Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll just be really quick. I want to thank the Members who are voting in favour of it. I want to thank those just a little bit less who will be abstaining, and certainly those – darn it – I wish we could have persuaded those who are voting against it. But in all seriousness, this is a very important subject and I want to say that I do recognize and respect those that feel strongly that they have to vote against it. Of course, in this business you can’t hold those as grudges. You have to realize that’s how they feel and you have to respect it. I recognize and respect...

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly good news by all accounts. When can we expect some type of public dialogue on this change of thinking? I don’t believe that tanning is a good thing, but many people will want some type of public discussion on this, at least information on the issues and changes coming forward. Quite simply put, is there a public component to the shifts in policy thinking? How does the public get more information? Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a significant issue with a number of Members here and I’m glad we’re starting to have this type of discussion. I would like to now move a committee motion on page 10-17 and I will read it as follows:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about the need for some type of regulation over tanning equipment, whether it’s beds, booths or even lamps that people use for cosmetic purposes. The risk out there is not only well known but it’s certainly proven. My question for the Minister of Health and Social Services today is: Is his department aware of the types of risks associated with indoor tanning and if they are, what are they doing out there to protect our youth? Thank you.

Page 7-13?

So I’m going to suspect that it’s $21,000 for the account. I’m seeing a nod, so no need to go to the Minister. I’m happy with that answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the last part. I see that the Minister has become a maven at construction. I would ask that any research or discussion paper on building standards be considered by all Members, not to take one Member’s enthusiasm behind this. I just want it confirmed that it would come to committee long before anything like this is considered.

Just of particular note, I paged over to 6-7, which happens happily to be of course Municipal and Community Affairs, and coincidentally it’s also the DM’s old department, but TSC chargeback is consistent under that heading. Therefore, it does beg to wonder why we’re changing the heading under this particular one. It doesn’t follow any consistent practice. Now, I only went to one department, but it was the first department I went to and I’m just curious, does it come to a formal direction by some accounting experts? I’m not trying to put too fine of a point on it, but we’re changing the...

I recognize that the more you exceed it in certain cases, you also decrease the operational cost. Is that type of analysis taken into effect on these energy observations? Would the deputy minister agree that it costs more to build a building the further we increase that percentage?

Thank you for the answer. Why is it so high, though, that it seems to be a bit of a distinguishing gap between what looks like a couple of years prior, $14,000, $21,000 to almost $1 million in services. So why?