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

March 3, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-03 (PDF)

L051 - Tue 3 Mar 2015 / Mar 3 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 March 2015 Mardi 3 mars 2015

Orders of the Day

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Home warranty program

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Automotive industry

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Violence against aboriginal women

Government accountability

By-election in Sudbury

Tobacco control

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Greenbelt

Deferred Votes

Concurrence in supply

Members’ Statements

Children’s aid societies

Leading Women, Leading Girls, Building Communities awards

Model Parliament

Government accountability

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Bruyère Continuing Care / Soins continus Bruyère

McCamus Maple Syrup

Gilda’s Club Simcoe Muskoka

Model Parliament

Private members’ public business

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Estimates

Introduction of Bills

Registered Retirement Savings Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des régimes enregistrés d’épargne en vue de la retraite

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Canadian Agriculture Literacy Week

Petitions

Water fluoridation

Student assistance

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

Taxation

Dog ownership

Immigration policy

Wind turbines

First responders

Employment practices

Alzheimer’s disease

Workplace safety

Water fluoridation

Orders of the Day

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 3, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 45,

An Act to enhance public health by enacting the Healthy Menu Choices Act, 2015 and the Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2015 and by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 45, Loi visant à améliorer la santé publique par l’édiction de la Loi de 2015 pour des choix santé dans les menus et de la Loi de 2015 sur les cigarettes électroniques et la modification de la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée.

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

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to add actually a full hour of debate to Bill 45. Although Bill 45 was introduced on November 24, to be exact, this is the first occasion I have to do my lead. Just so you know, everybody relax; I will be taking the full 60 minutes.

You see, this bill contains previous bills of mine that I have been working on for a very, very long time. To be more precise, Bill 45 includes three schedules.

The first one is

an act about healthy menu choices. Basically what this is all about is that it has to do with menu labelling. You will remember, Speaker—and I will go through the different iterations of that bill through time—that this is an issue that I have been pushing since 2009 that has now been picked up by this government and included in Bill 45.

The second

schedule deals with amendments to the smoke-free act to ban flavoured tobacco. Here again, I have been working on trying to ban flavoured tobacco in Ontario since 2008. I’m quite happy to see that it’s now receiving second reading under the government’s Bill 45.

Schedule three talks about what is known as e-cigarettes, vaporizers or vapours, whichever one you want to call them, but basically to bring regulation to e-cigarettes.

I will be going through this bill in the order that the bill is written. Not that I care about menu labelling more than banning flavoured tobacco; all of those health promotion issues are important to me. This is why I have been working on them for such a long time.

Ce matin, ça me fait plaisir de parler au sujet du projet de loi 45. Le projet de loi 45 contient vraiment trois parties.

La première partie, c’est de mettre les calories sur le menu. Comme ça, lorsque les gens iront, disons, à McDonald’s, vous pourrez voir, « Big Mac : 3,99 $ et 455 calories. »

La deuxième

partie du projet de loi : on veut s’assurer qu’il n’y aura plus de tabac aromatisé en Ontario. C’est quelque chose sur quoi je travaille depuis très longtemps, et je vais vous raconter un peu de l’histoire de comment on en est venu à ça.

La troisième

partie s’adresse aux cigarettes électroniques. En ce moment, il n’y a aucune loi ou règlement qui s’applique aux cigarettes électroniques, et je crois que, parce qu’elles gagnent en popularité, c’est le temps que le gouvernement s’en mêle et qu’on commence à mettre certains règlements. Je commence.

So let’s start with menu labelling. It’s always nice to see where this comes from. The statistics to encourage menu labelling are rather stark. Basically, things have changed. People used to cook at home. At home, we go to the grocery store. At the grocery store, when we buy food, pretty well every packaged food comes with nutritional information.

Ontarians are smart. They look at those labels and they make healthy choices. A lot of brands have changed their recipes. A lot of brands now advertise things like zero cholesterol or zero calories, and they will tell you right on the front of the package. But it doesn’t matter what’s on the front of the package, because on the back of every single prepackaged item that you buy in the grocery store, you get menu information—you get a lot of information.

Given that more and more people eat in restaurants—we say that Ontarians right now consume one fifth of their food in restaurants—we think that the time has come to do the shift from the information you get on the back of packaged food, to bring it to the front of the menu.

When I first introduced this bill—it has been quite a while, Speaker; I will go through the history of it a little bit. I will always remember when I first introduced this bill, because I was sitting in this chamber, in that seat right there. The galleries were full. It was a Thursday afternoon. It tends to be quiet in here on a Thursday afternoon, but not that Thursday afternoon. That Thursday afternoon, I was sitting in this seat, and the gallery on the east side was packed with people from the restaurant associations who had come to lobby against the bill.

At the time I had introduced the bill for the first time, it was Bill 156. It was called the Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating Act. I introduced it on March 10, 2009, and that bill at the time required food premises with total gross annual revenue greater than $5 million to disclose nutritional information for the food and drinks served, and to limit the amount of trans fats in restaurant food and drinks.

The bill was debated for second reading. Once it made it to second reading, this is when a rare thing happened, actually. After we had debated it, I could see that some people were very much in support of it and some people were very much against it. A free vote was held where—except for my party, where everybody voted in favour—from the Liberal and the Conservative sides, some people voted for and some people voted against. To my—

Interjection: Surprise?

M me France Gélinas: To my surprise, it passed. It passed by the huge margin of three votes, but this is a democracy, and it passed. It passed second reading. It was the first time it had been introduced in this House; it was debated; there were pros and cons and it passed by three votes.

The people in the gallery—if looks could kill, I would be dead at this point, never to tell this story, because they were frankly not happy. They had all come with their little uniforms on, saying name brands of big chain restaurants on their jackets or t-shirts. We knew who they were, and we knew why they were here: They were here to oppose the bill. So I did what every good politician would do: After the bill had passed second reading, I met with the industry. I sat down with all of them: the beverage association, the restaurant association.

I met with all of them who wanted to come and talk to me and tried to listen and tried to see what kind of compromise we could make. How could we move this forward?

They were pushing very hard for what they called at the time nutrition information packaging. It became the Informed Dining program in 2011, but back then—because we’re still in 2009, 2010—it was called the nutrition information program. That was a voluntary program where the restaurant industry—most of them had agreed that they would participate in this and that a bill forcing them to do things was not necessary because they were going to do this out of the industry working together. They were going to put that forward, and they showed it to me and how it was supposed to work and all of this, and it looked pretty convincing, like it would work. It had some good points to it.

But this is now 2015, Speaker. When was the last time that you saw right on the menu board the number of calories? It did not happen. Instead, what we got was—the restaurants did do their homework. They did calculate all of the nutritional information that is in their food. They standardized their portions. If you are a zealous person like myself, before you go to the restaurant you can go on their website, pre-order what you’re going to feel like eating that night once you get there and check out everything that’s going to be on that; or, I suppose, you could always flip it out in between your appetizer and main course and check it out on your cellphone—not really that convenient.

Some have them on a—if you have a tray, sometimes it’s at the bottom of the tray or you can flip your little placemat upside down and you’ll get that information. Sometimes it’s on the way to the bathroom. You will have those great big posters on the way to the bathroom giving you all of the nutritional information of the food that they offer. Sometimes it’s on a free brochure.

Because I’ve been working on that bill for so much time, I now have a habit that whenever I go into a place where I know they should post the nutritional information, I ask for this brochure.

I can tell you that it doesn’t matter if I’m in Sudbury, if I’m in Toronto or if I’m anywhere in between, when you ask for this brochure, the charming little person at the cash looks at you like you’re from Mars, then realizes that, “Oh, well, this lady is not going to go away, so I might as well start to look for the brochure.” The entire underneath of the restaurant gets flipped upside down, and sometimes out of a dusty box comes this little brochure that they dust off and give to me, and then you can calculate your information.

This is not working, Speaker. You’re getting what I’m getting at? This is not working, which is why I reintroduced the Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating Act on May 8, 2012. The first time I introduced it, it passed second reading. After second reading, we had a majority Liberal government. They knew exactly what they were going to do with this: They were going to can it. They never called it to committee. Committee had lots of time to deal with it. The committee went on holiday, and the bill never moved forward.

But I don’t give up easy, Speaker. I reintroduced it in May 8, 2012; same name but I had made some concessions. I had spoken with the industry and, by then, I had taken out the regulation that had to do with trans fats. I realized that it was something that was being worked on at the federal level. There were possibilities.

The second time, it basically looked like the first. It would require chain restaurants to display the number of calories in each item, make nutritional brochures available—remember, the dusting off—and indicate clearly which items have high and very high sodium.

By 2012, we’re not talking about trans fats that much anymore because the industry convinced me that that was just too hard a step to take, but sodium was something that we could work on. So it was put in. In May 2012, I introduced it. The industry reacted but not so negatively, but I can tell you that it received a lot of support. Let me go through some of the people that supported it in a minute, as soon as I find my notes. The problem with having the same bill come over and over and over is that you end up with a lot of notes. I’m in this position where I have a lot of notes.

Okay, so the people that supported it continue to grow, and the shift started towards posting the calories and the sodium. I’m sure my list of people will pop out of my—oh, here it is.

So, at this point, we have the Alberta Public Health Association that supported it, the Alberta Policy Coalition for Chronic Disease Prevention, the Alliance for the Prevention of Chronic Disease, the Association of Ontario Health Centres, the medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, the Canadian Association for Enterostomal Therapy, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, the Canadian Association of Perinatal and Women’s Health Nurses, the public health associations—Canadian and Ontario—the Canadian Stroke Network, the Canadian Women’s Health Network and the Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses.

It goes on: The Canadian Diabetes Association and the Canadian Gerontological Nursing Association. We have Eldon Smith, who is a professor emeritus and the former chair of the Canadian Heart Health Strategy. We have the Canadian Orthopaedic Nurses Association, the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, Cancer Care Ontario, CancerCare Manitoba, the Childhood Obesity Foundation, la Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the DisAbled Women’s Network and the Dietitians of Canada.

We also have the chair in hypertension prevention and control, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition and the Fitness Industry Council of Canada.

We have Hypertension Canada. We have a number of people from nutrition consulting. We have the Licensed Practical Nurses Association of BC, the Ontario Home Economics Association and the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada; although they will come back when we talk about flavoured tobacco, they also support nutritional labelling. We have the Prevent Cancer Now Board. We have the Public Health Physicians of Canada. We have the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. We have the Sport Matters Group, a group from Ottawa. We have the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, and the list goes on and on.

I’m sure by now I’m making Hansard a little bit nervous, but not to worry; they’re all written down, and I will share the list with them.

So the story goes: The first time, a little bit of support and a huge pushback. The second time, I had made some concessions with the industry, and they were still not thrilled—I won’t lie—but they were starting to come to the realization that this is a done deal and they could work with us or face a hard time. More and more people were coming into the tent. More and more people had had a chance to look at the bill and look at other jurisdictions that have passed similar laws and what had happened.

One of the first ones that did that was New York state in 2008. Since 2008, if you go to McDonald’s, Subway or Tim Hortons—because they have Tim Hortons even down there—you will see the same menu offerings that we have up here. The price sometimes is a little bit different, but the number of calories is exactly the same as what we can find, except that in the States they have it on the menu board. They have it directly on the menu. The exact same menu in Canada does not have that information.

Just so that you know, most of those big chains change those menus boards about every four months. Through the research we found a brand that only changed their menu board about every six months. But, basically, they have the information. They do this in other jurisdictions—the exact same menu, the exact same thing—all we’re asking is for them to bring that information to Ontario.

So we’re now in May 2008, I reintroduced the Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating Act—menu labelling, number of calories, but we’re also starting to talk about sodium, and I will explain that to you a little bit later. I reintroduced the bill also in 2012, but that time on October 2. What I had done is—in a few minutes, I will talk to you about the work I’ve done on flavoured tobacco—but, basically, on October 2, I decided, “Well, everybody in this House has talked about menu labelling, they’ve talked about flavoured tobacco enough,” and at the time, there were also regulations for tanning beds.

So what I did was I put them all into one bill. I called the bill Healthy Decisions Made Easy, and it included three parts that had to do with health promotion: the regulation of tanning beds, menu labelling and flavoured tobacco.

Unfortunately, two days before I was to bring this to second reading—I had a horde of people ready to support the bill from all parts of the province, people coming down from up north and all of this—Mr. McGuinty prorogued. I never got to debate it. I felt like this was directed at me. He had prorogued because he didn’t want my fabulous bill to go through. I’m told there were other reasons why he prorogued, maybe like a billion-dollar gas plant scandal, but to me, it was personal. It was because he didn’t want my bill to go through.

Interjection: The bill went up in smoke.

M me France Gélinas: My bill went up in smoke. That was it. It was gone. But I don’t give up easy, Speaker. I don’t give up easy.

Come April 29, 2013, I reintroduced the Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating Act. At this point, the bill required chain restaurants to display the number of calories on each item, make nutritional brochures available and indicate clearly which items have high and very high sodium At the time, it was the idea that if any items on the menu had more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium, they would get a double check mark, and if they had more than 750 milligrams of sodium, they would get a single check mark to indicate that it was high or very high in sodium. That was what I intended to do at the time.

It’s rather interesting because if you look at what Health Canada currently defines as “high sodium,” they put it at 360 milligrams of sodium. The problem with this is—and this is very, very sad—that if I was to take Health Canada’s definition of high sodium, it would become meaningless because every single item at, let’s say, McDonald’s, would be checkmarked. Here again—not to pick on McDonald’s, but you are it this morning—if we go to 1,500 milligrams of sodium, only four items on the McDonald’s menu would make it, and if we go to 750 milligrams of sodium, then we’re close to 35 out of 300 offerings at McDonald’s.

I’m telling you all of these boring numbers, because there is a lot of salt in the food that we consume in restaurants, so finding the right thing to do—by that time, in April 2013, I had gone with the high and very high sodium, putting those thresholds quite high—1,500 is very close to the daily limit, and you would have this in one item.

Think about it: If you go to any fast food—I won’t pick on McDonald’s—and if a large amount of their food offerings have over your daily dosage, if you happen to order three or four food items, such as a burger and fries and something else—an apple pie—you will be eating a ton of salt. So this is what I did on April 29, 2013, and we prorogued yet again, so I’m not done.

I reintroduced it on November 25, 2014, and that time, I really looked at putting the number of calories next to the menu item but also putting on the number of milligrams of sodium. If you go on the Internet, you will be able to pull menus from jurisdictions in the States. The big chains have started to do this. It is feasible to put that on the menu without having a cluttered menu, and people do use this information.

The way we have it in Canada right now, one person out of 1,000—those are geeks like me, Speaker—uses the information the way we have it: on the website, on the menu board, on the poster as they go to the bathroom etc. The other 999 customers don’t use that information, because it is not user-friendly.

If you put it right there on the menu board, one person out of two will use it to make an informed choice. On average, they will consume about 19% less calories and, as a bit of an added bonus for the restaurant industry, they tend to switch their choices. They still go just as much as they used to before. They just make different selections on the menu, and they tend to spend a little bit more. They spend a little bit more, make healthy choices and consume 19% less calories.

I think we’re starting to head toward a win-win, where the restaurant industry has come to the realization that this information is valuable, that this information will help Ontarians make healthier choices, that it is feasible to put that information on the menu and menu board, and that it should be there.

Of course, Speaker, you will know that Bill 45, the way it is written now, talks about calorie labelling, but it does not include sodium. It does not include the amount of salt. I say that we have been working at this for long enough. People have had enough time to talk about it. It has been talked about in the press many, many times, to the point that, in the last survey that was done—it was a Canada-wide survey, not just here in Ontario—92% of Canadians, and that includes Ontarians, want to see that information. They want to see the number of calories on the menu, and they want to see the amount of sodium.

A 92% consensus on anything is quite extraordinary. We all know that in this day and age, some people would be offered paradise and would vote against it. That we have 92% of people in Canada, including Ontario, who want this to happen, I think, basically behooves us to do the right thing: to make sure, when we have an opportunity to go through clause-by-clause with Bill 45, when we have an opportunity to make changes to this bill, that not only do we support what’s in there for calorie labelling, but that we make sure we include sodium.

Whether it is with a check mark for “high” or “very high”—I could live with this, but I think it would be way more preferable to simply put the amount of sodium.

Whether you use that information or not is up to you. But I can tell you, even if you never look at it and you just go and order the same thing you’ve always ordered because your kids like it and it’s easy, it would still help you.

What happens is that the people that do use that information—it basically motivates the industry to make recipe changes. If you go to a Subway restaurant and order the tuna melt, in Canada, the tuna melt clocks in at 1,825 calories. A sandwich usually is about 350 or 450 calories; you can do the math. This is a lot of calories for the tuna melt. They have changed their recipe in the States so that their preparation has less calories and less salt. Even if you never read it, even if you continue to eat the same thing you’ve always eaten, there’s a good chance that restaurants will change their preparation.

That will help all of us because they will offer the same items in a preparation that has less sodium as well as less calories in it.

Now I see that half of the time has gone by. An hour seems really long when you think about it, but when you’re actually living it, it goes by quite fast. I have lots of menu items that I wanted to share with you to do a little kind of quiz, “Do you think that this has more calories than this other?” We may do the quiz at the end because I don’t want to run out of time.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Is there a test at the end?

M me France Gélinas: And, yes, there will be a test at the end to see if you choose wisely.

For now, what I will do is, I will talk to you about the second part of the bill, which has to do with banning flavoured tobacco. Let me change all of the notes that I have in front of me so that I can do that.

Flavoured tobacco: The story starts in 2008. In 2008, my very first private member’s bill was to ban flavoured cigarillos. Those things were basically all over my riding. Every couple of weeks that would go by, the number of flavours of those cigarillos would continue to grow, and the number of young people smoking them would continue to grow.

The type of flavour that was being put forward, the packaging, the marketing, the colouring—all of this was squarely targeted at youth. The tobacco industry was smart enough to realize that cigarettes now come with quite a lot of baggage. They have those ugly pictures on the front, and they’re associated with sickness and all of this. But the single-sale flavoured cigarillos didn’t have any of this. They had no warning on them. They were a buck apiece. If a parent saw them in the backpack of their children, they would have no idea; they looked like lip gloss or a marker. They squarely looked like they fit into a kid’s backpack, like that was where they belonged. And that was wrong.

My very first private member’s bill was a co-sponsored bill. It was one of the first times that we were allowed to co-sponsor, and I co-sponsored it with the Speaker, Mr. Levac. To my delight, it passed. Not only did it pass second reading, but it passed third reading, it received royal assent, and it became law. Can you imagine, Speaker? I had only been elected to this Legislature for about a year; I got elected in 2007. That was my first private member’s bill, which I debated for second reading in December 2008, and by the time I went home for Christmas in 2008, I was the proud owner of a new bill. I was beaming. I had done—my term was done.

I had come from 25 years in health care, in health promotion, and here I was able to make changes, and flavoured cigarillos were not going to be available anymore. The day was grand, and it lasted about a day. Because you see, Speaker, the bill gave the industry quite a few months to, in theory, get rid of their inventory. We didn’t want to hurt the little mom-and-pop shop that had bought those things and, all of a sudden, were going to be out the money. So the royal assent gave a number of months for the industry before they had to cease making this product available.

Well, the industry was not going to sit idle during those months that we had given them to deal with their inventory. Before the ink was really dry on the last production of this bill, they had found a loophole. You see, Speaker, when we defined a flavoured cigarillo, we defined it by the number of grams. It’s really a cigarette. It looks identical to a cigarette. I kept some of them. If you’re interested, come and see me. They’re in my fridge downstairs. They looked identical to a cigarette, except that they were flavoured and they smelled extremely good. I handled those products for a long time.

It’s really hard to handle those things and not smoke one up, let me tell you, but that’s for another story.

When the industry saw that in the bill, all they did is put a milligram more tobacco in their products than what was in before. We had defined a cigarillo by the number of grams because we did not want to catch cigars, which were also flavoured, but they were not a way for kids to pick up cigarette smoking. I suppose some kids will go through this, but so far, at that time in 2008, cigars had never been targeted at youth. It was really the cigarillos, the little cigarettes sold individually with no warnings on them. They were targeting youth. They were targeting the next generation of smokers, and we wanted to get rid of them.

Well, by the time the bill came into effect, it was absolutely useless. They had added a milligram more tobacco into their products. They continued with the same packaging, the same price, the same marketing strategy and the same number of flavours, and I will tell you that the number of flavours increased dramatically.

They continue to hook, on average, 90,000 more young people who would start smoking using flavoured tobacco but then get addicted to the nicotine, and after a while they don’t want to suck on something that tastes like a peach, a strawberry, a martini or anything like that. They want the nicotine fix. They switch to cigarettes and they become the next generation of smokers, and we all know that 50% of them will die from it. Tobacco is the only product that, if used as directed, will kill 50% of its users. I’ll let you do the math, Speaker. From 2008 to 2015, times 90,000 more young smokers: That’s a lot of suffering in our future that could have all been avoided.

So, not to be undone, I said, “Let’s learn from our mistakes. Let’s make sure that the next time we ban flavoured tobacco there will be no loopholes; there will be no

definitions. It will be very plain, very blunt and very simple: Ban flavoured tobacco. Full stop.”

On April 4, 2011, I introduced the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, banning flavoured tobacco. The bill was to prohibit the sale and distribution of new tobacco products, smokeless tobacco and flavoured tobacco. So not only were we talking about flavoured tobacco, but in this it’s smokeless—think about chews and every other tobacco product—and the banning of new tobacco products, because we know that the tobacco industry’s ingenuity knows no boundaries. They are very creative and very ingenious to make sure that they continue to sell their products, because once they have a customer, the nicotine does the rest.

The addiction does the rest. They know that they have a customer for life, until 50% of them die or go through really painful withdrawal to be able to quit this habit.

That was April 4, 2011. This bill also died on the order paper.

Not to be undone, I reintroduced it on April 17, 2012, under Bill 66, the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, which prohibited flavoured tobacco, new tobacco products and smokeless tobacco. The bill was very well received. The number of people who were joining the chorus was bigger and bigger.

I always remember that Freeze the Industry / Gèle l’industrie had done pens at the time, and the pens read: “Freeze the Industry is advocating for a tobacco moratorium—a ban on all new tobacco products not yet introduced in Canada and on alterations to all current products.

We need a moratorium because the tobacco industry continues to develop new, innovative products that: evade and exploit new tobacco legislation designed to protect the health of young Canadians; recruit and retain youth and young adults, since 81% of current and former smokers begin smoking before the age of 18; appear to be less harmful than existing products when in reality they continue to contain the same dangerous ingredients.”

Freeze the Industry is a group of young people like there are very few of them around. They are dedicated. They are informed. They are eloquent. They are taking on the tobacco industry.

To me, if there is ever going to be a group that will succeed in taking on the tobacco industry, it will be the youth of our province. I can say thank you, certainly, to the cancer society for their young advocates as well as to Freeze the Industry.

This is so good, Speaker, that I will tell you in French.

Depuis la fin des années 2008, 2009, et 2010, Gèle l’industrie a été très actif pour essayer de faire changer les choses. Ils ont fait ce petit stylo, et je vais vous dire ce qu’il dit : « Gèle l’industrie milite pour la création d’un moratoire sur le tabac—une interdiction portant sur tous les nouveaux produits du tabac qui n’ont pas encore été introduits au Canada et sur les modifications apportées à tous les produits actuels.

« Un moratoire est nécessaire car l’industrie du tabac continue de créer de nouveaux produits innovateurs qui :

« Échappent aux nouvelles lois sur le tabac ou en exploitent les failles, alors que ces lois visent à protéger la santé des jeunes Canadiens;

« Permettent d’attirer et de conserver des clients parmi les adolescents et les jeunes adultes, car 81% des fumeurs commencent la cigarette avant l’âge de 18 ans;

« Semblent moins dommageables pour la santé que les produits existants, alors qu’en fait ils contiennent les mêmes ingrédients nocifs. »

Ils ont un site Web qui s’appelle gelelindustrie.com.

That’s what they did back then. They will come back again in my story because, just like me, those young people don’t give up easy.

In April 2012, I reintroduced the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act trying to ban flavoured tobacco, trying to make sure that no new tobacco products are introduced, as well as smokeless tobacco.

On October 2, 2012, I introduced Bill 126, Healthy Decisions Made Easy, which I talked about today. You will remember, Speaker, that it talked about menu labelling, about banning flavoured tobacco as well as about tanning beds—which will become law, so we don’t have to worry about that anymore. This bill was reintroduced a number of times, including in the fall of 2014.

In the fall of 2014, young people from the cancer society came here to Queen’s Park. It was really, really well done. A lot of them were dressed up as flavoured tobacco products. They were dressed up as a grape to show grape-flavoured tobacco or as a cherry because there is cherry tobacco etc. They had a tug-of-war right here on the front steps of Queen’s Park. Quite a few of the MPPs came, and then we held a press conference.

Again, it was giving a voice to young people who work with the cancer society and who see the damage that flavoured tobacco is doing to their peers and who see the number of young people who experiment with those tobacco products that are still available and still sold in single cigarillos, still at $1. Although years have passed by, the price has not changed. Because they experimented, they became hooked on to cigarettes and are now tobacco smokers.

Today, for the launch of my lead, we had Freeze the Industry. Remember the people who gave the nifty pen with a message to all of us? Well, they did it again. Not only did they come and hold a rally in front of Queen’s Park; every MPP will have on their desk this little envelope that says, “Thanks, Ontario.” I won’t use it as a prop—sorry, Speaker.

I know that most of you have already opened up your envelope, so I will share with you what it says. Basically, it says, “Thanks, Ontario.” It’s a pretty good message, if you ask me. It goes on to say, “There are 2.75 million reasons you are making the right decision by passing Bill 45.” It goes on to say, “FTI”—Freeze the Industry—“is a youth led campaign that raises awareness about how the tobacco industry makes their products appealing to young people. The tobacco industry creates products that are addictive.

They target youth by adding flavours and they develop new innovative products which still cause illness and death. FTI wants a moratorium on tobacco products. The first step is a full ban on all flavoured tobacco products including menthol.” I will come back to this in a minute. “To date Freeze the Industry has collected over 10,000 signatures in support of a complete flavour ban. You have the voice of youth in Ontario behind you!” And they’re talking to us.

They go on with a few statistics:

—46% of young tobacco product users use flavoured products. Speaker, that’s really close to one in two;

—73% of youth who use chew tobacco use flavoured products. Those are what in the bill is called smokeless tobacco; on the street, we call them chew;

—28% of young tobacco product users use menthol products. An estimated 57,300 Ontario youth used flavoured tobacco products in 2013 alone. You know what that means, Speaker? We know what that means. There are 2.75 million young people living in Ontario who will be protected by ensuring a full ban on flavoured tobacco is passed with Bill 45.

As an added little bonus, they gave us some mints. The irony is not lost on me. They gave us some mints—I’m not allowed to use that, eh? Sorry. They gave us some mints because of the link to menthol. You see, although the bill does include a ban on flavour, they give the tobacco industry years to ban menthol. I rode this bicycle before. I did give a couple of months to the tobacco industry to ban flavoured tobacco, and you all remember what happened. Remember their ingenuity? Remember their creativity? Remember what happened? Well, what happened is that they beat us to the punch.

What happened is that the bill became null and void. Although it is on the books in Ontario, you can find flavoured tobacco everywhere. You can find flavoured cigarillos anywhere you go.

The youth that came this morning to demonstrate in front of Queen’s Park, the youth that organized themselves so that we have this nice thank you on all of our desks, don’t want this big lead time given to the tobacco industry. We will lose. They have way more resources than we have. They have, I would say, desperation on their side, because remember that almost one in four youth—more than one in four; some 28% of young tobacco products users—this is 28% of youth who smoke—smoke menthol.

So to say that, “Oh, no, menthol is old people,” people like me and my generation smoke menthol—sure, there are people my age who smoke menthol. But it is also a flavour that is being used more and more by our young people.

The people who came to Queen’s Park today fully understand that giving the industry years to comply with the law basically means don’t bother passing the law, because it’s never going to see the light of day. It’s going to go down the exact same path that we went down in 2008, when Ontario banned flavoured cigarillos. It will be a bill that does not reach its target.

I could go on and on, but I see that the time is flying by. Before I go on to e-cigarettes: Monsieur le Président, la

partie du projet de loi 45 qui parle d’abolir le tabac aromatisé, c’est très bien. Ça fait des années que j’essaie de faire passer un projet de loi, et je suis bien heureuse que le gouvernement l’ait inclus dans son projet de loi 45 parce que ça va nous permettre d’arriver à la ligne d’arrivée, ou la ligne de fin, beaucoup plus vite.

Le gouvernement est le seul qui décide le projet de loi dont on parle, et si on n’en parle pas, le projet de loi meurt au feuilleton. Donc, avec un projet de loi du gouvernement, le projet de loi va être capable d’avancer plus vite, et ça, c’est quelque chose de bien. Dans le projet de loi 45, il y a une

partie qui dit qu’il n’y aura plus de tabac aromatisé en Ontario, et ça, c’est parfait. C’est quelque chose que les néo-démocrates et moi-même, on essaie de faire avancer ici depuis huit ans.

Par contre, lorsqu’on parle d’une saveur en particulier, lorsqu’on parle des cigarettes au menthol, là, ils veulent donner à l’industrie plusieurs années avant d’être contrainte par la loi d’arrêter de produire des cigarettes au menthol. Pour nous, ça, de donner à l’industrie autant de temps, c’est un piège dans lequel on est tombé en 2008, ce qui a fait que, vraiment, le projet de loi qui est passé—la loi qui existe en Ontario qui bannit les cigarillos aromatisés—est complètement inefficace parce qu’ils ont étudié la loi en profondeur.

Ils ont trouvé une échappatoire dans la loi lorsqu’on avait défini ce que c’était qu’un cigarillo. Ils ont augmenté le nombre de milligrammes de tabac dans le cigarillo pour dire, « Bien, la loi définit le cigarillo à 9 grammes. Nous, on est à 9.01 grammes, donc on peut continuer à vendre nos cigarillos avec les mêmes stratégies, les mêmes saveurs et les mêmes emballages. » Tout est pareil.

Si on donne à l’industrie jusqu’à deux ans—quand j’ai pris le breffage avec le ministère de la Santé, c’est ce qu’on m’a dit. Il pourrait y avoir un délai de deux ans avant que cette partie-là de la loi ne soit mise en vigueur. Monsieur le Président, l’industrie va trouver une façon de continuer à vendre des cigarettes au menthol, et comme on a vu avec Gèle l’industrie, ça va vouloir dire que le projet de loi va devenir inefficace.

I will use the few minutes left to talk about e-cigarettes. This is the third

schedule of the bill that talks about e-cigarettes. Basically, what the bill will do is regulate the sale, display, promotion and use of e-cigarettes in Ontario.

Section 2 bans the sale or supply of electronic cigarettes, or any component, to anyone under the age of 19. It will be very similar to tobacco. If a young person wants to buy e-cigarettes or their cartridges or any of the components, if they are over 19 but look like they’re under 25, they will have to produce ID. The products will still be available, but they won’t be available to young people under the age of 19, and there will be laws for using false ID and that kind of stuff.

The bill will also prohibit e-cigarettes from being viewed or handled by customers before purchase and prohibit the promotion of e-cigarettes inside or outside any place where they are sold. The people who own the places where they’re sold will be allowed to have basic information about e-cigarettes and their price, but people won’t be able to handle them or taste them or do anything of the sort. There will be prohibition on the promotion or sale of e-cigarettes in any place of entertainment, and they will ban the use of e-cigarettes in hospitals, long-term-care homes, pharmacies and other places where you cannot buy e-cigarettes.

For some of you who have never seen e-cigarettes, they basically look very much like a cigarette. They tend to be a tiny wee bit bigger. If you have gone out to any bars or restaurants where young people gather, I guarantee that you have smelled them. I am old, Speaker, so I remember fully well when we used to go into a restaurant and everybody around me used to smoke. Then there were restaurants where half of the restaurant smoked and the other half didn’t, which was, I guess, a step in the right direction, but it smelled like cigarettes in the whole restaurant; it didn’t matter, basically, where the cigarettes were used.

It feels like déjà vu all over again, a kind of flashback that I don’t like at all, because now when I walk into a restaurant in my riding or in Sudbury, it becomes quite obvious that a lot of young people are doing what I did when I was young: going into a restaurant and seeing people smoking. It sort of renormalizes smoking, which I thought we had gotten rid of, and were quite happy to have gotten rid of. And here it was coming back and rearing its ugly head.

Some of them don’t smell like cigarettes at all. Some of them smell like menthol; they don’t smell like cigarettes. But some of them smell exactly the same as if they were smoking cigarettes. There are no regulations about them. Although selling cartridges that have nicotine is supposed to be illegal, there are plenty of cartridges containing nicotine that you can find anywhere. You don’t have to go to Nickel Belt and Sudbury; you can just cross the street right here and you will be able to buy them. We all know what nicotine does: It is very addictive.

Whether you use it in a vaporizer or in e-cigarettes or in a cigarillo, you smoke it and it does the same thing to your brain: It tells your brain, “I want this over and over and over again,” and then the addiction starts.

I would say the body of evidence regarding e-cigarettes as a smoking aid is still in its infancy. So if we find that e-cigarettes used in a certain way can be used as a smoking cessation aid and is successful in doing this, there is room in the regulations to allow for that. But right now, the bill is using the precautionary principle, where you look at making sure that we don’t let young people get access to it, and let’s make sure that when adults start to use this product, they are better informed and the product is better regulated, so that if they say it does not contain nicotine, it doesn’t.

Right now, you could have the exact same product—and that was one of the studies that kind of surprised me, because there are new studies coming out on this almost every day; I would say every week I read at least three or four new studies on e-cigarettes and vapour lounges and all of this. The claim that it helps people quit smoking is weak. But you can go buy the exact same cartridge of the same flavour and they do not contain the exact same ingredients, depending on the batch, depending on the day that you buy it. So are some of the ingredients in those cartridges damaging to our health?

In some cartridges, yes; in some cartridges, a little bit less. But they have the same label, you bought them in the same place, and they said they were identical. But they are not, because those products are completely unregulated. You can buy them in pretty well any corner store down here in Toronto, and you can also order them through the Internet, through—I don’t know—at least 50 different sites that will mail to Canada, if you want to buy some of those.

I’m not doing promotion of it—far be it from me. All I’m saying is that it is a product that is becoming more and more common. Here, again, the marketing looks very much like what we used to see with the tobacco industry, where they focused on youth with all of the flavours.

It’s time that these products be at least regulated. As we find out more, through regulations we could make exceptions for people who use them for medical reasons or people who use them to help quit smoking. But the body of evidence is not there.

Donc, je vais essayer de résumer en une minute ce que j’ai dit pendant une heure. Du côté des néo-démocrates, ça fait longtemps que l’on veut que ces différents projets de loi-là qui ont été réunis dans le projet de loi 45 deviennent réalité. La première

partie du projet de loi parle de mettre les calories sur le menu ainsi qu’une indication pour le sodium. La deuxième partie, c’est de ne plus avoir de tabac aromatisé. La troisième

partie est vis-à-vis des cigarettes électroniques.

There are three parts in Bill 45. The first part, menu labelling: New Democrats have been waiting for this for a long time; we’re ready to go. But in 2015, calories is not enough. We have to put in sodium.

The second part of the bill, that has to do with banning flavour: the sooner, the better. Don’t wait two years before you ban menthol. It has to be done at the same time as every other flavour.

The third part of the bill, about the e-cigarettes and the precautionary principle: Let’s make sure that we do this right, if new science comes out.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Comments and questions? The Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair there.

I’m pleased to rise today once again to speak to Bill 45 and respond to the comments by the member from Nickel Belt. I thank her for her advocacy.

There’s no letter “I” in the word “team.” Sometimes, many of us in this Legislature get carried away, thinking that these bills are ours. But really, what this is about is a team effort. This bill—or any bill, for that matter, in this Legislature—is about Ontarians and about what they need and their advocacy. So I’m really pleased to say that this bill, Bill 45, truly has been a team effort and would not have been possible without the advocacy of so many Ontarians, and some of them are here today.

I want to begin with the youth who are up there, who I had the pleasure of meeting this morning. Thank you so much. Thank you for the passion you bring. Thank you for the personal stories you shared as to why you are so committed to Bill 45 and to reducing smoking. It is your advocacy and it is your passion that give meaning to everything that we do here in this Legislature, so thank you.

Also, I know that here in the east gallery are some other members, including representatives of the Ontario Lung Association, Hamilton public health, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, KFL&A Public Health, the Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit, Toronto Public Health, Niagara Region public health and the Canadian Cancer Society. Thank you so much.

At its simplest, this bill is quite simple. It’s about three things. It’s about ensuring that the next generation of Ontarians don’t start smoking. It’s about ensuring that the next generation of Ontarians never start to vape. It’s about giving the next generation of Ontarians the choices that many of us didn’t have, growing up, which is to know how many calories there are when you order a doughnut or that cup of coffee. That’s what this really is. It’s about making sure we have a healthy Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand in this House to say that Bill 45 has the support of the PC caucus.

I also want to share a quote that we received from Mark Holland, executive director, Ontario Mission, Heart and Stroke Foundation: “The Heart and Stroke Foundation commends the government of Ontario’s commitment to reducing obesity and smoking rates in the province. This legislation will protect our children and youth from the deadly effects of tobacco use and will help empower all Ontarians in making the healthy choice the easy choice when it comes to what we eat and feed our families.”

I stand behind that as well, Speaker. But I want to share with you and the House and everyone here in the galleries that labelling menus and calorie counts are just one part of the solution in terms of obesity. We need a wholesome strategy to increase daily physical activity for school-aged children and to help our young people make wise decisions when it comes to eating. It’s one thing to put a calorie count on a menu; it’s another thing to enable our next generation to choose wisely when they’re grocery shopping, and how to prepare food.

I think, coming from the background I have, that we need to do better in terms of increasing awareness and educating people in terms of how to eat within season.

Those of you in the House know where I stand in terms of lung health. I just want to get a plug in here about healthy eating and physical activity. I have a pretty tight family. This past winter, a really bright light in our family fought and beat Kawasaki syndrome. The residual effect is he has an enlarged artery. For the rest of his life, he has to be dedicated—as his family already is—to physical activity and healthy eating. But he needs to learn how to prepare and eat healthy, as do we all in Ontario. I’m afraid we’ve gotten away from our gardens and how to prepare food properly, and I’d like to see it go farther in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It truly is a pleasure today to rise on behalf of the constituents of London–Fanshawe to be part of this debate on Bill 45, and to be part of the one-hour lead that our member from Nickel Belt has done. She is truly the exemplary example of a critic for the health portfolio. She is an advocate for health, and it’s proven in the work and the history lesson that she gave us. Time and time again, she came to this Legislature on behalf of these groups and these people who have come here to advocate, to make sure that their concerns and issues—and, rightfully so—are brought to the attention of this government.

I want to thank everyone here who came out today to support this bill and who have brought their issues to France over the years. France has then articulated that to the government, and people worked together to pass this bill for the good of the health of all Ontarians. I want to say thank you, France, and I want to say thank you to the Lung Association and the Canadian Cancer Society.

A lot of things that the member from Nickel Belt had talked about really hit home for everyone. I specifically want to talk about flavoured cigarettes. When I was here in the Legislature maybe last year or the year before—I can’t remember; it just seems like time has gone so quickly—they had a representative come from the Canadian Cancer Society to show us what flavoured cigarettes look like. They displayed them downstairs in the legislative dining room. I even took a picture of them. Really, Speaker, they look like candy.

Mr. Todd Smith: Candy?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, absolutely. Bar none, they look like candy.

I have received postcards from many constituents asking for this bill to pass so that we can have a safer environment for our youth, our next generation, to grow into and not promote that kind of habit that we don’t want to have happen to our children. When you talk about statistics, when 50% of people die from smoking, that’s unacceptable. I’m glad we’re doing something about it today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Good morning. I’m happy to rise and be given an opportunity to make a few comments on Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act, 2014.

I want to tell you, I sat here and listened to my colleague from Nickel Belt. She covered all aspects of the bill to do with cigarillos, e-cigarettes and menu choices. But, Mr. Speaker, I also had the opportunity to sit in your chair and actually listen to the member speak on her private member’s bill, which was supported by all parties on all sides. There was truly support by everyone in this chamber to make sure that the government is listening and will commit to bringing forward legislation in the future for all the issues she raised on cigarettes and menu choices etc.

In fact, the Minister of Health actually commented on many of her bills, that it would be appropriate for the government to deal with legislation.

The member started out by talking a lot about why the government has not moved very quickly. I’d just like to remind the member—and I’ve been here as long as her; maybe a little bit longer—that when a private member brings a bill, most of the time it’s done with very little research and stakeholder consultation. So the government and the Ministry of Health had to do all that work. The bill was ready to come forward, but then we had an election. So it’s now coming forward a second time.

We all support this legislation. It’s very good legislation, and I want to thank all the stakeholders who are here, who are supporting this. This is one of the reasons why governments move slowly sometimes: We have to consult all the people who are out there.

The one comment that she made about menthol cigarettes, or flavoured—I think the government is doing the right thing. You have to allow the industry and the distributors and everybody that is out there to make an adjustment. You cannot ban the stuff overnight. We have to be fair to everybody. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Nickel Belt for her final comment.

M me France Gélinas: I’ve been here since 2007. I come from 25 years in health care, the last 11 of them focused on health promotion as I worked in a community health centre. So when I came to Queen’s Park, health promotion was something very important to me. You will see through my work that I brought quite a few bills that focused on health promotion, because it continues to be something that I truly believe in. The process has been long, a little bit drawn out, but it is happening now through a government bill, through Bill 45, that big pieces of what I have been pushing since I’ve been at Queen’s Park will happen.

Of course, I did not do that alone. If you look at the menu labelling, I reached out to people who deal with the aftermath of people who don’t eat healthily, whether you look at obesity or high blood pressure or cancer or all of the diseases that are directly related to eating. So I reached out to the people I knew—to doctors, to nurses, to universities, to people who deal with nutrition, the nutritionists’ association—and built a bigger and bigger tent.

When it comes to banning flavoured tobacco, certainly the cancer society was there, the Lung Association was there. But I would say the people who made the difference were the youth themselves, because they saw the effect it was having on their peers. They saw how prevalent the use of flavoured tobacco was among their peers, and they were the ones who won the show. They are the ones who made the government do the right thing and include this in Bill 45, because of all the work that they have done. For everybody who has supported the effort as we brought more and more people into the tent, I want to say thank you. It was a long journey, but it’s worth it. Merci.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the member from Nickel Belt and all members who participated in this debate this morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since it is now almost 10:15, this Legislature stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to be here at the assembly today. Today, my little girl, Victoria, and my husband, Joe Varner, are up from Ottawa. I wanted to welcome them. My daughter didn’t want to come into the chamber—she’d rather watch cartoons up in the office—but I wanted to introduce her nonetheless

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very pleased to introduce the family of Ali Rizvi. Ali is our page captain today from Pickering–Scarborough East. His mother, Amera, his brother Hassan and his sister Jehan are sitting right here in the public gallery. Welcome. I hope you enjoy your day at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, it’s a pleasure for me to introduce three guests from Ontario’s Great White North to the chamber. We have Harold Wilson from Thunder Bay, and Tannis Drysdale and Geoff Gillan from wonderful Fort Frances joining us today.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It being convention week over at PDAC, I was proud to walk the halls along with my good friend the MP from Nickel Belt, Mr. Claude Gravelle, who is the loyal member from the NDP federally. Welcome.

Ms. Soo Wong: Today’s page captain is Andrew Liu, His mother, Esther Zhou, as well as her friend Sophie Lu are here visiting us from Scarborough–Agincourt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to welcome Claire Kubelka from the great riding of Oxford. Claire is nine years old, and she has already helped in a municipal election. I think she has a future in politics.

Claire is accompanied by her aunt Margaret Smith, who is also the mother of former MPP Bruce Smith.

I want to welcome both of them to Queen’s Park, and I hope they enjoy the day.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, on behalf of the member for Mississauga South and page Natalie McLean, I’m pleased to introduce Natalie’s brother Thomas, who will be in the public gallery this morning. Please give him a welcome.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Speaker, as you well know, youth rallied in support of Bill 45 this morning. I’m pleased to welcome them yet again in the public gallery up there.

I’m also pleased to welcome to question period representatives from the Ontario Lung Association, Hamilton public health, Heart and Stroke Foundation, KFL&A Public Health, Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit, Toronto Public Health, Niagara Region public health and the Canadian Cancer Society.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to introduce four McMaster students who are studying political science: Sal Salamone, Karishma Sooknarine, Gabriel Adamo and Yasmeen Abdelkhalek.

Also, Dave Rosborough is my assistant in Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today in the Speaker’s gallery, we have a delegation from Newfoundland and Labrador led by Premier Davis and Minister Dalley. Welcome, and thank you for being here.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is for the Premier: Premier, the Greater Sudbury Police Service commit their members to four key values. Those four values are respect, integrity, commitment and honesty. Do you believe the members of the police services board, especially the chair, are above the same values of their police servicemen and women? Do you believe the board members like your friend Gerry Lougheed are above the law?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s very hard on one hand to say that we have a deep respect for the police services board and then on the other hand question the capacity of the police services board to make decisions, Mr. Speaker. I think the member opposite knows full well that the police services boards act independently. They have responsibility for police services in their municipalities and I have a lot of confidence in their ability in Sudbury to do their job.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: Premier, it’s obvious that members of the Liberal Party do not hold themselves to the same standards. The Sudbury police commit to integrity by pledging, “We perform our duties with high ethical and moral standards.” The service says, “Our actions demonstrate our respect for the community.”

Gerry Lougheed has been recorded offering an apparent bribe on behalf of your party. Premier, how is he demonstrating integrity or respect for Sudbury?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, the police services boards in this province have a very serious responsibility for the provision of adequate and effective services in their municipalities, and I have a lot of faith in their ability to do that, including in this instance. The member opposite knows that there is an investigation going on. He also knows that that investigation is going on outside of this Legislature and we’re going to let that unfold with the authorities and we will continue to co-operate with them.

Mr. John Yakabuski: If he doesn’t have the integrity to step down, you should step down.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order, and I will keep track.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier, again: Premier, let me tell you what the police service says about honesty. They say they are “truthful, open and fair.” About commitment, they say, “We are dedicated to serving the needs of our community.” The nomination certainly was not truthful, open or fair. It is clear Gerry Lougheed does not live up to the values of the board.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Premier, do you believe Gerry Lougheed’s actions were honest and in line with the values of the board?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I again remind the member opposite that there’s a process in place when it comes to dealing with matters like this. There’s a code of conduct in place that is enacted through the regulation and it’s really up to the local police services board to determine whether they suspect a breach of the code of conduct. If so, they can refer the matter to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

In fact, Speaker, I’m sure the member opposite knows that’s exactly the process that is being followed now. The Sudbury police service has been in touch with the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and I’m sure OCPC is looking into the matter. That is the proper course, that is the process that’s laid out, it’s at arm’s length from the government. We should respect that process.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Premier. Whether we’re asking these questions outside or inside the Legislature, you have a responsibility to answer them.

These tapes don’t lie. You obviously had not yet made the decision to appoint Mr. Thibeault on December 11 when you spoke to Mr. Olivier. Mr. Olivier said that he told you “he wanted 24 hours to think about it.” If you had told him you were appointing Mr. Thibeault, there would be nothing to think about. There would be no nomination. Yet, Pat Sorbara called 24 hours later, on December 12, to tell Olivier that if he was to continue, he would put the Premier in a tough position to make a decision about an appointment or to continue on with the nomination.

So again, the question: When exactly did you tell Mr. Olivier you were appointing another candidate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me say again—and the member opposite may not want to accept that there’s an investigation going on outside of the House, but there is. I have said clearly, in direct answer to this question, that I had decided after my meeting with Glenn Thibeault at the end of November, that Glenn Thibeault was the best person for our role as a candidate in Sudbury. I had made that decision. I made that statement two Fridays ago. I’ve been very upfront about that, Mr. Speaker. But there is an investigation going on and it’s going on outside of this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: And we continue to demand answers inside this House.

In the interest of government transparency, let’s try this again. Mr. Olivier has told the police that on December 11, you asked him to step aside. You tell us in this chamber that on December 11, you told Andrew Olivier you were appointing a candidate. What you say in this chamber is not subject to perjury laws, but what Mr. Olivier says to the police absolutely is. So which version of this conversation is correct?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have worked very hard to make it clear that I take this matter very seriously. I made a statement two Fridays ago. I talked about the decision that I made about who the candidate was going to be in Sudbury. I was very clear about that, and I have said—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member from Lanark to withdraw.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Withdraw.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I believe I heard it.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said that we will work with the authorities, but that work is not going to go on inside this Legislature. The investigation is happening outside the Legislature, and we need to let it unfold there.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Premier, what is clear is what Gerry Lougheed said. It’s on tape. What is clear is what Mr. Olivier said. It’s on tape.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader—second time.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: What is clear is what Pat Sorbara said. It’s on tape. What is not clear is what you did, what you offered, what you guaranteed. What you say in this chamber is not subject to perjury laws.

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The only thing that is not clear is what you said, what you offered, what you directed your staff to do. Is the real reason there are two different versions of this conversation because, in here, you’re protected from perjury, and out there, Mr. Olivier isn’t?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I remind the member opposite—in fact, all the members—there is an ongoing investigation. This is not the place or the venue to be engaging in an investigation. That is up to the independent authorities to look into the matter and make a determination. I think the only proper thing to do is let the authorities undertake an investigation and make the final determination.

In fact, I will say I agree with the member from Leeds–Grenville where he said to a briefing that there is an investigation going on, that government should not be interfering. He said, “Let it run its course.”

I agree, Speaker. The member from Leeds–Grenville is right: Let the investigation run its course.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. When did the Premier decide to appoint her Sudbury candidate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I have answered that question many times, and I actually have answered it this morning. I said quite clearly in my public statement that after I had met Glenn Thibeault at the end of November, I had decided that he was the best candidate for Sudbury for the Liberals. I think that that has been borne out. The people of Sudbury chose Glenn Thibeault as their representative at Queen’s Park, and we’re very pleased to have him.

As the leader of the third party knows, there is an investigation going on, but it’s going on outside of this House. We will work with the authorities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I assume a letter was sent by the Premier, because the Liberal Party constitution says, “The leader shall communicate his or her intention to make such appointment as soon as possible, and in writing, to the nomination commissioner and to the president of the constituency association.”

On what date did the Premier write her letter to the nomination commissioner and the president of the constituency association?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, again, I say to the member opposite that I have made a clear statement in the public realm; I have said exactly what our position is. I have said that we will continue to work with the authorities.

The fact is that the authorities will be asking questions of me; I will work with them. But that investigation and that process is going to happen outside of this Legislature, as it should.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s obvious the Premier has her version of the Liberal bribery scandal. The problem is that her story doesn’t match anyone else’s, and the Premier is refusing to answer the question, to provide any information that would back up her story at all.

When will the Premier provide some evidence that backs up her version of the story and makes it clear that Pat Sorbara’s version is wrong, Gerry Lougheed’s version is wrong, Glenn Thibeault’s version is wrong, Andrew Olivier’s version is wrong, the Sudbury Liberal riding association’s version is wrong, the OPP’s version is wrong and Elections Ontario’s version is wrong?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said, the investigation is happening outside of this House. But I know that the leader of the third party would like to rewrite a version of what happened in Sudbury, because the leader of the third party would very much like to have won that election, and she didn’t. She’d like to rewrite history; it’s not going to happen.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Deputy Premier says that she’s bored with question period, and now the Premier doesn’t want to answer any questions about the Sudbury bribery scandal.

This place belongs to Ontarians, and they deserve answers. It shouldn’t take a police investigation to get answers to some very important questions. But the Premier seems to think that she’s above the law and above our democracy. Does the Premier think that that sort of Liberal arrogance is acceptable?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the leader of the third party is suggesting that I don’t have the stamina to answer her questions, she’s absolutely wrong. I may not be running marathons these days, but I can answer your questions. I will answer them every single time they are posed to me, as many times as you choose to ask me.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Premier said—

Interjections.

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

This is my moment to remind all of us that we are racing to the top.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, I could do without the interjection. And that goes for members on both sides, because I’m hearing the same amount of noise while she’s putting the question.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Premier said there is an investigation outside this House or outside this Legislature a full 27 times, and she has said it yet again today a couple of times.

Ontarians shouldn’t need the police to get simple answers to basic questions from the Premier, especially when the Premier keeps insisting that there was no wrongdoing.

Will the Premier show some respect to Ontarians and start answering important questions like: Who decided to offer Andrew Olivier a job?

The answer to the question that the leader of the third party has posed is that there is an investigation happening outside of this House. I will continue to work with the authorities, as I expect everyone would.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Sudbury bribery scandal, and the way that this Premier is handling it, raises some really basic questions about this government—about her government. It raises questions about whether people can believe her government. It raises questions about how a government can end up with four concurrent police investigations into its actions. It raises basic questions about trust, about whose interests the Liberals are putting first in the work that they do.

Now, can the Premier answer a simple question and tell Ontarians who gave Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed their orders to offer a job to Andrew Olivier so that he would not run for the nomination in the Sudbury by-election?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just because members shift where they’re sitting during the day—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —I have the floor—doesn’t mean that it gives you the right to heckle any more or any less. You’re not supposed to.

Premier, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said and I will say again that I take this matter very seriously. But when the premise of the question is something that I absolutely disagree with, it’s important for me to be clear with the people of Ontario where we’re at.

There’s an investigation going on. At Elections Ontario, the Chief Electoral Officer has said clearly, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

So it’s up to the prosecutors and the judges. It’s up to that process to unfold as it should, as the Chief Electoral Officer has said. That’s why I continue to say that the investigation is happening outside of this House. It is not up to the leader of the third party to pass judgment. It is up to the authorities to undertake that investigation outside of this Legislature.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Premier, yesterday I asked you some very simple and straightforward questions, yet after you left the House and you were admonished by a member of the media—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, come to order.

Mr. Steve Clark: —a member of your staff actually answered with the truth.

Premier, I’m going to ask you again, yes or no: Have you or your lawyers been asked by the OPP for a meeting to discuss the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said publicly that I was going to be meeting with the OPP. I’ve been asked for that meeting, but I don’t know that it’s been set up. I don’t know the date. I’ve said that clearly and, as I said, I will continue to co-operate with the authorities in every way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: Again, this is what we face with this government. We had a debate yesterday on concurrence in supply. There are so many questions this government refuses to answer. When it comes to the gas plants committee, they shut it down even knowing that emails had been deleted and hard drives had been wiped clean.

We in the opposition, on both sides, have asked repeatedly, over and over and over again, who knew what and who directed who to make these offers. Premier, are you—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Mr. Steve Clark: —going to come clean with the OPP? Are you finally going to answer those questions that members of the opposition have asked? Who authorized these offers to be made to Andrew Olivier from your party?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say again that I made a decision that Glenn Thibeault was the right person to be our candidate in Sudbury. I made that decision at the end of November. I’ve made a public statement about that, and I will continue to work with the authorities on the investigation that’s happening outside of this House.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. The Premier is aware that she has the authority to appoint or revoke any appointment to a board or commission with the stroke of a pen. Given that the appointments are done at the Premier’s discretion, when will you file the paperwork to remove Gerry Lougheed from the police services board of Sudbury?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I will repeat what I’ve said on numerous occasions in this House, and the member opposite, I am sure, knows about this process as well. The police services boards are responsible for local policing. They have both municipal and provincial appointees. The members of the boards are the ones who elect a chair, and they are all within the scope of a code of conduct. It’s up to them to determine—if they suspect a breach of the code of conduct, then we have an independent body, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, to make a determination whether a breach of the code of conduct has taken place. It is not up to the government to make that determination.

My understanding is—and I’m sure the member opposite knows—that the Sudbury police services board has reached out to the OCPC.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again to the Premier: The Premier would know that she has the authority under the Legislation Act, 2006,

section 76, which says they serve at your pleasure. Clearly, Gerry Lougheed’s integrity is in question. Premier, by not using your power to remove Mr. Lougheed from the police services board, are you saying integrity does not matter to public appointees?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, the work of the police services board is extremely important. The police services boards are created pursuant to the Police Services Act. They’ve been given some very specific responsibilities under the Police Services Act to ensure that there is adequate and effective policing within their jurisdiction. Their work is so important that we have a separate code of conduct that is enacted through regulation to ensure that proper conduct is met.

On top of that, to ensure that the code of conduct is always abided by, we have a separate, independent body, called the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, to oversee police services boards.

You can see, Speaker, that we have taken several steps to make sure that the process is always at arm’s length from the government and that the local communities are in charge when it comes to local policing. As we know in this particular case, the police services board has referred the matter—

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

Home warranty program

Every year in Etobicoke–Lakeshore, hundreds of new homes and condos are built, and people move into them. They often ask me for some advice about how Tarion functions. Purchasing a new home is very significant, and it’s one of those things that most Ontarians might only do once or twice in their lifetime. It’s important to ensure that these homes are properly built. I know that problems with a new home can be a major source of stress for some homeowners. Your ministry has information available which can help them handle these problems without further anxiety.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Minister, can you share with us your recommendations for Ontarians who have a concern with a new home they’ve purchased?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank the hard-working member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for this important question.

It’s certainly part of our ministry’s mandate to ensure that consumers are well informed and protected under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. We’re periodically asked by Ontarians questions about Tarion, and I’m always interested to hear the feedback.

The first step for a new home purchaser is to become well informed. Like any warranty program, consumers should be aware of the terms of the agreement and make sure to report any concerns within the time frame of the warranty coverage period.

Consumers are protected for one year for any unauthorized changes. They’re protected for up to two years on electrical, plumbing, heating or water issues, and up to seven years on major structural defects like the failure of a load-bearing wall.

I encourage consumers to first seek a solution with their builders, but they should not hesitate to follow up with Tarion if the issues are not properly addressed. My expectation is that Tarion will continue to help Ontarians, and I look forward to continuing to work with them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to thank the minister for all of his hard work for consumers and especially for new homeowners. Many people in Etobicoke–Lakeshore are really interested to hear about the progress Tarion is making to support Ontarians when they purchase new homes.

I know the minister has worked closely with Tarion to strengthen accountability and ensure consumer interests are protected. I’m very proud of our government for its ongoing focus on transparency and accountability. I know the Minister of Government and Consumer Services has approached his responsibilities with that in mind.

While Tarion is an independent, not-for-profit organization, I understand the minister is working with its leadership to improve its consumer protection. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain what steps are being taken that improve consumer protection by Tarion?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I’m certainly happy to outline ways in which we’ve worked with Tarion to improve consumer protection.

I’d like to start by referencing the Tarion builder registry, which was relaunched in December 2013 and tracks important information on builders across Ontario: where they have built homes; if their licences have been revoked or suspended; and how many claims have been filed against them. Within the next year, Tarion will be adding additional information to the registry.

Tarion has also doubled the warranty coverage from $150,000 to $300,000. They’ve made changes to the board, removing the majority of industry members so that there is truly a balance on the board. Speaker, these improvements are working. Data indicates that last year in over 365,000 homes under warranty, only 0.27% have had a site visit from Tarion.

We’re continuing to work to strengthen the DAA legislation. I look forward to making these improvements. While the opposition talks about consumer protection, we’re acting on it.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Your pattern of behaviour with your Sudbury scandal is hauntingly familiar to that of the gas plant scandal. Both have several people named in the OPP warrants continuing to hold plum, well-paying government jobs or government appointments. Pat Sorbara is still in the Premier’s office, but so is Beckie Codd-Downey, who admitted to deleting gas plant emails. Leon Korbee is still advising you, yet Laura Miller added his hard drive to the list to be deleted. We’re still waiting for you to ask BC Premier Christy Clark to tell Laura Miller to come back and answer the OPP’s questions.

Premier, do you plan on holding any of these people to account?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me just say to the member opposite that he knows full well that there’s an investigation going on outside of the House. He may have made decisions about what people did or what they didn’t do, but in fact, there are authorities who are looking into this, and we will continue to work with those authorities. That will happen outside of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, to the Premier: It’s hard to avoid those tapes and the deleted files which have been recovered. I know it’s hard for you to acknowledge those.

But Premier, there’s mounting evidence that the people of Ontario aren’t satisfied with your handling of the Sudbury by-election scandal. As many as two thirds of Ontarians believe Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed should step down while the OPP investigate bribery allegations. Your blatant Liberal self-interest is putting you out of step with the democratic values we hold in this province and indeed in this country.

When will you stop protecting your Liberal insiders and start protecting the integrity of the office you hold?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If we want to talk about a democratic process, the by-election was a democratic process. The people of Sudbury made a decision. They made a decision in full knowledge of the situation. They chose the Liberal candidate, Glenn Thibeault, to be their representative at Queen’s Park. I have full faith in the people of Sudbury and their ability to make a sound decision. We’re very pleased to have the new member for Sudbury sitting with our government.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. When was the Premier contacted by the OPP to indicate that they wanted to speak to her about the bribery scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said, we’ll be working with the authorities. I’ve said clearly that I will be having a conversation with the OPP. I actually don’t know the date of that. I know that is being arranged. As I’ve said quite clearly, I will continue to co-operate with the authorities on the investigation outside of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I have two questions. I’m going to ask the first question again: When did the OPP contact the Premier to say that they wanted to meet with the Premier regarding the bribery scandal, that they wanted to interview her about that scandal? The second question is, when that meeting is set, will the Premier keep that meeting secret, or will the Premier tell Ontarians when that meeting will take place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, that meeting is being set up. I don’t know the date of it.

The investigation is happening outside of this Legislature. I will work with the authorities, and that is as it should be. We cannot undertake the investigation here in the Legislature, much as the third party would like to do that and much as the opposition would like to do that. It has to happen outside of the Legislature, and that’s as it should be.

Automotive industry

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure and concerns things that Ontarians care about: job creation and investment.

Just last week, Ford Canada announced an additional 400 jobs to their Oakville facility. This is where the global production of the new Ford Edge crossover SUV is set to launch. This facility will be one of the most sophisticated assembly plants in the world. This is great news for Oakville, Burlington, Halton region and, indeed, our province. As a matter of fact, many of the employees who work at the plant live in my riding.

This announcement builds on one made just a year and a half ago when our government, in partnership with Ford Canada and the federal government, announced a $700-million investment to upgrade the Oakville assembly plant. This partnership has secured more than 2,800 hundred jobs. My understanding is that this is not the only good news in the auto sector this week. Would the minister please update the House on some of the exciting investments and partnerships taking place in our province between our government and the auto sector?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, it is great to get another question on government policy, the second today. It’s good to see the member standing up for a very important announcement made by Ford in Oakville, an announcement that certainly impacts her constituents, impacts constituents in Oakville and constituents throughout the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. And it’s not the only good-news announcement that we’ve had this week.

Our government also announced, through the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund, that we’re partnering with Toyota Boshoku Canada by investing $1 million to expand its Elmira manufacturing facility. Through this investment, Mr. Speaker, we’ll be able to create and sustain 460 highly skilled jobs. This strategic investment further enhances Ontario’s industry supply chain.

I know why the side opposite gets upset when we see all these great investments in auto, because if they were in power, Mr. Speaker, our auto industry would have left—

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

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I would like to thank the minister for that update. This is great news not only for the sector but for the related advance manufacturing facilities located in Burlington that will benefit from these investments.

I know experts agree—whether it’s CIBC, Toronto Dominion Bank, RBC, Bank of Montreal or the Conference Board of Canada—that Ontario is projected for economic growth in 2015 and is poised to lead the country. Indeed the Conference Board of Canada is forecasting that Ontario’s economic growth will be at 2.9% this year, well above the national average of 1.9%.

Comparing this with last week’s auto announcement, clearly our economic plan is working for Ontarians. Could the minister please share with the House further evidence of these kinds of investments and, clearly, the corresponding confidence in our economy that they represent?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ll pick up where I left off. We remember that the party opposite, the PCs, said, “Let those plants close.” Mr. Speaker, we did not let those plants close. In fact, we’ve seen $4 billion in investment in those plants since November. We’ve seen investments in Alliston in Honda: $857 million; Linamar in Guelph: almost half a billion dollars; Chrysler in Windsor: $2 billion. Ford announced that the GT was going to be made in Markham, Ontario—the coolest car being built in North America today. GM—half a billion dollars—just made that announcement a few weeks ago.

Then we have the announcement by Ford of 400 jobs. Our auto sector is growing again. It’s growing because of the investments and partnerships we made in spite of their policy, which would have been to abandon the sector. We’re proud of that, Mr. Speaker, very proud of that.

Interjections.

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Premier, about your bribery scandal in Sudbury.

Frankly, my constituents and I are appalled by your involvement, your deputy chief of staff’s involvement and your top fundraiser’s involvement in offering an inducement to last year’s Liberal candidate so he would not run in the recent by-election. This is a new kind of scandal that sheds light on one of your backroom deals.

When the Chief Electoral Officer forwarded his investigation of this matter to the OPP, he said the charges, he suggests, are “unprecedented.” “Unprecedented” means he has never seen such a breach of ethics under the Ontario Election Act.

Premier, are you aware of any other time that our Chief Electoral Officer forwarded his concerns to the OPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hope that when the member opposite’s constituents are in touch with her she goes on to tell them that Elections Ontario determined that the allegations against me and against the member for Sudbury were baseless. I hope she goes on then to tell them that I have said repeatedly that we’ll continue to co-operate fully with the authorities. Then I hope she quotes from the Chief Electoral Officer, who said, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

I hope that she gives her constituents the full story when they contact her. I’m sure she does.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Premier, this is a serious situation. This is not like any other accusations. The Chief Electoral Officer says it’s unprecedented. The OPP will most likely take his

interpretation of the law when considering charges. Premier, why are you acting as if this is routine, like it’s a normal process for every election? We all know this is an unprecedented situation.

Premier, you have not seen fit to ask either Sorbara or Lougheed to step down. To demonstrate your recognition of the seriousness of these unprecedented charges, what action are you prepared to take?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, again, I—

Mr. Bill Walker: “I’ll delete all the names.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Delete your comments.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that the member opposite, when her constituents contact her, lets them know that I have said repeatedly that I’m taking this matter very seriously, that I am working with the authorities and that I will continue to do so.

It’s an investigation that is taking place; it’s an investigation that’s taking place outside of this Legislature, and I will continue to work with the authorities.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. This morning, Toronto 2015 unveiled the competition medals for the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to do without the interjections.

Would the member put his question, please.

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, good news: The first gold medal will be going to the Liberal government for outstanding achievement in synchronized scandals.

Let me focus on just one: the subversion of the electoral process in Sudbury. On what date and what time did the Premier communicate in writing her intention to appoint Glenn Thibeault as candidate for the Sudbury by-election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister responsible for the Pan/Parapan Am Games.

Hon. Michael Coteau: This morning, I had the opportunity to join the finance minister for Canada, the mayor of Toronto, Chief LaForme from the Mississaugas of the New Credit, and many others—in fact, there were about 500 people at the Royal Ontario Museum—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: —as we celebrated the unveiling of the new medals. The gold medal is actually from Ontario. It’s mined in Ontario. It’s in partnership with the Royal Canadian Mint, a Métis designer and many other people.

I think we should be so proud of the fact that we have the largest international sporting event in the history of this country taking place 18 Tuesdays from today. I’m very, very proud that it’s coming, and we’re very proud of our record as a government when it comes to the Pan Am Games.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: Back to the Premier: Speaker, this is a very simple, direct question, and the Premier is not answering. Premier, I’m afraid I’m going to have to award you another gold medal for verbal gymnastics. It’s a shame you won’t let me hand out any medals for accountability.

The question was: On what date and at what time did the Premier in fact appoint Glenn Thibeault as candidate for the Sudbury by-election?

Violence against aboriginal women

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. Minister, on Friday of last week, the Premier led an Ontario delegation, which included you, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, to the round table on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, in Ottawa.

A national inquiry would provide a renewed focus on the underlying root causes. It would shed light on the severity of the issue and it would help point to potential solutions. That is why I was so proud when this House passed my motion unanimously to support the call by the National Aboriginal Organizations for a national inquiry on murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls.

The disproportionate violence against aboriginal women and girls is a national tragedy. We must work with our aboriginal brothers and sisters. Minister, will you please update the House on last week’s round table?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I really want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for her question and her activism on this issue, not just today but since she became a member of this Legislature. I thank her for that.

The round table was a step in the right direction. We are pleased the federal government did agree to work together on a pan-Canadian awareness campaign. However, there could have been a lot more action we could have agreed upon. Based on the discussions at the round table, we identified 10 specific things from the Ontario delegation we felt were important, action we can take right now to improve the situation facing aboriginal women and girls.

We are proposing a socio-economic plan for aboriginal women and girls, supported by leaders of Canada’s provinces, territories and National Aboriginal Organizations to address the root cause of violence. We need to push ourselves very hard in the coming months, as the Premier has said, to hold everyone accountable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you to the minister for that response. I’m glad that the Ontario government presented realistic measures to end the ongoing issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls. We have to collaborate with our aboriginal sisters and brothers to develop long-term community-building initiatives—poverty reduction, employment opportunities, safety and policing, and public education, to name a few.

For the last six months, I’ve worked with the Native Women’s Association of Canada’s Faceless Dolls project in my community of Kingston and the Islands to highlight the plight of the nearly 1,200 missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls in Canada.

My visits with aboriginal community elders to school classrooms and religious organizations were emotional experiences. In the absence of strong federal leadership, we must continue to lead the way in raising awareness of this grave issue.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What were some of the outcomes from the national round table this past Friday?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: The round table was a tremendous opportunity to hear from aboriginal organizations and the families of the missing and murdered indigenous women. With the presence of three ministers—myself, Minister MacCharles and Minister Naqvi—led by our Premier, Ontario had a very, very strong voice at that round table.

As the member from Kingston highlighted, we need awareness. That is the one consensus that all of the attendees at the round table agreed upon—a pan-Canadian prevention and awareness campaign. This will build on existing initiatives and focus on changing the perception and attitudes on this issue of missing indigenous women and girls.

Despite the comments by Federal Minister Leitch, this is not just a local issue of a local individual crime. It’s a broader issue. It has to be dealt with in a broader concept, and the federal government can do much, much more on this issue.

Government accountability

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier tell us of a time in the history of the province where the government, including the Premier’s own senior staff, has been under four separate OPP investigations?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me just say to the member opposite what I have said repeatedly. I’ve been clear about my position. I made a public statement, and I will work with the authorities. But the investigation is taking place outside of this House, by the authorities. It is not taking place in here, in the Legislature. I will continue to work with them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, this is a clear lack of integrity and accountability. Political points should never trump doing what’s right. Clearly, the government, with its four ongoing OPP investigations, believes differently.

Premier, will you take the first step to rebuilding trust and demand that those who created this mess step down from their public duties?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I’ve been clear. I’ve been clear about exactly what my position is. I’ve made that statement publicly, and I know the member opposite can access that. It’s in the public realm. I made the statement to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. The deputy House leader is warned.

Please finish, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just to say, Mr. Speaker, that I take it very seriously. I will work with the authorities outside of this House, where the investigation is taking place.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Did the Premier abide by her own party’s constitution and send a letter to the constituency association and the nomination president as soon as she made her decision to appoint Glenn Thibeault?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’ve been giving serious consideration and listening very carefully to all of the questions. In most cases, the members have been able to pull everything back to government policy.

That’s getting dangerously close to having no contact. I’m going to advise the member to make his question adhere to pulling it into government policy. Carry on.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I have said repeatedly this morning, there are questions that will be asked as part of an investigation. That investigation is taking place outside of this House; it is being undertaken by authorities. I will work with the authorities outside of this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, Premier, we, too, are anxious for the criminal trial to start. However, it doesn’t preclude you from actually answering some very basic questions.

Speaker, if the Premier sent a letter that would back up her version of the story, why is she refusing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Order, please. I know I’m on the right track when I get accused by one side of not asking these people to be quiet, and then, on this side, asking these people to be quiet, when they themselves make noise while they’re answering. I will do my best in this chair, and I don’t need the armchairs.

Please finish.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: If the Premier sent a letter that would back up her version of the story, why is she refusing to release it? Is it because it actually doesn’t exist?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There are many, many differences between the NDP and the Ontario Liberal Party—many, many differences. One of those is that we have a very clear process whereby the leader of the party is entitled to exercise her right to appoint candidates.

In stark contrast, the NDP chooses to use other tactics when they have a preferred candidate. They do not have that clarity that we have in the Ontario Liberal Party, which is why we have seen the disgraceful contact in Scarborough–Guildwood, where long-time members of the New Democratic Party have been forced to leave the party because their wishes have been trampled on by the leader of the NDP. I do believe that Amarjeet Kaur Chhabra—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you; that’s time. New question.

Tobacco control

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know that parents and youth in Ottawa–Orléans have been advocating for this bill, and I’m proud that this morning we’re joined by a group of passionate Ontario youth who are here to support swift passage of Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act.

As a part of this proposed legislation, our government is taking strong action to protect youth from the dangers of tobacco. We know that flavoured tobacco products are designed to appeal to youth. We know from research that almost half of the 121,600 Ontario youths in grades 9 to 12 who have reported using tobacco products in the last 30 days have turned to flavoured tobacco.

The facts are here. Speaker, could the minister please remind the House of what we are proposing to do to protect our children from flavoured tobacco?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to begin by thanking the member from Ottawa–Orléans for this really important question. Speaker, to tell you the truth, I was hoping that this question would have come from the member from Nickel Belt, who spent considerable time earlier this morning talking about how important this bill is to her. Alas, it’s not important enough for question period, but there’s still some time, and perhaps she will ask the question.

But I do thank the member for her question, and yes, she is right. Earlier this morning, Speaker, as you know, I was pleased to meet with some of these dedicated young advocates. They offered advice and, more importantly, their support to get this bill passed. I’m delighted to see so many young people who share our commitment to drive down smoking rates.

As we know, the research shows that flavoured tobacco is a gateway for young people to become regular smokers. With flavours like strawberry, watermelon and bubble gum, there is no question that tobacco companies are targeting young people with this marketing. This bill is all about making sure that next generation of smokers doesn’t begin to smoke.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Again, my question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, as you know, e-cigarette use is an emerging trend in Ontario, including among our youth. We have seen a great deal of concern raised by local and international media and the medical community about the possible health effects and hazards of e-cigarette use.

In a recent national survey, it was found that 20% of youth aged 15 to 19 had tried e-cigarettes. That means 417,000 teenagers in that age group have tried e-cigarettes.

It is important that our government safeguards youth from an unregulated device that could have negative effects on their health. Mr. Speaker, could the minister please remind the House of what action she is taking to protect our youth from the possible health effects of e-cigarettes?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Thanks again to the member for that very important question. Indeed, e-cigarettes are new technology, and it’s the Wild West, frankly, when it comes to where you can vape and who can purchase e-cigarettes.

That is why we have proposed legislation that would, if passed, ban retailers from selling e-cigarettes to youth and restrict vaping in public places. In this way, we are proposing to protect young Ontarians from any harm that may be associated with electronic cigarettes.

The young people today sent us a message very clearly: They want us to help protect them and to make sure that the next generation of vapers doesn’t get started.

By-election in Sudbury

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

Premier, you continue to put partisanship over partnership, ideology over evidence. The evidence from independent officers indicates that there has been a contravention of the law. The members of the opposition side of this House have written to the OPP and to the Chief Electoral Officer supporting their investigations. Premier, when will you demonstrate the integrity expected of your office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, I think the Premier is showing exactly the respect and integrity that the independent process should have by not interfering in that process. The members opposite continue to insist that somehow the Premier should intervene in the process and come up with some sort of an outcome that they would prefer. Speaker, I think we all know that’s not how the system works. It’s arm’s-length. It’s separate from the government. Those systems have been put in place for a reason. We should respect that.

Like I said, again, I agreed with the member from Leeds–Grenville when he said on Friday at the briefing that there’s a process that’s going on. The government should not interfere in that process. He said, “Let it run its course.” He’s absolutely right. We should let the process continue as it is designed to be and respect the outcome. This is not the place to try a case or undertake an investigation because that’s the responsibility of the police and our judges, and we respect them 100%.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Again, back to the Premier: This is a bit like Groundhog Day. You are allowed to give answers in this House to the question.

Premier, you have said that anything that “was offered in exchange for any action is false.” “Anything” may be defined by you as a written contract, but the law says otherwise. No matter what the title, no matter what their authority, your staff did your bidding by offering a position to Andrew Olivier.

Premier, how much longer will you defy the integrity of—your office?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Sir, with all due respect, the role of the government is to make sure that we respect the law and let the independent authorities do their work. By asking to interfere in the matter, you’re advising the government to do the contrary.

I would advise that we follow the process: that we let the police do their work, that we let Elections Ontario do its work and that we let the prosecutors do their work. That’s how the process is done; that’s how the process works well.

Let’s focus on issues that are important to Ontarians, like building public infrastructure, like making sure that we are guaranteeing retirement income security for Ontarians. That is the mandate that they have given to this Legislature. That is the mandate they’ve given to this government. We’re going to remain focused on those important issues and make sure that the retirement security and the good infrastructure that are so necessary for this province are there for generations to come.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you keep on insisting that you decided to appoint Mr. Thibeault in November of last year. Your constitution clearly says that you have to send a letter in order to do that officially through the Liberal Party mechanism.

The question we’re asking you is, when did you send that letter to both the Liberal Party and to the riding association president informing them of the decision that you were going to appoint your candidate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I remind the member opposite again, as he is well aware, that there is an independent process that is ongoing. It’s up to that process to determine the answers to all these questions and make a judgment.

We know Elections Ontario has clearly said that the Elections Ontario officer is not making any judgment. He’s leaving it up to the prosecutors to decide, so the matter has been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. They will undertake their due diligence as required by law and make a determination. Then we will respect that. I don’t think this is a place to get into all the work which is very much within their purview.

I urge all the members to refocus on issues that are important, issues that our constituents are speaking to us about every single day, such as retirement income security.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is again to the Premier. The Premier has repeatedly said that she decided she was going to appoint her candidate back in November. There is a process under the Liberal constitution that says that she has to send a letter to the riding association president and to the election commissioner of the Liberal Party.

Premier, my question to you is, when did you send that letter to both the riding association president and the Liberal Party? When did you send that letter?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think we all see what the third party is doing. They’re trying to distract from their sordid record on progressive policies that have been implemented by this government in this process.

When it comes to putting forward the most progressive budget ever in the history of this province, under the leadership of our Premier, where was the third party? They forced an unnecessary election. What was the result of that election? There was a Liberal majority government re-elected in this House. They still have not forgiven themselves for making that wrong-headed decision, and they continued on to vote against one of the most progressive budgets.

That is why they want to talk about everything else. They don’t want to talk about affordable housing, which we’re investing in. They don’t want to talk about raising minimum wage and indexing it to the cost of living, which this government brought in and they disagreed with. They don’t want to talk about the support of the governmental sector in this province.

Interjections.

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

Greenbelt

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, this past Friday, you and I celebrated the 10th anniversary of Ontario’s greenbelt. This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on the role the greenbelt plays in protecting Ontario’s most valuable agricultural and environmentally sensitive land.

Ten years ago, our government sent a powerful message by creating the Greenbelt Plan, which designates the Oak Ridges moraine, the Niagara Escarpment and much of our cherished countryside as protected from development. Our government told all Ontarians that we must not take Ontario’s natural beauty and important farmland for granted.

Minister, as we celebrate this important anniversary of the greenbelt, please remind us of why we can be proud of this world-class model of land preservation.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m proud to be able to get up to declare why we’re proud about the greenbelt, the largest greenbelt in the world, by the way, larger than the size of Prince Edward Island. Protecting farmland, protecting wetlands, coordinating growth—it is part of a comprehensive plan that our government has set out over the last decade, and I think it’s great to be able to say, “Happy Anniversary, Greenbelt.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Granville Anderson: Thank you, Minister. I understand that, as part of your mandate as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Premier has directed you to lead a review of the Greenbelt Plan in coordination with reviews of the growth plan, the Oak Ridges moraine plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

Minister, these reviews are an exciting opportunity to build on the plans’ successes to date and to identify opportunities to improve the plans where needed. You are required to consult with each municipality that has jurisdiction in the greenbelt and to ensure that the public is given an opportunity to provide input.

Minister, what details can you share about these coordinated reviews?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member from Durham for his question and his wonderful supplementary. We announced on Friday the establishment of a panel, set up by the Honourable David Crombie, by the way, who will be heading that; “an inspired choice,” according to the Caledon Enterprise. We’ll be working with the Ministry of Natural Resources, holding meetings across the province to review the four plans. It will be comprehensive, it will be coordinated, and in the words of David Crombie, it will be a historic undertaking of monumental importance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nickel Belt on a point of order.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Speaker. I just wanted to note that everybody got a little thank-you note this morning to thank them for supporting Freeze the Industry, a group of youth who want to support Bill 45. There are mints in there, so remember menthol.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s actually not a point of order, but thank you.

Deferred Votes

Concurrence in supply

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have deferred votes on the motions of concurrence in supply in the following ministries and offices: tourism, culture and sport; infrastructure; transportation; community and social services; energy; finance; health and long-term care; aboriginal affairs; francophone affairs; and consumer services.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1139 to 1144.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Would all members please take their seats.

Ms. Sandals has moved concurrence in supply of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please ris