe. We look forward to further discussion on this issue.

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

M me France Gélinas: I too listened to the Minister of Health and her parliamentary assistant. I have waited a long time to hear the Minister of Health and to hear the government speak in favour of the Skin Cancer Prevention Act.

We have focused a lot of the discussion so far on one part of the bill, which is the part that everybody talks about; that is, that it will ban young people from using tanning beds. But the bill has other parts that are also important for all of us. You’ve heard the member for Markham go into quite a bit of detail as to what skin cancer means. Not only do young people get skin cancer but we, too, are at risk.

The bill bans young people from using tanning beds, but it also has other parts to it. One will be that when you go and use a tanning bed, there will be clear signage telling you that tanning beds cause cancer, similar to what you see on cigarette packages, but this message still needs to be told.

Right now in Ontario, we have no idea where those beds are. They are often in health clubs, at the back of a locker room some place, and people use them at will. Now, if you have a tanning bed that you use in a commercial way, you will have to register them with the health units. The health unit will be able to go into your premises and make sure that you have signage, that you don’t let young people use them, that you have checked IDs etc., making it safer.

What the bill also will do is that it will continue the hard work of the Canadian Cancer Society—I thank them for being with us today—of educating people who still don’t know. It’s well worth supporting.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m thrilled to be here to speak on behalf of the bill from the minister and my colleague from Oak Ridges–Markham.

As a registered nurse, but more importantly as a Canadian, this issue is about protecting young people. As the member for Scarborough–Agincourt, I know about this issue first-hand, more importantly as a registered nurse, because the proposed legislation is comprehensive in terms of the education awareness but also the responsibility of the owner, because it’s clearly laid out in the explanatory note about the responsibility of those who are selling a service called tanning. Because, at the end of the day, we know the owners have responsibility in having this product being provided on their premises.

The other piece about the legislation is the enforcement aspect of it. Both the member from Oak Ridges–Markham and I have spent over 20 years dealing with tobacco legislation. We know that any time we have legislation in this province we must have an enforcement feature. In the bill, it talks about inspection, what the role of the inspectors is and how they enter the premises. That is critically important.

The other piece about the legislation is the advertisement piece, because we know young people—the same strategy that we currently use for the tobacco awareness campaign is also being considered for this proposed legislation. It’s the right thing to do.

I’m confident hearing the colleagues from the opposition party are in support of this legislation. Let’s move it from this House to a committee for further debate to enhance this bill, if necessary, but we need to bring this back sooner than later because, at the end of the day, we are here to protect every young Ontarian in this province.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to provide a couple of minutes of comments on Bill 30. I guess it’s very appropriate that I speak, given my hairline.

About a year ago, I came back from a holiday south and found that I had a spot on my face. Ultimately, it was skin cancer and I had it cut off. I know it’s hard to believe that this face could have all these scars on it. Normally, people thought it was from hockey, but it was from cancer. It was a very sobering thing for me because, as the member for Whitby–Oshawa said, some of us aren’t big in terms of banning, but it really changed my outlook on the whole situation.

The other thing that changed my outlook was an event that I attended in my riding after I had had my cancer cut out. It was the Relay for Life at St. Mary Catholic high school. I was so overwhelmed at the number of young people who approached me, as their member of provincial Parliament, who knew that I had had skin cancer, and these young men and women were pledging to me, as a legislator, that I hear from them—even though they didn’t have a vote, even though they weren’t of age to cast a ballot for members, they wanted me to know how committed they were to this piece of legislation.

That really was a game changer for me, not just because I had cancer, but because I listened to what they had to say.

I also learned at a very young age from my late father, who had psoriasis. He self-tanned quite often in the home, but he always said—and this is decades ago—that he knew the perils of that.

So I support the legislation, and I look forward to further debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Oak Ridges–Markham has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m certainly very pleased and heartened to hear the remarks of the members who have commented on second reading of this bill.

To the member for Whitby–Oshawa, I know that she likes to research things very, very thoroughly, and she obviously has done so in this case. Although I don’t think any of us want to ban things for the sake of banning, in this particular case the health of our children is absolutely paramount, and the educational efforts to date have not, unfortunately, been sufficient to reduce the number of young people using tanning beds.

To the member for Nickel Belt, again, a good colleague and someone who has so long advocated for many measures related to public health, I think you’ve pointed out very importantly that skin cancers can affect any one of us, particularly those, in fact, of fairer skin and those with a tendency to burn with the sun or, in this case, ultraviolet radiation. We all need to be extremely cognizant of changes in our skin.

To the member for Scarborough–Agincourt, who, as many of you know, worked with me at the York region health department for many years: Soo knows all there is to know about tobacco legislation. When things were getting really tough in York region—and we had some recalcitrant groups related to tobacco legislation, in particular some of the Legion halls—who better to enter in there but public health nurse Soo Wong? She achieved miraculous results in our community.

The member for Leeds–Grenville has had his little brush with mortality. I urge him in fact to ensure that his face and head are both covered as he goes out into the sun, and I know he will never, ever use a tanning bed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: Madam Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Mr. O’Toole has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading debate adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day.

Hon. John Milloy: No further business, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Jane McKenna: The mother of Dan Powers—who is our senior legislative adviser and press secretary to the leader of the official opposition—Dr. Anne Marie Liberatore and his brother Christian Powers are here today for question period.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to introduce the president-elect of OSSTF, Paul Elliott, who is here in the west lobby; and Paul Kossta, the staff person legislative observer. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I’m pleased to introduce the family of page captain John Gobin. They’re in the west gallery: Winston and Leila Gobin, the parents; and Rajpattie Ramnaran, the grandmother. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Today, I’d like to welcome page Ellen Jansen’s grandmother Nancy Millson, in the public gallery. She’s here to watch her granddaughter in action today.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to welcome the Wendling family from the Welland riding: Kevin, Rosanne, Kyara, Ariel, Mia and Denise. They’re joining us today to see Kyara start her first week as a legislative page. Welcome.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to welcome the following guests from my ministry’s sport and recreation unit: Russell Zavitz, Janet Rudd, Caterina Rewega, Imshan Poolar, Anushe Rabbani, Parmik Chahal, Faye Blackwood, Scott Cooper, Sarah Love, Barbara Lyon-Stewart and Peter Evans.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s a pleasure for me to announce the presence of the parents of our page Owen Clute. The parents are Fiona Smith, Tom Clute and Neve Clute. Welcome.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like the opportunity to welcome the grade 5 students from St. Brendan Catholic School from the riding of Pickering–Scarborough East to the Legislature today. They’re from the Scarborough part of my riding and they’re touring the Legislature and listening to us in question period. I believe they are just coming in now.

M me France Gélinas: I also have parents of pages who are here. Yesterday his mother was here; today his dad, Marc Bédard, is here to support his son Nicolas, who is one of our pages. And the mother of Magalie Malette, Marie-Josée Bergeron, is also here with us today.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce Larry Scott, who was our candidate in the last provincial election for the riding of Oakville.

They’re soon to join us in the west gallery—it’s my pleasure to introduce Matt Hiraishi, manager of Ontario government relations for the Insurance Bureau of Canada; and Robert Demille of Demille State Farm Insurance in Oakville, whose father was my former campaign manager. They’re taking

part in the annual insurance day at the park. Please show them all the courtesy the House deserves.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville, Emily Kostiuk’s mother, Julie Rosenberg, who is in the gallery visiting her daughter. Welcome and thank you.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If I could now have the pages assemble, I would like to introduce our new pages to the House.

I’m going to ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of young pages serving in the second session of the 40th Parliament: Fae Alexander from Thunder Bay–Superior North; Brittany Ally from York Centre; Nicolas Bédard from Nickel Belt; Owen Clute from Trinity–Spadina; Leah Dehn from Kitchener–Conestoga; John Gobin from Scarborough–Rouge River; Eric Guild from Timiskaming–Cochrane; Stone Haines from Windsor–Tecumseh; Andrew Hodgins from Durham; Nadim Iddon from Parkdale–High Park; Ellen Jansen from Huron–Bruce; Ali Javeed from Scarborough–Guildwood; Arveen Kang from Bramalea–Gore–Malton; Emily Kostiuk from Mississauga East–Cooksville; Magalie Malette from Sudbury; Dasha Metropolitansky from Oakville; Andrew Sheehan from Niagara West–Glanbrook; Jacob Van Boekel from Oxford; Kyara Wendling from Welland; and Helen Zheng from Davenport.

Welcome. Now get to work.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think the member has interpreted my comment very liberally.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That wasn’t my message, to get carried away. That was my message to say, let’s relax.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question this morning is for the Minister of Finance. Our party’s concern is high as a result of widely reported comments you made that strongly suggest a major solution to your budget deficit woes could be to raise taxes. You bobbed and you weaved, Minister, but when you were asked point-blank if you would raise taxes, your answer was, “I am taking every consideration as to what we need to encourage investment....” Where I come from, Minister, we take that as a qualified yes.

When pressed, you said, “Well, there’s been obviously some speculation that’s been written and I’m not going to speculate.”

Well, no one wants you to speculate, Minister. Just tell me and tell the people of Ontario how you are going to sustain ballooning public sector pensions. Is it your intention to raise taxes in Ontario, yes or no?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I also appreciate the engagement that you’re finally giving us in regard to this budget. I’ve reached out to you so many times. I do appreciate that we’re having this discussion, and we are having consultations around the province.

Let’s be clear: What have we done? We’ve cut taxes. We’ve cut taxes for personal. We’ve cut taxes for corporate. Ontario is one of the most competitive tax jurisdictions anywhere in the world. We’re attracting investment. We’re attracting investment that’s staying in Ontario. As a result of these initiatives, we’ve now been able to garner 400,000 net new jobs since the recession.

The fundamentals in Ontario are strong. We’re poised to do so much more. I look forward to working with all sides of the House in making this a very good budget for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I can’t say you’re not learning.

It seems dodge ball is not confined to phys-ed courts in gymnasiums. You and your Premier have evaded every public question pertaining to cutting costs, public sector pension payments, public sector wages, program spending—no apparent curtailment anywhere. Meanwhile, you claim you’re on track to eliminate the deficit by 2017, without any figures to support that claim.

Minister, your own economist, Don Drummond, has said that gold-plated public sector pensions are not sustainable. You have provided no evidence of any concrete plan to control spending. With your public sector pensions in place, Ontario is staring down the barrel of a fiscal gun. You will not commit to holding taxes at present levels. So tell Ontario and tell me this: What specific spending do you intend to reduce, and by how much, or what specific taxes are you raising?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the only dodge that we have on our side is David Dodge, and we look forward to his advice, to his contribution, alongside others like Don Drummond. We’ve taken their advice, and we’ve started to institute some of those very measures to support a very strong economic power here in Ontario.

We have a sensitive recovery, no doubt. That’s why we need to be diligent, but we can’t take extreme measures. We can’t go off doing slash-and-burn policies; that’s only going to hurt our recovery. But we also have to be very careful about our spending, so that we ensure—that we ensure—that the economy continues to thrive, that we are on target to balance our books by 2017-18. We’re taking every measure necessary to ensure that.

Again, I say to you, we have reduced taxes, we are one of the most competitive jurisdictions and we’re looking forward to going forward.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: A couple of weeks ago, when we were talking about the throne speech, I quoted my grade 9 history teacher who said, “You talk a lot, but you don’t say much.” Minister, you cannot keep evading the issue—you can’t keep evading the issue. Balancing budgets can only result from increasing revenues, reducing costs or a combination of the two. You and I both know that.

With an estimated $100 billion in unfunded liability, you’re looking at north of $4 billion per year in pension costs. I could stand here and I could ask you line by line, item by item, what you’re going to do, but in Premier Wynne’s spirit of openness and transparency, just tell us clearly and directly which programs are being cut or which taxes are being raised.

How are you going to cover the shortfall that you have created to pay for these incredibly rich public sector pensions?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite would know fully well, because I shared with you my House book; I shared with you my transition binder. I’ve given you my answers already. I’ve told you some of the initiatives that were going to help you with questions, no less. But I’ll tell you this, because I do want to work co-operatively with you; I am anxious to do so: When it comes to pensions, we have now negotiated with four unions and joint pension plans. That’s going to save and avoid costs of up to $1.5 billion over the next three years. These initiatives are very strong. They are taking the right steps.

What we want, Mr. Speaker, are results. We want positive results. It’s how we get there that matters. Some of the suggestions that you’re putting forward would create havoc in the system. We want to work with our stakeholders and our partners, we want those zero/zero wages, we want to ensure that our pensions are under control, and, Mr. Speaker—

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

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Premier, we finally heard yesterday from your energy minister that the $40-million figure you stuck to for months on the Oakville gas plant cancellation “could be wrong.” First, you blamed the OPA, the Ontario Power Authority, for the missing documents, and then, yesterday, your energy minister blamed the OPA for this $40-million figure, yet the OPA says it was the government who ran the show.

You keep deflecting responsibility, exclaiming things like, “It wasn’t me,” and “The dog ate my homework.” Basically, Premier, who, indeed, is responsible for this? If it’s not $40 million, just how much is the actual cancellation of the Oakville plant?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question of the member opposite, and I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to comment in the supplementary.

I’m very glad that the committee is now looking at all of these questions. That’s why we wanted to broaden the mandate of the committee, Mr. Speaker. I was very clear that we wanted that committee to be able to look at all aspects, and that’s what’s happening. If I had thought that all the answers were in the public realm, then I wouldn’t have suggested that the Auditor General look at both gas plants. I made that suggestion because I think there are questions. The Minister of Energy has confirmed that, and so we will allow the Auditor General to do his work.

We will get the answers to those questions, and I hope that the member opposite is paying close attention to what’s going on in the committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: To the Premier: I actually agree with the Premier that not all the information is in the public realm—I will agree with you on that. We’re still waiting for many more document dumps. But, Premier, you could have been honest and up front with Ontarians in the past, but you have refused. You could have made this $40-million admission weeks ago.

On February 21, the same day as the third document dump, the CEO of the OPA refused to confirm the combined amount of $230 million for the Oakville and Mississauga cancellations. Four days later in this House, the energy minister said, “We stand by that number.” Premier, why have you refused to admit the Oakville figure was wrong when the head of the Ontario Power Authority gave you a pretty strong hint four weeks ago that it indeed was an incorrect number?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It is indeed very helpful to have the justice committee having hearings on this particular issue at this time. Just this morning, the mayor of Oakville said:

“Our citizens organized their own effort to ask the province to rethink the proposed power plant....

“They won promises from all parties to stop the proposed ... plant.”

He also said, with respect to the cost—and this is very, very important: “Anyone who wishes to criticize the cost of cancelling it would do everybody a favour if they would explain how they would have done it differently.”

They promised to relocate the plants. They have not calculated the cost. They’re picking figures out of the air. They’re not prepared to wait for the witnesses—all the witnesses—to present their evidence or to wait for the Auditor General to give his opinion. Be patient.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, here we are, four weeks into your session, and we’re still waiting for you to be forthright with Ontarians. We know cabinet was briefed over a year ago on Project Vapour, the code word for your Oakville cancellation. We know you know the real cost. Premier, you don’t need a committee to tell Ontarians the truth; you just need to stand up and let it out. Why do you need the Auditor General to tell you what your own deal cost? Has this government lost so much control of Ontario’s finances and the treasury that it now admits it doesn’t know the cost of its own deal?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, he’s raising two or three different points. He’s talking about disclosure; he’s talking about transparency, or a lack of it. We took the initiative to have the Ontario Power Authority senior management come to Queen’s Park and answer questions in an unfettered way. They stated absolutely clearly that they made the decision on their own on which documents to release or were relevant—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I tried humour at the beginning. I have to go back to the other, and that includes comments while the answer is being given from the same side.

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: They also stated that there was no political interference in terms of which documents would be released, or anything concerning the release of the documents.

We have been open. We’ve been transparent. The Premier has been unbelievably open and transparent with the opposition and with the public, expanding the purview of this committee and being prepared to come forward. She’s willing to go to—

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

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last year, the Minister of Health promised that executives at Ornge wouldn’t be receiving bonus pay this year. Can the Premier tell us whatever happened to that plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question; I think it’s an important one. Ornge did make the decision a year ago—it was a prudent decision, a decision I supported—not to offer bonuses to its employees. There would be no performance pay. However, that decision was appealed. A group of employees at Ornge did take that decision to the HRSDC. HRSDC did rule that they were entitled to those bonuses, that performance pay. HRSDC ruled that so that Ornge—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: They made the decision, the right decision, to—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As soon as I ask you to be quiet, as soon as there’s a break, you add. So the member from Renfrew, come to order.

Finish, Minister, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In order to avoid the high cost of litigation, they did decide to offer bonuses to their employees with a very clear understanding that this is one time. It brings their salary up to what it was last year. It is not higher than last year’s, and they have a plan going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The fact that executives at a disgraced public company will be getting big bonuses is just another bit of bitter news for patients who want to see health care dollars spent helping people get well, not padding the pockets of already-generous public salaries.

Once again, the government promised to crack down on spending at the top, and their promises have been proven as empty as the government’s promise to cap CEO salaries. When will the Premier take some real action to show patients that they’re the priority in our health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have to object to the characterization that front-line staff at Ornge are not worthy of appropriate compensation. I think the people at Ornge have been through a very difficult year. I supported the decision of the Ornge board not to grant bonuses, but I don’t think we need to drag down the people who give their lives every day to save the lives of others, Speaker.

The Ornge board made a responsible decision. The first decision was no bonuses. That was appealed; they lost. Going forward, they have a very clear framework so that any pay for performance will be based on very clear criteria.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People are waiting for results from this government, Speaker, like a five-day home care guarantee.

Sheri, a Toronto resident—not my colleague from Parkdale–High Park, but another Sheri from Toronto—wrote to us out of frustration: “The state of care for our elderly is so sad. My grandmother served her country in the Second World War, she sacrificed so much for herself to make a life for future generations, and this is how we repay her and others from her generation.”

Irma, from the great community of Don Valley West, writes this: “Based on my experience, I would say that the government was wasting far too much money on management and not spending wisely on ensuring that their clients were getting good care.”

We’ve put forward a simple plan. Is the Premier ready to crack down on bonuses and public sector CEO salaries and make smart investments in a five-day home care guarantee?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I thought we were talking about air ambulance. Now I guess we’re talking about home care, but I’m happy to answer the question.

I completely agree with the member opposite. We need to invest more in home care. We are making important investments in adding home care. We have common ground with the third party that investing in home care is a very high priority.

I met last week with health ministers from across the country. All of us are dealing with the same issues regarding our aging population. We agree that we need to invest more in home care so people can stay home as long as they are able.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. Last year, the government insisted that the cost of cancelling the private power deal for the gas plant in Oakville was $40 million. Will the Premier stand by that figure today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said to a question previously from the opposition, we were very clear that we were going to open up all of the information, to provide all of the information. That’s why we asked that the mandate of the justice committee be expanded, Mr. Speaker. That’s why the questions that are being asked are being asked: because we’ve allowed for that expansion of mandate.

That’s why I asked that the Auditor General look at both the Oakville and the Mississauga situations: because I think there are questions, and we don’t have all of the answers that we need. The only way to get the answers is to have people who are experts, like the Auditor General, look at the numbers and determine what the answers are. That’s why we’ve asked them to do it, and I await the work in his report.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, once again, the people see their government make a clear commitment about costs, only to hear later the same government backtrack with a brand new number. Ontario households and businesses are now paying some of the highest electricity rates in the entire country. Does the Premier think it’s acceptable that they can’t get a straight or consistent answer from their government on the true cost of this gas plant debacle?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I made it clear when I came into this office that I thought that there needed to be an openness, that we needed to make sure that every piece of information was available. I have said that it pains me that we haven’t been able to have the information all at once, that it wasn’t a simpler process, that we weren’t able to provide all the information.

The reality is every party in this House said that they were going to cancel those gas plants. That was the position of every single party. The testimony this morning at the justice committee by the mayor of Oakville was that he had all-party support for the cancellation of the Oakville plant.

The reality is that there are questions, Mr. Speaker, that need to be answered. We are providing the conditions so that those questions can be answered, including the Auditor General looking at the books and giving us an answer on the numbers. We await that response and look forward to his report.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats were the only party, during the election campaign, who said it would be irresponsible to tear up contracts sight unseen. That’s what we said.

At the justice committee this morning, the government’s witness made it clear that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You kind of got ahead of me, but I was going to stand up and ask for some quiet. Order.

Leader?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: At the justice committee this morning, the government’s witness made it clear that the Liberals’ private power system is a mess. Instead of open, accountable electricity planning that hears public concerns, we have a government handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to private power providers to cover the cost of cancelling contracts that never should have been signed in the first place.

Is the Premier ready to admit that this is a system that is simply not working for the people of this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, to hear the leader of the opposition speak this morning, it sounds as though her commitment to the mayor of Oakville when she—Mayor Burton said this morning, “Our citizens organized their own effort to ask the province to rethink the proposed power plant.... They won promises from all parties to stop the proposed power plant.” That’s all parties, Mr. Speaker. All three parties in this House said that they would cancel those gas plants.

Now the leader of the opposition is saying that she wouldn’t have ripped up contracts—she wasn’t sure what she would have done, Mr. Speaker. The fact is, she gave a promise; she said that that’s what she was going to do. We acted on that promise. We delivered that. We are acting on the promise that we made during the election campaign.

She can’t have it both ways. She can’t have the corner on righteousness on this if she said she was going to cancel it, and now she’s saying she wasn’t going to.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. We don’t have to wait for the Auditor General’s report to find out that which we already know. The cost of the Oakville power plant cancellation is more than $40 million, contrary to that which you’ve previously indicated. Perhaps a little late in the game was the Minister of Energy, who admitted yesterday, when referring to the government documents, “They could be wrong.”

We appreciate the minister finally reading the documents and testimony yesterday from Bruce Sharp, but had he done that earlier, he would know that the government numbers were wrong. Instead, this government has focused on throwing the OPA under the bus at every turn rather than admitting any fault.

Premier, I’d like you to answer this question: Do you agree with the Minister of Energy’s comments yesterday, and if so, can you tell us what the real cost of the cancellation of the Oakville—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: To the member who asked the question: They could be right. “They could be wrong” means they could be right. Okay? That’s the truth.

The reality is that we have a process under way, Mr. Speaker, which is the justice committee, which is taking evidence under oath.

We have a witness who came forward today who said quite clearly—and I want to repeat: under oath, the mayor of Oakville—“We enjoyed expressions of support from all parties, including Mr. Tabuns, and we appreciated the support of all parties. We were particularly encouraged by the strong statements that MPP Ted Chudleigh made.”

In addition to that, the mayor said—and I agree with the mayor—under oath: “Anyone who wishes to criticize the cost of cancelling it would do everybody a favour if they would explain how they would have done it differently.”

So I ask the member who asked the question, how would you have done it differently? Because you were going to cancel the project yourself.

Interjections.

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

Simply shouting down an answer is not going to cut it today. Starting now, I’ll start mentioning individuals’ ridings.

Supplementary.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t need another comment on that either, Minister.

Mr. Rob Leone: In testimony today, Oakville Mayor Rob Burton stated in committee that he didn’t believe TransCanada was entitled to any payout, because no building permit was issued and no municipal approvals were given, yet $638 million of public money is gone because of the decisions of your government. You take no responsibility; all you do is blame somebody else.

They blame Bruce Sharp. They blame Chris Bentley. They blame the OPA. They’re even blaming computers, Mr. Speaker. There is literally nothing—human, electronic device, government agency or otherwise—that this government won’t use to blame and refuse to accept responsibility.

I want the Premier to answer this question, Mr. Speaker: Was the Minister of Energy correct in saying that the cost is higher than $40 million for cancellation of the Oakville power plant?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: There was an election campaign in 2011. All parties have agreed that they were going to relocate the Mississauga gas plant. We were fortunate enough to be elected; we did what we promised to do and we did what the other two parties promised to do. It then came to a question of calculating the costs, and in calculating the costs, the Ontario Power Authority—who did the negotiation, had all the documentation—calculated the cost. They made those figures available to us. We released those figures to the public.

We now have a committee—which has a broader mandate, thanks to the Premier—looking into it. The member who asked the question is a member of that committee. Let’s wait until the committee is finished and they decide what the outcome is. We’ll deal with the outcome after all the evidence is in, including the evidence from the Auditor General, whose report we requested.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Premier: Today, Rob Burton, mayor of Oakville, testified that before the agreement with TransCanada was signed, he met with the former Premier to say that Oakville didn’t want the plant, that there were risks that Oakville simply didn’t want; but the government went ahead with it anyway. It made a major mistake. In fact, when we asked if the plant should have simply been stopped before it started, the mayor said, “I would have appreciated that as a taxpayer”—before it started, before you signed a contract. Will the Premier acknowledge that her government started the problem that has incurred the cost of $638 million?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order. The member from Essex, come to order. One warning, and many more to go if I have to.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The question of the location of gas power plants is one that is before a committee of the Legislature right now, the justice committee, but what’s interesting is that all three parties are represented on that committee and all three parties opposed both the Oakville and the Mississauga plants.

As has been pointed out this morning, when Mayor Rob Burton was asked by one of our members, “Would you like to elaborate particularly on the support Mr. Tabuns lent you in the drive to get the Oakville power plant cancelled?” the mayor had this to say: “We enjoyed expressions of support from all parties, including Mr. Tabuns.” Once again, this was a promise that was made by all three parties, and it was kept by our government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Back to the Premier: The Oakville gas plant didn’t fall from the sky. The Liberal government signed the contract to put it there, over the staunch objections of the town of Oakville and its mayor. And now the government won’t say how much that cancellation is going to cost. Will the Premier acknowledge that the Liberal government created this mess?

Hon. John Milloy: The honourable member raises the issue of cost. Perhaps we should remind him that the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature, is right now looking into the costs of both the Mississauga and the Oakville plants, with the urging and encouragement of this government. He’s also very aware, as he’s a member of the committee, that the justice committee is looking into it.

But what I find passing strange is that neither the New Democratic Party nor the Progressive Conservative Party has ever thought to furnish their costings and their policy analysis when they opposed both these plants going into the election, when they put forward the costings of what they would do if they formed government.

Mr. Speaker, isn’t it time for all parties to come forward and provide that type of information? We have been forthcoming on this side of the House, and we look for the same spirit on the other side of the House.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, on Saturday, March 23, from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., people across Ontario and around the world will celebrate Earth Hour. Earth Hour is a global event where we turn off our lights for an hour to show our commitment to energy conservation and protecting the planet. People in my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham take

part in Earth Hour every year, turning off their lights and showing support.

Energy conservation is important, both for a healthy environment and a strong energy system—

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: PowerStream, which is one of the electrical distribution companies for homes and businesses in my riding, encourages their customers to turn off their lights during Earth Hour each year.

Speaker, through you, could the minister inform the House of the steps we are taking to conserve energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Thank you to the member for Oak Ridges–Markham. Speaker, Earth Hour is an important event for raising awareness around climate change—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Huron–Bruce, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m proud to say that our government has worked hard to create a culture of conservation. In the past six years alone, we have saved over 1,900 megawatts, the equivalent of taking 600,000 homes off the grid. Our long-term energy plan makes a commitment to reduce peak demand by 7,100 megawatts by 2030.

We’re also working closely with local utilities to deliver meaningful programs to consumers, including the heating and cooling incentive, the fridge and freezer pickup, and requiring increased efficiency for the construction of new large buildings and residential homes. Our government is doing a lot for conservation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Hand in hand with conserving our energy and shifting demand to off-peak hours is having an accessible program that allows Ontarians to conserve energy easily and effectively. Part of doing this is having the proper infrastructure in place so we can accurately read results of when Ontarians consume energy at different times of the day.

Jurisdictions all over the world are turning to a smarter energy grid to allow users to get the energy they need when they need it.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What is our government doing to create a smart energy system that is friendly to conservation programs and fosters new innovative ideas?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member is correct: Implementing a smart energy grid is crucial as we build a stronger and more reliable energy system in Ontario. That’s why our government has introduced smart meters and time-of-use pricing across the province to help conservation efforts.

Mr. Speaker, these initiatives are about choice. Smart meters give Ontario families greater control over their energy consumption, with more accurate information. They give Ontarians the choice to shift their energy consumption to different times of the day. This avoids the need for new generation and transmission investments, saving consumers money in the long run.

As we shift our energy usage to off-peak hours, we also minimize the impact on the environment and, in the long run, save the ratepayer money.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday you were asked about the $40-million cost estimate for cancelling the Oakville gas plant after it was openly challenged by an expert witness in committee. That witness testimony estimated the true cost to be 15 times higher. You dismissed that testimony as based on assumptions. You were then asked by the media whether you would stand behind your figure of $50 million, and you said it “could be wrong.”

That’s a stunning reversal after months of insisting that the total cost to the taxpayer of cancelling the Oakville plant was just $40 million. What changed your mind? Was it the testimony at the committee, or did you just receive an advance draft of the Auditor General’s report?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: That’s a stunning question because the question was just asked by his colleague and I answered the question. So I’ll answer it again. We fulfilled the commitment to—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We fulfilled the commitment to cancel and relocate the gas plant, as the opposition had promised. We were fortunate to win re-election and had the opportunity to do so. The Ontario Power Authority did all the negotiation; they did the calculation of costs. They provided the cost to us. They provided documentary information to us, which we released to the public. They were the keepers of the documents; they provided those documents to us. We now have a committee that’s looking into it with an expanded mandate, thanks to the Premier. We will wait for all the evidence to come in. I did not have any advance copy of the Auditor General’s report, and I—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. When I stand, everyone sits. Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, after months of your government continuing to insist that $40 million was the absolute, total price for cancelling those plants, the only reason that you would come up with new information tomorrow is that you know something that you have not told this House. You have new information; you are aware that that cost is higher. The Auditor General is doing his investigation, and you’ve asked the public to be patient for that report. But yesterday, you were already trying to discredit him by saying that the Auditor General’s figure—and he hasn’t even released it. You said, “I think the figure will be a figure on which there will be a lot of opinion, whatever it is.”

Minister, we’re not philosophers; people have a right to absolute answers. You know today that it is more than $40 million. It’s about time you fessed up—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. A tightrope walk to saying something unparliamentary, but I would like to remind all members—I’m going to springboard from the member’s comments—that we do not impugn or use certain phraseology in this place that indicates that someone is not telling the truth. I’ll leave it at that.

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member who asked the question is absolutely dead wrong. If he wants to bring a Bible over here, I’ll swear on it. I have not seen the Auditor General’s report draft or have any information whatsoever.

What I have said consistently is that the Ontario Power Authority did the negotiation; they had all the documents. I said here, every single time the question of cost has come up, that we relied on the information that was provided to us by the Ontario Power Authority. We now have a committee that’s looking into it. The committee will have a purview to examine everything and come up with its own conclusions. I, as minister, have been privy only to the information and numbers that have been provided to me by the Ontario Power Authority and nobody else. Take that, put it in your pipe and smoke it.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. There are a couple of members that are desperately on the edge.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I know—and remain so.

The member from Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Premier, the OLG is handing out up to $750,000 in public money to private companies to bid on contracts so the Donald Trumps of the world can make even more money. Yet this same government is obliterating the horse racing industry without any consultation or plan for the future. Why is this government investing money into private companies that are already making profits and leaving the horse racing industry to collapse completely?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to speak to the horse racing part of that question because I really need the member opposite to know how hard we’re working to make the horse racing industry sustainable in the province.

There were many, many concerns about the model that was in place. We put a panel in place. My predecessor, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, put in place a panel—Elmer Buchanan, John Snobelen, John Wilkinson—and the panel found “it would be a mistake to reinstate SARP.... The program has provided far more money than was needed to stabilize the industry—its original purpose—and has done so without compelling the industry to invest in a better consumer experience.”

So we are working with racetracks. We are trying to make sure that racetracks have the ability to survive.

In the member’s own backyard, Mr. Speaker, the Lakeshore group is working to try to put together a business model so that they can bring back racing to the Windsor area. So I look forward to working with them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The Premier knows full well time is running out. Premier, offering the Donald Trumps of the world public money so that they can make more money on the backs of Ontarians is not a good strategy. Up to 20,000 to 30,000 full-time jobs in the horse industry are at stake in rural Ontario.

My question to you, Premier, is simple, and I would desperately appreciate an answer. Will the Liberal government continue to choose to give subsidies to private corporations who want a piece of the casino industry over coming up with a real plan to save the horse racing industry in rural Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: So, Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear as to what he’s asking. We have before us a modernization of the OLG, and the lottery and gaming component of it. In order for us to get the best value for money for our taxpayers, we want proponents to make their bids and their submissions. We now have before us a very complex and large bid—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex has asked the question, and I’m hoping he will listen to the answer.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m trying to respond to your “why.” We’re doing this so that we can get more proponents because we only have one major bidder. We need to have more so we can have a competitive proposal so that we can do the best we can for our community.

How we did it? We sought legal advice. We went through Infrastructure Ontario. This is standard practice in other regions so that we can get the best value for Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Charles Sousa: And why? Because we want to generate even more money for hospitals and health care and our social services to help all Ontarians. That’s what this process is about—

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: —and only those—

Interjections.

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

Just a reminder: When I say “thank you,” that’s the end; when I say “answer,” you’ve only got a wrap-up sentence to go.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s true of all people.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to liken this to a boxing game. There are people who give cheap shots at the end of a boxing round. That means when the bell goes, the guy gives an extra punch—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Somebody’s already doing it while I’m speaking—or a low blow. So when I do get the quiet, it’s not the moment in which I want you to ramp it back up again.

New question.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Last fall, our government made it clear that our priority is to secure agreements with our public sector partners, and we’ve worked really hard to achieve that goal. Since that time, the Ministry of Government Services has successfully negotiated collective agreements with two of its largest unions, OPSEU and AMAPCEO.

Given the need for fiscal restraint and the importance of eliminating our deficit by 2017-18, could the minister please advise this House on how much these savings have achieved for the province of Ontario?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for asking this question. Negotiations are never easy, but when both parties work together to achieve the common objective, we can achieve greater results. I really want to thank the leadership of the AMAPCEO and OPSEU organizations for working diligently with us to make sure that we reach fair and reasonable agreements.

So let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker, that AMAPCEO is a 10,000-member organization, and we reached an agreement with them which they ratified last October, in 2012. The savings that we realized in the first year were $24.6 million. In the second year, we will get about $30.4 million.

The OPSEU organization is about 35,000 members and the largest public sector organization. We will achieve about $34.1 million in 2013 and $37.4 million in 2014. We are very proud of these negotiations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: That’s very encouraging to hear from the very hard-working minister. I know those savings will go a long way to balancing the budget by 2017-18.

Mr. Speaker, I’d again pose my question through you to the Minister of Government Services. I know that our government is committed to finding fair agreements from our public sector partners for all Ontarians. For agreements to be fair, the contracts we negotiate must respect both employees and taxpayers, and they must balance cost restraints with the public services that Ontario families rely on. We made it clear that returning Ontario back to balanced budgets is a priority for our government and that we plan to achieve this by working with our partners to do what’s best for the people of Ontario.

Can the Minister of Government Services please tell us what other benefits Ontarians will receive as a result of these new contracts?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the hard-working member. Mr. Speaker, one thing has become very clear to us: that if both parties work together and they can sit at the table and negotiate agreements, we can actually achieve great agreements.

In these two agreements, we will save about $126.4 million for the public and the government. That will help us to actually balance our budget by 2017-18.

We are very proud of the agreements and the relationship we have with our working partners. We look forward to working with them in the future as well.

DRIVE CLEAN

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I know you’re well aware that vehicle emissions here in Ontario have dramatically declined over the last decade. But this trend isn’t unique in Ontario. British Columbia has also seen major reductions, largely as a result of new technology and cleaner fuels. Speaker, that’s why the Liberal government in BC is phasing out its emission testing program: because they know it’s no longer necessary. But what did you do? You rushed to introduce a new computerized test that’s less reliable and more prone to error.

Now every day, countless vehicles fail this new test not because of emissions-related problems but because of a computer error.

Minister, can you explain the difference between the situation in Ontario and in BC?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the hardest job in this House has to be environment critic for the Conservative Party, because you have to take the anti-environment stand on every occasion. Unlike some of his predecessors—Dr. Harry Parrott would be an example, and Susan Fish, who took a pro-environment stand—he doesn’t.

Let me tell you what the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment says about Drive Clean. “Our doctors are extremely concerned about air pollution. In Ontario, nearly 10,000 people die prematurely each year because of smog. Programs like Drive Clean—which reduce smog components and poisons such as carbon monoxide—are very important to public health. Our doctors believe that, far from being eliminated, these programs should be strengthened.” That’s from Gideon Forman, executive director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Minister, I flatly disagree: I think the folks who have the hardest job in this House are you 53 on that side trying to defend this scandal-plagued government.

Minister, I’m hoping you can explain how your temporary changes to the new Drive Clean test make any sense. First you tell Ontarians they must pay $35 to get a new test. Then, if their car fails because the computer isn’t ready, you tell them to drive around town and up and down the highway for a day. Also, they can go back to the shop and pay to take another test. And to top it all off, you’ve added another step for Ontarians buying a vehicle, who may have to get up to three tests at a cost of nearly $90, before making a purchase.

Minister, in all seriousness, how can Ontarians view this unnecessary program as anything more than a government cash grab?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I keep in close contact with the author of this program, Conservative Minister Norm Sterling. I want to compliment Norm on establishing this program, which is excellent for the province of Ontario. I know he got bounced out of the party by you folks there, but he still established a good program.

Drive Clean reduces unhealthy emissions from cars by 36%. It reduces automobile pollution in Ontario by more than one third. To put it in a bigger context, Drive Clean cuts smog pollutants by nearly 35,000 tonnes a year.

I can tell you that the Environmental Commissioner said—I just happen to have here before me his exact words from his report—“The Drive Clean program has undergone a number of independent program reviews that concluded significant reductions in smog-causing pollutants were being achieved, but that further reductions could result from program improvements,” including implementation of the new regime. That’s Gord Miller.

TUITION

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Yesterday, I visited students at the University of Windsor. They told me how difficult it is for them to afford rising tuition fees and how financial stress is hurting their studies.

Ontario has the highest tuition fees in Canada. Why is this government considering increasing fees yet again by as much as 5%?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’re working very closely with students across Ontario and our post-secondary institutions to ensure that we arrive at a balanced approach when it comes to the potential tuition fee increases down the road and the framework that we’re working very hard on, as the member is aware.

But I want to ask the member: Her policy right now suggests that we take our 30%-off tuition grant, which is providing 200,000 students across this province and low- and middle-income families with assistance, and spread it to the richer families across the province. That would be helping rich families at the expense of poor families. Is that still her approach? Does she still want to spread that across to the richer families at the expense of the low- and middle-income families? I’d like to hear that in her response.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the minister my question again, so here we are. Students at the University of Windsor pay the highest tuition fees in the country, and graduate fees are 75% higher than UBC’s. Many are graduating with unsustainable debt.

In a region where the youth unemployment rate is over 20%, many students are quite simply losing hope. Will the minister get tuition fees under control, or will he compound the struggles of students by raising tuition fees once again?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, we’re going to work with students across this province in our post-secondary institutions to make sure we have a tuition framework that’s fair and balanced and that balances the need for affordability with the need for quality. But what we won’t do is promise things that the NDP are promising that are absolutely impractical. The member opposite in Windsor yesterday said that they were going to waive all debts for students across this province. That’s a $10-billion promise. Where are you going to find the money to pay for that? Corporate tax cuts, maybe?

Mr. Speaker, they want to use corporate loopholes to pay for health care and home care. They want to use corporate loopholes to pay for $40 billion in public transit investment. Now you’re identifying another $10 billion that you want to spend for students. Tell us where you’re going to get the money—

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

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. It is frustrating that municipalities in Ontario often have a difficult time collecting payment for fines issued under the Provincial Offences Act. This problem began in 2002, when the government at the time chose to download the enforcement of the Provincial Offences Act onto cities and towns across the province. There are now millions of dollars in uncollected funds and outstanding payments. In my hometown of Ottawa, where this is a significant problem, we’re happy to hear that the Minister of Transportation is taking steps to address this issue, delivering on a promise made in the 2012 budget.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Transportation: Could you please tell the House what actions are being taken to help the municipalities collect unpaid fines and what it will mean for Ontario drivers, families and municipalities?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The Premier has asked that each of us spend more time listening to municipalities and less time talking at them. One of the things that we’ve heard loud and clear is that the party opposite downloaded roads, collections and fines, and that was unbearable. Minister Chiarelli, before me, took real leadership in addressing this and proposing that we introduce legislation to assist municipalities with that.

I also want to thank the Minister of Labour, who introduced a private member’s bill that is actually the foundation of this legislation. This will actually prohibit people from being able to renew their plates unless they pay their fines.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I am glad to hear that the minister is taking action on this issue. The legislation he is introducing will help our cities and towns, and make our roads a safer place. But with all new legislation, it is important to know how it would impact Ontarians. My constituents in Ottawa are happy that we are addressing this problem; they want to know more about our solutions.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Transportation: Could he please elaborate on what this legislation will mean to all Ontarians and what my constituents in Ottawa–Orléans should know about it?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for his leadership as well. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has worked very closely with the government in designing this legislation. What it will mean is that when you go to renew your licence plates, if you have not paid your fines, you will not get plates. As a matter of fact, you won’t even be able to switch plates, because this applies to multiple plates.

It also means for communities like Kenora or Ottawa—border communities—when people go through red lights, we will now be able to collect out-of-province fines; that’s another big, important thing that Mayor Watson in Ottawa, particularly, has advocated for. This is a very, very positive initiative.

But more important than anything else, this is about saving lives. Any of us who have been in city councils, who have sat there when someone has been run over by a speeding car or an elderly person crossing an intersection gets hit—people don’t seem to understand the responsibility—

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

CASINOS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is for the Premier. Premier, if you really want fairness for all municipalities—including places like Windsor, London, Niagara Falls and Ottawa—then why has the OLG not corrected its earlier statement that the city of Toronto could expect to receive $50 million to $100 million in casino hosting fees? Just so we’re clear, Premier, in order to reach a—

Interjection.

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

The Minister of the Environment made a comment that I would not consider parliamentary. Would you please withdraw?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Premier, just so we’re clear, in order to reach a $50-million hosting fee, a casino would need to generate at least $7.5 billion in profits, which is more gaming revenue than the entire Las Vegas strip generated in 2012 alone. Will the Premier direct the OLG to correct their earlier statement and will she finally come clean as to the exact amount the city of Toronto is going to get?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. It’s important to note that the formula is the same right across the province, regardless of the municipality. The Premier has made that clear. That is certainly the consistent message. That is what is being said and that is what is being done.

What is also being done is that a huge amount of money is being proposed to be invested in the city of Toronto. The complex that’s being provided is not just a casino. It’s also a convention centre. It’s also transportation. It’s also the hotel. It’s a huge resort that’s being proposed, so the size and scope of the proponent is what’s at question. The amount of generation of revenue will be a positive effect for the city of Toronto should the city of Toronto decide they want to pursue it, and that’s their decision first.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: That answer is why people in communities affected by the McGuinty-Wynne OLG modernization have lost faith in you. They don’t trust you to look after them. First you refuse to give people a referendum prior to a casino coming to their community; now you won’t force OLG to reveal what secret sweetheart deal they’re discussing behind closed doors.

At this point, there’s only one way to ensure OLG isn’t stacking the deck, and that’s by making details of these deals—and I mean all of them—public. Will you say no to secret deals, Premier, and commit today to make all the details of these agreements public?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s be clear: Right now, municipalities are being asked to consider the idea of having a casino, to see if they’re receptive to it, after which they have the opportunity to review the proposals, review the proponents, review the siting, and then again make their decision, should they want it or not.

The issue before us in Toronto is much more complex and much grander than is being proposed in other parts of the province. The purpose, of course, is to generate even more revenue to service health care, to service our education, to service social programs, and do it in such a way that would be cognizant of the social benefits for the province.

I say to the member across the way: We’re doing everything we can to be open and transparent in the process, to ensure that we get many proponents investing in the process.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Jonah Schein: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Speaker, New Democrats have been working with cycling advocates across Ontario to get our communities moving again. This winter, over 1,000 activists signed a petition asking the minister to clarify the Highway Traffic Act to allow contraflow bike lanes on Ontario’s roads.

As a response to community pressure, ministry staff have met with the city of Toronto and arrived at an understanding that will allow Toronto to create opposite-direction bike lanes on one-way streets. But the rest of the province is still waiting, Speaker.

When will the minister clarify the Highway Traffic Act so that municipalities across Ontario can move ahead with their bike plans and install contraflow bicycle lanes?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member from Davenport for his very thoughtful and timely question. I also appreciate his advocacy on this file and have enjoyed meeting with him to work with him on this.

There’s a cycling strategy right now that is at the midpoint in development. It is my intention to take this for consultation, because as a cyclist myself, I know there’s a lot of debate within the cycling community about separated at-grade cycling lanes and how we deal with these, and the priorities of how we establish those on our highways. It is the intention of the government to move quite quickly on this in the coming months, but we want to make sure we get it right.

I want to thank him for the question and hope he wi